CIA Tried to Pay Off Analysts to Bury Findings that COVID Lab Leak Was Likely

  Now the interesting question is WHY? The CIA is officially an information agency, well, most often a desinformation agency and therefore there has to be a motive for whatever they do when information is weaponized. Could it be that the origin of Covid-19 is actually quite murky and following the Wuhan trail may lead to a more complex and less than "legal" origin involving the US?  

CIA Tried to Pay Off Analysts to Bury Findings that COVID Lab Leak Was Likely

September 13th, 2023

Just another day at the office…

Via: New York Post:

The Central Intelligence Agency offered to pay off analysts in order to bury their findings that COVID-19 most likely leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, new whistleblower testimony to Congress alleges.

A senior-level CIA officer told House committee leaders that his agency tried to pay off six analysts who found SARS-CoV-2 likely originated in a Wuhan lab if they changed their position and said the virus jumped from animals to humans, according to a letter sent Tuesday to CIA Director William Burns.

Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) requested all documents, communications and pay info from the CIA’s COVID Discovery Team by Sept. 26.

“According to the whistleblower, at the end of its review, six of the seven members of the Team believed the intelligence and science were sufficient to make a low confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China,” the House panel chairmen wrote.

“The seventh member of the Team, who also happened to be the most senior, was the lone officer to believe COVID-19 originated through zoonosis.”

“The whistleblower further contends that to come to the eventual public determination of uncertainty, the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position,” they said, noting that the analysts were “experienced officers with significant scientific expertise.”

Trump Just Said THIS About Vaccines And It Changes EVERYTHING

  Mask mandates and vaccinations won't work twice! This is obvious by now. So the next question is: What comes next in the "shock doctrine" logic? We'll see soon!

 

Germany Passes Controversial 'Green' Heating Law Estimated To Cost Economy €1 Trillion

  This is simply madness. It may be that the rest of the world is lucky that Germany is rushing ahead in a nonsensical race to save the planet as we will all see very soon what happens. i.e. they will kill the German economy much faster than they save the planet!

Authored by Junge Freiheit via Remix News,

After six months of fierce debate, Germany’s left-wing government has passed the country’s controversial green heating law, the Building Energy Act (GEG), with high estimates indicating the law will cost Germany’s economy over €1 trillion over the next 20 years.

While politicians belonging to Germany’s three-way politician applauded the heating law coming into force on Friday last week, the political fallout has likely yet to be fully realized.

Many Germans — already struggling with inflation and a slowing economy — balked at the mandate to install new expensive heating systems, with the law being rejected by the majority of the populace, according to polling. The government is also being accused of a hasty legislative process and a lack of parliamentary hearings, calling into question the democratic basis for the law in its entirety.

The law mandates that Germans with older heating systems replace them within a certain time period, although the final bill passed watered down some requirements and carved out some exceptions. Nevertheless, the final cost of the bill is still expected to be enormous, with high estimates placing it at €1 trillion and lower estimates hovering at €600 billion.

Many Germans have all of their savings in their home, and for many seniors, their homes, often featuring older heating systems, have seen their value take a hit due to the law. At the same time, in the coming years, they will be forced to make costly heating upgrades — usually in the form of a heat pump and the associated costs of making it work efficiently inside a building — to meet new green standards. Experts are also warning that landlords will have an incentive to increase rents in response to the Building Energy Act.

The problem is that approximately three-quarters of the old buildings in Germany were built before the first thermal insulation regulations came into force in 1979. Many of these buildings will now need to be made energy efficient, representing an enormous cost burden at a time when Germany has also phased out nuclear power and the price of energy, particularly oil and natural gas, has soared.

The Free Democrats (FDP), usually seen as a pro-business party, first fought their coalition partners on the proposed law, but in the end, the liberal party helped pass the law on Friday. There are already signs the FDP is paying the price for its decision, with the latest YouGov poll putting the party at just 5 percent, which is the threshold for entering the German parliament.

“There is fear among the population,” shouted Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) in parliament.

He said it is “the height of disrespect” for the citizens to pass the law and that the CSU would work to abolish it.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD), which saw its polling numbers soar around the same time the heating debate raged, has also said it will abolish the law should it come to power, saying it is an arduous tax on German businesses, pensioners, and those who invested in a home or apartment.

“The AfD faction strictly rejects Habeck’s (…) heating hammer. Despite severe criticism, the law was neither postponed nor defused,” said Marc Bernhard, a parliamentary spokesperson for the AfD.

 “The tricky thing about the law, however, is that the heating has to be torn out again if it does not meet the municipalities’ heat planning required by 2028. In this way, the government is hiding the devastating consequences for millions of people and is transferring the risk of the heat transition to the citizens.”

He further pointed out that the nuclear power plants would save twice as much CO2 if they were allowed to continue to operate.

As Remix News reported last year, the proportion of poor people in Germany reached a new high, according to the Federal Statistical Office, with the data highlighting a sea change in the German economy. The report also only covered data up until the end of 2021 before the dramatic increase in food and energy prices in 2022.

9/11 & The Strangest Fires Ever Told

  This post is focused on the fires of 9/11 and how implausible the explanation that they led to the collapse of the towers is. I have personally thought so from the very beginning although at first I could not admit the possibility of a planned demolition. But then again, if not that, then what? 

  Having visited the towers in 1977 just after they were built, I still remember how strong the core was and the fact that it was specifically designed to resist winds which exerted forces an order of magnitude larger than a plane.  

  This was then the question on everyone's lips and the answer then was clear: The towers were built for the next 100 years and with some refurbishment they could easily last much longer...

News anchor Dan Rather's reaction to the THIRD total building collapse on 9/11

By L. Reichard White

September 12, 2023

“For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down …” –well-known CBS news anchor Dan Rather

The extraordinary claim that fire was the ultimate cause of the complete progressive collapse of three skyscrapers on September 11, 2001 is the flimsy foundation upon which the Police State is being constructed. How realistic is that claim?

Ever since a B-25 hit the Empire State Building on the morning of July 28, 1945, high-rises have been designed to withstand the impact of airliners similar to the ones that hit the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Even unprepared, the Empire State Building, hit on Sat. morning, was back in service in two days.

In the case of the Twin Towers, based on a study definitively described in City in the Sky as “the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure,” this plane-strike resistant design is verified by Towers head structural engineer John Skilling like this – – –

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. …According to Skilling, “There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.” –Seattle Times, Feb. 27, 1993

This is further verified by Chief NIST 9/11 Investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder in The New York Times like this:

“The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960’s, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers.”

In the video clip below, Twin Towers project manager Frank D. Martini summed it up this way: “It would be like sticking a pencil through mosquito netting.” Martini claimed the towers could withstand several airliner impacts without serious danger of failure.

Towers would survive plane impacts

Towers Project Manager Frank D. Martini

As predicted — and thus verifying the above design assumptions — each tower returned to a stable configuration within approximately four minutes after the planes struck. The South Tower remained standing for 56 minutes after the plane hit and the North Tower for 102 minutes.

Since neither tower collapsed till well after the plane impacts, it’s clear that the collapses must have been the result of something other than structural damage.

In fact, our skyscrapers are incredibly durable. For example, there was the Feb. 26, 1993 1,336-pound bomb attack on the North Tower. It blew a 98 foot hole through four basement pylons — and killed 6 and injured 1,042. But the Tower didn’t collapse and was back in service in short order.

However, the fact that structural damage was not the cause of collapse on 9/11 is most clear in the case of the least well-known — some say “hidden in plain sight” — of the three, Building 7 (WTC7). NIST, charged by Congress with the official investigation, summarizes the role of structural damage in Building 7’s collapse like this:

“Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed …This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the buckled column that initiated the collapse. …” –NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation… xxxvii… xxxvii

So if these three collapses weren’t the result of structural damage, what was the cause?

At first glance, it seems reasonable to suppose that fire must have been that cause, especially since it was present in all three cases — and NIST’s Dr. Sunder specifically claims fire for Building 7 this way:

“We really have a new kind of progressive collapse that we have discovered here, which is a fire-induced progressive collapse. In fact, we have shown FOR THE FIRST TIME that fire can induce a progressive collapse.” –WTC Building 7 Chief Investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder

However, things aren’t that simple.

Dr. Sunder’s claim of a “first time” is the first clue. It points out that such a fire-induced progressive collapse had never happened before in the entire 117 year history of high-rises at that time. That makes Dr. Sunder’s fire-induced claim unprecedented (without a precedent) and thus by definition, extraordinary.

And there’s another clue: On Feb. 14, 1975, the North Tower had a serious fire burn out of control for about three hours and spread to an estimated 65% of floor eleven without doing any structural damage (two to three times as long as the fires burned in the Towers on 9/11) — and the building was open for business the next day.

And this from head structural engineer John Skilling, remember. “There would be a horrendous fire. …” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”

In fact, this extreme level of fire resistance in all steel-framed high-rises has been designed-in for over a century and was common and accepted knowledge. Dr. Sunder’s extraordinary “for the first time” claim for starters. And – – –

“New York City, 2001. No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire …” –NIST commentator (intro to NIST Building 7 video linked above)

“…prior to that day [Sept. 11, 2001] high-rise structures had never collapsed…” –FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro’s statement on WTC7

Chief Nigro’s statement “high-rise structures had never collapsed” is the more comprehensive statement. And correct. And, as of this writing, except for one in Mexico City as the result of an 8.2 magnitude earthquake, none have completely collapsed, let alone in seconds, from any cause or combination of causes since 9/11.

This extreme general durability of skyscrapers was well-known throughout the entire architectural and structural engineering community and was the basis of this initial reaction:

On September 13, 2001, the cover of the New Civil Engineer in the UK consisted of a picture of 1 WTC during its collapse with a single word written across it: “unthinkable”. “Just hours earlier, it had been genuinely inconceivable that structures of such magnitude could succumb to this fate.” While the initial damage from the airplanes was severe, it was localized to a few floors of each tower. The challenge for engineers was to explain how local damage could result in the complete progressive collapse of three of the biggest buildings in the world. –Collapse of the World Trade Center: “Unprecedented!”

Note for later use: “The challenge for engineers was to explain how local damage could result in complete progressive collapse… .”

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg, and the tip of the strangest fires ever told – – –

The question is, “If it wasn’t fire and/or structural damage, what was it?”

Dan Rather sees WTC Building 7 collapse on 9/11

CBS NEWS, New York City, Sept. 11, 2001

There’s only one thing that causes any steel-framed high-rise to collapse the way those three buildings did on 9/11 — in fact to collapse at all — and Dan Rather nailed it:

“For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down …“

In other words, the answer to “If it wasn’t fire and/or structural damage, what was it?” is “planned and engineered demolitions.”

See HERE for examples of what other engineered demolitions look like. You’ll notice that few if any are as well-done as Building 7.

Since nothing else has caused such a collapse, the way they fell, that is, the “collapse signature” itself — in fact, that they fell at all — is prima-facie evidence of demolitions of some sort.

So, with controlled demolition in mind, it isn’t the three building collapses that were extraordinary, it’s the claim they were caused by fire and/or structural damage that’s extraordinary.

And since none of the three buildings was damaged in the same place — and so each suffered different damage — NIST needs three different extraordinary explanations, one for each building.

And as Carl Sagan famously quipped, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Further, “prima-facie” means accepted until proven wrong, so for anyone who wants to claim something other than engineered demolitions, they must first prove that it couldn’t have been engineered demolitions. Merely providing three alternative hypotheses doesn’t do the job.

So has anyone disproved demolition? We’ll see shortly.

None the less, despite 130 years of no-collapse design and history, as proponents of the official government conspiracy theory like to point out, things do sometimes unexpectedly happen for the first time. But in this case, despite the proven design principles, that would be three fire-mediated collapses on the same day and never before and never again.

You can find examples of other high-rise fires HERE, HERE and HERE for comparison. None of them — nor any other fires — have ever caused a 9/11-like progressive collapse.

So, if you’re going to claim “fire did it — three times,” after you disprove demolition, the evidence you provide for fire had better be hellaciously extraordinary.

Here’s some perspective on the organization assigned to come up with that hellaciously extraordinary evidence – – –

Until 1988, when renamed the “National Institute of Standards and Technology” (acronym: NIST), the organization had been the National Bureau of Standards, ultimately responsible for things like the accuracy of your fillup at the local gasoline pump. It wasn’t until the NCST Act was passed in October of 2002 that NIST took on the massive — and what turns out to be politically sensitive — 9/11 investigation.

Most likely the NIST investigators didn’t have a clue what they were getting into until later. But whenever it did occur to them – – – let me put it like this: Since demolitions would have to have been set up well ahead of 9/11 – – – “How would you like to be the first bureaucrat on your block to suggest — let alone prove — demolition brought even one building down on 9/11 — let alone three?”

Which may well explain a lot of what follows. Especially NIST’s failure to seriously investigate controlled demolition despite the unique and unmistakable collapse signatures of all three buildings. The collapse signatures even Dan Rather nailed.

So what did NIST do about investigating the prima-facie most likely cause of the collapses?

They try to avoid telling you, but if you look carefully – – –

In the case of the towers, NIST forth-rightly asks itself in point 8 of its Towers Investigation FAQ, “Why didn’t NIST consider a ‘controlled demolition’ hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the ‘pancake theory’ hypothesis?”

The important point is in the question itself: despite the three prima-facie collapse signatures, for some reason, NIST didn’t “consider a ‘controlled demolition’ hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation.”

Did NIST even test for explosives or residue as required by NFPA 921 guidelines? Here’s the answer, straight from the horse’s mouth:

“22. …Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. ” FAQs – NIST WTC Towers Investigation | NIST

When pressed for a definitive answer as to why they didn’t, you discover that NIST unrealistically assumed — either honestly or otherwise — a commercial style controlled demolition (which none of the three could possibly have been) — which used the loudest (RDX) explosives available. Then, ignoring the unmistakable collapse signatures, NIST claimed it didn’t hear the proper level of noise for these assumed commercial demolitions and so failed to investigate further.

OK, so one way or another, despite NFPA guidelines, NIST critically screwed up by failing to seriously investigate demolition, possibly because they had their fingers stuck in their ears and were humming loudly.

Given the implications of what would have been of necessity pre-planted explosives, can you blame them?

And there’s plenty of evidence that demolitions did occur. There’s peer-reviewed proof that a quieter non-standard technique using someting called thermite — or thermate — was used. If you’re interested, a good place to look is in the 100 plus peer-reviewed papers published here and with the ~2,300 members of Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth.

And, while it would be difficult to “wire” the buildings for demolition, not as difficult as you might think – – –

Donald Hartley: “Roll them [explosives] in a locked gang box at the loading dock every day and bring them up the service elevator leaving them on every floor in locked gang tool boxes, no one question the Construction worker…I worked High rise construction tenant work many years of my life and it could be done easily. Hell 4 men could ride the top of an elevator hard wiring evey floor. Just put a sign up Elevator under repair use other car, we did it for electricians all the time, peice of cake.” –Does ANYONE deny that given the time, engineering, and equipment, ANY building can be brought down by controlled demolition?

So NIST failed to disprove demolition, and they failed three times. The prima facie evidence provided by the collapses themselves — and their unique signatures — stand. That makes any alternative hypotheses or theories, conspiracy or otherwise, moot.

But just for the fun of it, what about NIST’s own competing fire-mediated version of what happened? Clearly whatever they come up with — to satisfy Sagan — had better be hellaciously excellent, especially since they failed to rule-out demolition in all three cases.

First, to an unprecedented degree in its 9/11 work, NIST counted on computer modeling.

NIST’s former Fire-Sciences head, Dr. James Quintiere, explained the underlying problem with that intensive use of modeling like this:

NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. –statement to the U.S. House Science Committee hearings on WTC collapse

Within certain limits, such models are, by design and function, easy to manipulate. As one of my compadres put it, slightly tougue-in-cheek, “Even with “AutoCAD,” “SOLIDWORKS,” etc., you could model a building to blow over flat in a 30 mph wind.”

That’s why some nerds call computer simulations “technical fiction.”

Such flexibility is a good thing for NIST, though, since its explanations must satisfy this, remember: “The challenge for engineers was to explain how local damage could result in complete progressive collapse… ”

To satisfy that challenge, NIST needed to accomplish at least two main things with their modeling:

1. Prove that a fire-mediated total progressive collapse of a model of the building was even possible. Given the inherent flexibility of modeling tools, that’s the easier part.
2. Prove that modeled collapse looked like the collapse that actually happened.

With the inherent flexibility of modeling in mind, how hard could that be?

For the towers, NIST came up with their final reports quickly and on time. They were reluctant, though, to make their Towers simulations available to the public — and wouldn’t do so until pressured by the architectual and engineering community.

“WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation,”

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.” –Parker, Dave, New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005

Hmmmm – – –

And remember, they need two such visualisations since none of the three buildings was damaged in the same place — and so each suffered different damage – – –

Moving right along, NIST’s approach and mind-set are most transparent and revealing in its attempt to explain Building 7’s collapse. Which wasn’t so easy. You can tell because the final report took an extra three-plus years.

Here’s Dr. Quintiere’s take in the middle of that delay:

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?” –Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division

Can you think of any reason NIST might have “dragged on this important investigation” for more than three years?

The final report on Building 7 wasn’t released until 2008.

What was in that report?

Based on one of its technical fictions, NIST’s final report on Building 7 claims that “the most probable initiation sequence” started when Column #79, in the northeast corner of the building, buckled as a result of thermal expansion, and this caused the entire building to collapse in a matter of seconds.

You might want to review that collapse above. It’s the clip Dan Rather commented on.

Here’s a quick overview of the problems with NIST’s scenario:

NIST asserts “most probable initiation sequence” ass-u-me-ing never before seen fire as the cause — remember Dr. Sunder’s “first time” claim earlier — and completely ignores that, based on the collapse signature alone, the most probable initiation sequence is clearly demolition of some sort.

To compound the problem, during a NIST Tech Briefing, Dr. Sunder further explained the thermal expansion — and its unprecedented result — this way: “And, of course, the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures.”

From the presentation you also discover the “lower temperatures” he’s talking about are in the 400°C range.

Sounds pretty hot, right? But because of early experience with the damage it can cause, for over a century, steel-framed skyscrapers have been designed and insulated to resist thermal expansion, even thermal expansion that occurs at higher temperatures. And remember, history shows that such damage has never resulted in even one 9/11-type collapse.

Next we have the claim that one column in the northeast corner “buckled” and somehow, within seconds, the whole building collapses, including the columns in the far-removed southwest corner. Because of local structural integrity, this problem is what prompted the engineers big challenge, remember: “to explain how local damage could result in complete progressive collapse.”

That is, how could “local damage” in the northeast corner almost instantly cause the structural steel in the whole building — including the far-removed southwest corner — to all collapse all at once?

HINT: It couldn’t — and in fact, the complete progressive collapse couldn’t have happened unless simultaneous damage was also induced, not only in the southwest corner but in key structural elements throughout the building. Can you think of anything that might have caused that to happen?

And finally, with regards to the Building 7 collapse above, to provide credible evidence at all — forget extraordinary evidence — NIST needed to – – –

2. Prove that their collapse model looked like the collapse that actually happened.

That is, it’s not only the “most probable initiation sequence” their technical fiction needs to show, that’s the easy part. It’s, as the engineers put it right after 911 remember, “How do you explain the complete progressive collapse?” The whole thing, not just the “initiation sequence.”

Are they going to do that? Are they going to show the whole thing? Here’s a clue – – –

“Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling.” FAQs – NIST WTC Towers Investigation

So the answer is, “No, they are not!” And as you’ll see, they don’t.

So NIST does a good job of ignoring most of the collapse in its collapse animation. Even in that technical fiction, apparently having been unable to model the collapse itself, they don’t show anything beyond their asserted initiation sequence. The problem is that what they do show doesn’t look anything like the actual collapse initiation anyway. But you can judge that for yourself in the video below.

The collapse vs. NIST’s technical fiction

AE911Truth

So, as you can see, despite the extreme flexibility of it’s modeling tools, not only was NIST unable to model the actual collapse with it’s simulations it couldn’t even show a realistic initiation sequence, not even after four extra years of trying.

AND, in the same vein, NISTs simulations were also unable to model the actual collapse of either of the Twin World Trade Center towers, thus ignoring two other elephants in the room.

On the other hand, a more detailed analysis using up-to-date modeling software, strongly suggests there’s no way fire could have caused Building 7 to collapse the way the videos show it did.

But the final affront is that, fighting off a persistent string of FOIA requests using the national security blanket thrown to it on Monday, Aug. 4, 2008 by Obama’s Executive Order 13470, NIST refused to release 74,777 (about 80%) of the key simulation files it used to come up with its shall-we-say-to-be-kind, dubious Column 79 hypothesis.

This makes replication, the back-bone of science, not to mention checking its work for logic, rigor, errors and fibs etc. impossible.

NIST’s excuse for not releasing the key files? Their release “might endanger public safety.” They may have that right if bureaucrats and certain politicians in the stocks or hanging from trees and lamp-posts, etc. is dangerous to public safety.

Or do they wish to assert their work proves U.S. skyscrapers are so delicate that, as another compadre quipped, “They’re afraid terrorists will realize they can bring down our high-rises by setting a wastebasket on fire in the parking garage?”

You can find much more thoroughly detailed and documented critiques of NIST’s less-than-forth-coming shennanigans with its approach, data, and technique, here, here, and here for starters.

You can find an extensive list of what else was ignored and hidden — and how it was done — HERE.

It’s clear that none of the NIST personnel wanted to be “the first bureaucrat on their block to suggest — let alone prove — demolition brought down even one building on 9/11.”

Given their career path and the political implications, can you blame them for trying to hide it? Well can you?

And did NIST provide the hellacious proof that would convince Carl Sagan of their extraordinary claim that fire was the ultimate cause of those three — count ’em, THREE — different completely unprecedented collapses upon which the Police State is being constructed?

And of course, their work, shabby as it is, is moot anyway since they failed to seriously investigate the most obvious prima facie explanation, controlled demolition.

Or, now that its foundation has been compromised, is it time to start deconstructing the Police State? Is it time to throw sand in the gears of the out-of-control machine and indict some of its psychopathic minions? As they have in Malaysia. What do you think?

For updates, comments, and corrections, see The Strangest Fires updates, comments, corrections.

AND, “Like,” “Tweet,” and otherwise, pass this along!

The Best of L. Reichard White

I'm EXPOSING what they are planning (Tucker Carlson Video - 41')

  Truth? How do you find it in a mad world?

  Manipulation? How do you understand it? 

  The funny way of looking at not so funny subjects!

 

Estimates Of China's Youth Unemployment Hit 50%

  Hikikomori in Japan, laying flat in China: Different names, same disease. 

  This is the failure of a growth model which offers nothing to human beings but fake prosperity. Real prosperity is only available to the top 1%. The rest live in soulless high-rises with little human contacts, mindless work (if they are lucky), virtual amusement and shopping till you drop weekends in crowded malls. 

  Better than misery? For the body, certainly. For the soul, not so much, apparently. 

  In a few years Xi Jinping will wonder where the Chinese miracle"s gone. The choice will be between the sands of the Taklamakan and Taiwan. 

By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

“The younger generation must inherit and carry forward the spirit of self-reliance, and hard work, abandon arrogance, and engrave the passion of youth in the water just like our parents did, on the monument of history,” declared Xi, some time ago.

Youth unemployment across China continued its rise this summer. The official number approached 21% before Beijing halted its publication.

Unofficial estimates stretched to nearly 50% when one counts the “lying flat”, a term adopted by youth who are choosing to quit the rat race altogether. In previous decades, agitated youth took to the streets. New forms of hyper-surveillance make such rebellion far harder. Instead, the young simply opt out.

“The facts of countless successful lives show that in youth, if you choose to endure hardship, you will also choose to gain, and if you choose to contribute, you will also choose to be noble,” said Xi.

Parents across the world nodded in violent agreement, because of course, nothing could be truer.

“In youth, experiencing more beatings, setbacks, and tests, will help you walk a successful life,” said Xi, a cold terror slowly rising in the leader for life. The national savings rate rose further still, his subjects preparing for harder times.

China’s fertility rate collapsed to a stunning new low of 1.09 per woman (from 1.30 in 2020). This symptom of profound pessimism, if not reversed dramatically, will lead to economic and then civilizational collapse.

“In the later years of my life, I always reminded myself that hardship is an opportunity. I must persist in learning more and working more and go to difficult places to train myself,” said Xi, searching for a solution to a problem far more challenging than trade wars, chip dependencies, ghost cities, insolvent banks, stranded infrastructure built for a globalized world that is fading, not to mention his nation’s food, energy and water insecurity.

All such problems are solvable provided a nation has a growing population of ambitious, optimistic, hardworking youth. But how to lift a nation whose young consider their current circumstances, assess their future, and quietly lie flat?

Remember What Happened Right Before 9/11? It's Happening Again.

  A black budget is simply not enough for the CIA. They need their own budget to finance their own independent policies. That in a nutshell resumes what international drug trafficking is all about. 

Source: James Corbett

Remember way back in the year 2000, when the Taliban took over large swaths of Afghanistan and set about eradicating the nation's poppy crop that feeds the world opium supply?

The Corbett Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Of course you do.

Well, guess what? It's happening again.

That's right. After Uncle Sam's ignominious retreat from the graveyard of empires in 2021, the Taliban infamously regained control of the country and set about reinstituting their campaign to ban the cultivation of opium poppies. And, once again, the results of that ban have been nothing short of remarkable.

In fact, the Taliban's latest anti-poppy campaign is already being hailed as the "most successful counter-narcotics effort in human history" by self-proclaimed Afghanistan experts, with the country's opium production down a jaw-dropping 90% this year.

And since you do remember the story of the Taliban's first successful poppy crop crackdown, then you'll also likely remember how it ended: namely, with the blank check of 9/11 being cashed in on NATO's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, leading to the subsequent resurgence of poppy cultivation in the country.

So, are we likely to see history repeating with this next iteration of the Afghan poppy story? Let's find out.

THE PAST

 

The tale of the Afghan poppy war is one that can be read in the annals of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), one of the many bureaucratic arms of the UN's globalist octopus. Tasked with "helping make the world safer from drugs, organized crime, corruption and terrorism" (which apparently involves "supporting Member States in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," for some unexplained reason), the UNODC has diligently documented the ups and downs of the Afghan poppy crop and its contribution to the illicit opium market in recent decades. They publish the results of this research in the form of an annual "Afghanistan Opium Survey," which tells the story in plain numbers.

In 1999, for example, this UN office informed the world that, after years of warfare and internal strife (in which the US played an integral part), Afghanistan's annual raw opium production had risen to the unprecedented level of 4,600 metric tons. They were also quick to add that "97 per cent of cultivation in 1999 occurred in Taliban-controlled areas," implying that poppy cultivation was being actively supported and encouraged by the Taliban in order to fund illicit activities.

Strange, then, that by the time of their 2001 Afghanistan Opium Survey—compiled just before the NATO invasion and occupation of the country—the UNODC bean counters (poppy counters?) were able to report that the country's total raw opium production had dropped to 185 metric tons, a 96% reduction from the record 1999 level.

So, what had happened? The Taliban happened, that's what.

Specifically, in July 2000, Mullah Mohammad Omar issued a fatwa declaring the cultivation or trafficking of poppies to be "haram" (forbidden under Islamic law). The result of that decree and its subsequent enforcement was so undeniable that not even the arch-propagandists at the Old Gray Presstitute or the Big Brother Corporation could cover it up.

 

As the charts make clear, the Taliban's poppy ban was remarkably successful. In fact, it was too successful for those in the deep state who have been managing and profiteering from the global drug trade since the days of William Russell. Afghanistan was providing more than 70% of the world's heroin supply at that time, and the powers-that-shouldn't-be wanted those drugs flowing again.

And we all know what happened next: 9/11. And, as we also know all too well, 9/11 led directly to the (completely fraudulent) invocation of NATO's Article 5, the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, the overthrow of the Taliban and the resurgence of the Afghan poppy crop.

As I've been at pains to stress over the years, it would be far too simplistic to suggest that 9/11 was simply a plot to get the world opium supply growing and flowing again. But the post-9/11 boom in Afghan poppy production—reaching record high after record high after record high, as dutifully documented by the UNODC's narcotics number crunchers—was certainly more than just a happy coincidence for the 9/11 planners.

In fact, at a certain point, the blatant reality of what had just happened—namely, NATO's overthrow of a regime dedicated to eradicating the poppy crop and its installation of a puppet government dedicated to promoting it—became so undeniable that Uncle Sam's propagandists simply stopped denying it.

Who can forget that infamous 2010 Fox News clip in which the mustachioed mouthpiece of the money masters, Geraldo Rivera, interviews Lt. Col. Brian Christmas in Helmand Province about how, even though it "grinds his gut," the US military now has no choice but to guard the poor Afghan poppy farmers' precious crop?

Yes, life was pretty good for the profiteers of the drug trade in the deep state in the wake of 9/11. They had a plentiful, cheap supply of poppies to feed the global opium trade that they have been directing, protecting and profiting from since the days of the Golden Triangle. And what's more, the whole racket was being protected by the US military at US taxpayer expense! What could go wrong?

THE PRESENT

 

As we all know by now, the US military completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 30, 2021. By that point, the Taliban—whose dramatic summer surge led to their seizing Kabul in mid-August—had already taken over the country. And so it was that 20 years of invasion, occupation, counter-insurgency operations, bloodshed and terror had accomplished precisely nothing.

Well, not exactly nothing. As we've seen, the NATO invasion and American occupation did afford the deep state drug runners another two decades of record poppy crops to feed the global heroin trade, with the UNODC reporting in 2010 that "some 90% of the world’s heroin comes from opium grown in just a few provinces in Afghanistan." It didn't take long, however, for the Taliban to bring that poppy-fueled drug money party to an abrupt halt.

In April of 2022, Haibatullah Akhundzada—the Taliban's current leader and the Supreme Leader of Afghanistan—issued a decree much like the one issued by Mullah Mohammad Omar in 2000:

All Afghans are informed that from now on, cultivation of poppy has been strictly prohibited across the country. If anyone violates the decree, the crop will be destroyed immediately and the violator will be treated according to the Sharia law.

Predictably enough, this fatwa was greeted with cynicism and outright disbelief in the West. Last November, the UNODC issued its annual opium cultivation report for the country, noting that "opium cultivation in Afghanistan increased by 32% over the previous year to 233,000 hectares – making the 2022 crop the third largest area under opium cultivation since monitoring began" and warning that "seizures of opiates around Afghanistan indicate that trafficking of Afghan opium and heroin has not stopped."

One had to read the report's accompanying press release, however, to discover that the 2022 crop had largely been exempted from Akhundzada's decree, and that the real results of the Taliban's poppy ban would not be expected to be seen until the 2023 crop was harvested.

This did not stop Washington Beltway establishment repeaters like Foreign Policy from immediately decrying the Taliban's poppy ban as mere political theater. "The Taliban that took over Afghanistan after a 20-year war largely funded by heroin trafficking have, after pretending to ban drugs, instead turbocharged the cultivation and sale of narcotics a year after their takeover," the propaganda rag—which, strangely, had never shown a particular interest in the practice of poppy cultivation before—wrote the day after the UN report's release.

This cynicism continued into 2023, with US state-funded outfit RFE/RL reporting in May that "Afghan Poppy Cultivation Jumps Despite Taliban Crackdown" and the UN blowing smoke up its own posterior by producing puff piece videos implying that the only way the poppy ban can possibly work is through the active engagement of the UN.

Imagine the Western establishment's collective shock, then, when the 2023 poppy cultivation numbers began to roll in.

The Taliban's ban, as it turns out, was not a charade. In fact, it has been, according to Graeme Smith, an Afghanistan "expert" with the Crisis Group, "the most successful counter-narcotics effort in human history, according to the volume of drugs taken off the market." And how much was that? Estimates indicate that poppy cultivation plummeted an astonishing 90% in the last year.

But, regardless of how it happened, the US/NATO PR flaks who have spent the last two decades pretending to care about the people of Afghanistan and pretending to worry about the country's opium problem must be rejoicing at this news, right?

THE FUTURE?

 

Wrong, of course.

No, believe it or not, the establishment is busy freaking out over the prospect of the Taliban actually achieving what the UN/US/NATO neo-colonizers only ever gave lip service to: eradicating Afghanistan's poppy crop.

And how, exactly, can they spin the Taliban's successful eradication campaign—the same campaign that they were calling a total sham just months ago, mind you—as a bad thing, you ask?

Well, the arch-conspirators at Chatham House (aka the CFR mothership in London) have attempted to spin away the Taliban's amazing accomplishment by arguing that, yes, the Taliban have accomplished the previously unimaginable in virtually eliminating poppy production in the country, but it's actually just a grand ploy by the Taliban to trick people into liking them by actually improving their country! The cads! Don't trust them! Besides, the last poppy ban didn't last very long because of . . . some unnamable reason . . . so this one probably won't either.

The presstitutes at Time, Filter, The World and other pushers of approved propaganda, meanwhile, have all (by some remarkable coincidence or other) simultaneously hit upon the exact same talking point: if Afghan poppy farmers stop feeding the world heroin markets, then European junkies will turn to Fentanyl. So—wouldn't ya know it?—cheap Afghan opium was actually a good thing all along, and by cutting off its supply the Taliban are the bad guys once again!

But of all the pretzel-logic op-eds spewed out by the pro-opium, anti-Taliban crowd in recent months, by far the most chilling is "The Taliban’s Successful Opium Ban is Bad for Afghans and the World" by former World Bank economist William Byrd.

His commentary starts out by noting the remarkable success of the Taliban's poppy ban, acknowledging that it was accomplished by a "sophisticated, staged approach" that exempted the crop that was about to be harvested, and pointing out that the current ban is actually even more comprehensive than the Taliban's previous ban, as it prohibits the trade and processing of opiates, not just poppy cultivation.

But Byrd is quick to point out all of the ways that this remarkably successful narcotics eradication program is actually bad for Afghanistan (and the world!). The country's poppy farmers have lost $1 billion of revenue—revenue that, his analysis fails to spell out, those farmers could have earned by feeding the world heroin markets. This economic downturn, he writes, will cause a migration crisis, with poor farmers trying to cross the border in the hopes of making it to Europe. And this will all lead to more heroin overdoses in Europe as dealers adulterate their supply to offset rising costs.

So far, so boilerplate. It's where Byrd ventures into "solutions" to this "problem" of decreasing opium supplies that we start to see the dark specter of future intervention at play. In this final section, he raises the question of an "international response" and then proceeds to list all of the things that will not work.

The situation "may provide a well-grounded justification for more humanitarian assistance" in Afghanistan, but "this would just be a band-aid to provide temporary relief unless and until the opium ban is rescinded or undercut."

Programs offering rural development aid "could be helpful" but "the modest amounts of money involved will at best have a marginal impact."

And as for the expected migrant crisis? Well, there's no help there, either. "Trying to block people flows at the Afghan border will work only imperfectly, and to the extent it is successful will worsen privation and hunger within the country."

All of these negative points are meant to leave us with one overwhelming (and unstated) conclusion: this "problem" will not be "solved" as long as the Taliban are in power. If only someone could come along, depose the Taliban, and get the drugs flowing again . . .

Of course, this conclusion has to be left unsaid. After all, Byrd's analysis is being published by the "United States Institute of Peace," after all, a made-up, feel-good institution that, its "About" page informs us, was "founded by Congress and dedicated to the proposition that a world without violent conflict is possible, practical and essential for U.S. and global security." All of which sounds fine and dandy until you use the globalese decoder ring to discover what a "world without violent conflict" actually means to the Washington warhawks: a world in which every state in the world does what their US State Department overlords tell them to do, no questions asked.

It seems the Taliban haven't gotten the message. And so, around we go again on the seemingly never-ending regime change merry-go-round.

What provocation will be used this time to motivate the people of the world for another trip to the graveyard of empires? Another "catalyzing, catastrophic event" like 9/11 to pin on some Al-CIA-da patsies? Or something that can tie I-CIA-sis to Russian operatives to American homegrown domestic terrorists, perhaps? Whatever it is, you better believe it will be spectacular.

Those who are interested in learning about the possible next steps in this unfolding agenda may be interested in joining myself, video editor extraordinaire Broc West and Ryan Cristián of The Last American Vagabond for a live pirate stream watch along of COVID-911: From Homeland Security to Biosecurity this Sunday night (September 10, 2023) at 9 PM EDT.

Meanwhile, as always, the people of Afghanistan are dismissed by nearly everyone. They are treated as mere chessboard pawns who amount to little more than an afterthought in the great game of empire.

And now, on the verge of another 9/11 anniversary, here we are remarking yet again: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter (including this month’s subscriber only video), please sign up to become a member of the website.

Subsidies Corrupt Economies, China, A Cautionary Tale

  And just like that: We are toast! 

 No this is not a cautionary tale about China. There is simply no difference now between China and the West, just scale. As mentioned in earlier posts, where China just arrived, we are on our way.

 Luckily, there is no climate emergency. Unluckily there are numerous misguided green policies which are going to fail miserably. The proposed solution, as usual, will be to double down on there policies along the well know explanation that they didn't work due to a lack of conviction. And that will be our downfall. Useless windmill and solar panels littering the countryside and producing almost no electricity for starved and dark cities. By then it will be too late to go back to reason. We will have neither the time nor money to do so. Literally, a new dark age will be upon us. 

 Over statement? Sit down and watch. We won't have to wait very long now...

Authored by Bruce Wilds via the Advancing Time blog,

China's economy is in trouble. After seeing a video claiming much of China's Electric Vehicle industry was built on subsidies that are now gone, I'm forced to ponder the legacy of these policies. It showed a factory in Chongqing, China, where a huge number of clean energy vans sit abandoned, covered in a thick layer of dust. This rendered their original appearances unrecognizable. Recently, aerial footage has also surfaced of vast grassy fields in Hangzhou littered with thousands of clean energy vehicles. This brings into question how this occurred.

Subsidies are more direct and worse than creating incentives or giving encouragement. Subsidies are a transfer of wealth. Without a doubt, many "false booms" are the result of scams created through subsidies. While it could be argued subsidies have moved the production and innovation in the EV industry forward, it brings up other issues.  A huge question is whether this has created a situation where other governments have strayed down the same wrong path in an effort to spur growth. This possibility should not be discounted. Consider for a moment that maybe EVs are not the answer to a more sustainable world.

The immense waste and the environmental problems and pollution resulting from improperly placed subsidies and regulations should be addressed. The big problem China now faces is that advanced economies are complex. When they start to shut down reversing the trend becomes difficult due to contagion. It is hard to build a machine when even a few parts are unavailable. This means the trend in China will not be easy to reverse.

China is now seeing the result of subsidies backfiring and the toll of reverse leverage is devastating both investors and its economy. After looking at the mess China has made out of building ghost cities, we must turn our attention to population control and demographics. China's poorly thought-out policies on these subjects feed into its current problems. The ramifications we are seeing play out are often referred to as unintended consequences. This is something we see far too much of.

China can no longer hide its growing problem of misallocating capital. This is coming back to haunt them. This is why many economists tout capitalism as the best economic system, it has proven to be more responsive to demand than planned economies which tend to go off track. The magnitude of China's problems is seen when viewing an ABC News In-depth piece covering the demolition of a huge number of large unfinished residential buildings in China.  This has revealed two issues, first, China was building residential buildings for "expanding future generations" that simply do not exist. The second was this resulted in rampant speculation driving prices through the roof. Now those prices are plummeting.

So, let's circle back to the question of whether this has created a situation where other governments have strayed down the same wrong path. Just because another government does something does not mean it would be good for us. Big governments are stupid and big companies are predatory. The thing they have in common is both want more control and power. In truth, we are the underdog in this ongoing struggle for control of our lives. This results in subsidies that tend to corrupt the direction capitalism takes if left alone. Unfortunately, the government is influenced by big company lobbyists that bend regulations strongly in their favor often at the expense of society at large. 

The energy sector and important decisions about our future have been hijacked by this trend. An example of how twisted things have become can be seen on America's roadways. Today millions of drivers zip down the road, the only occupant in oversized four-door trucks that get poor gas mileage. This is the answer lobbyists for the big auto companies and politicians arrived at to sidestep America's fuel efficiency standards enacted to save gas. Still, considering the political climate, China is crazy if it thinks the EU or America will throw open their borders to import Chinese-made cars. Both have their own auto industries to protect. 

Subsidies have led to many preposterous decisions, these include replacing all our current vehicles with EVs. It has resulted in America dropping tariffs on solar panels from China and spending billions of taxpayer dollars on them with the goal of rapidly reaching clean energy goals. even the rise of Amazon and its negative impact on the environment with its delivery to your door and high rate of returns or simply throw-away mentality falls into this category. Without subsidies such as the USPS delivering at a discount, even on Sundays and holidays, Amazon would not have become the giant force and destroyer of businesses it is today.

The energy sector and important decisions about our future have been hijacked by subsidies and regulations that have little basis. This trend does not bode well for creating a more productive future. China is growing proof that once a deep-seated fear of the future becomes ingrained in society people lose faith in the government's ability to turn things around. this is a lesson America learned during the Great Depression. One of the answers to forming better policies that benefit society is not to subsidize the projects of big businesses and politicians at the expense of organically grown solutions to our problems.

Message from a heretic

  This Google related platform has been useful for the last few years to share and discuss ideas and news with many people. Unfortunately, we are entering a new era of extreme censorship and I do not believe that the kind of ideas and documents I share here will be available for long.The censorship for now is mostly focused on people with a large following for maximum efficiency but the trend is clear. Soon absolutely everyone will be subjected to these rules thanks to efficient AI powered control tools. Eventually you will need a VPN to escape the censorship and then even that will not be enough. China being 10 years ahead in this respect, you do not need to be Bill Gates to know what the "road ahead" will look like!

  Reason why I have decided to migrate most of my posts to Telegram which for now seems to be much less censored than other platforms. Here's a link: 

 Link to Telegram

  Username: @Philjy

  My goal is to discuss ALL the censored subjects to the exclusion of the NON-censored hoax, flat earth, moon landing and other stupidities which are clearly absurdities and therefore obviously not censored. This does not mean that I believe all the tortuous and sometimes nonsensical explanations some people bring to the subject, just that legitimate questions can and should be asked. 

 This apply of course to the grandfather of all conspiracy theories: The Assassination of JFK in 1963. Many documents have been leaked since so that now most people in the US understand that the CIA probably played a role in the murder although all the key documents are still kept secret 60 years after the event.Here's a great video to get a better understanding about the case:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oVpt_I9iQQ

Everything is a rich man trick by Francis Richard Conolly

 Then of course there is 9/11 or rather 911 just to make sure that the joke is not lost. 4 planes superbly piloted by incompetent pilots, no military interception for over an hour in forbidden airspace, 3 towers falling at gravity speed in their own footprint (the only cases ever in the history of construction), no analysis or forensic done on-site, a war with Afghanistan and Iraq pre-arranged, the Patriot act enacted in short order... It actually requires some effort not to see anything wrong with all this!

 A superb plan about which we will probably never know the end story since everything was probably planned and managed from the WTC-7 building which had the good idea to fall in sympathy with the Twin Towers. How incredibly convenient!

There are still thousands of architects requesting a public inquiry on the subject 20 years later to understand how the impossible actually happened. The only thing we can wish them is: Good Luck!

 On this list, Corona Virus comes a close third. But here too, we'll never know for sure since almost instantly the Wuhan P4 laboratory was put under military supervision and all samples were officially destroyed. 

 It was obvious from the beginning (because so many eminent scientists said so and explained in details how) that the virus was man-made but who actually built it? China, the US? Then over the following months we saw the "plandemic" put in place with most governments acting as passive accomplices. 

 What is certain 3 years later is that the virus had an ultimate objective and that consequently we are still very far from getting rid of it, if ever!

 And finally this unbelievable fire in Lahanai in Maui which burned over two thousand houses almost laser-like at an unbelievable high temperature which could melt metal and glass. A town with no electricity, no Wi-Fi, no water, locked by the police for the duration of the fire. What else would you need to prove intent? A wall to make sure nobody can see what's happening afterwards and the recovery process? Sure enough, it is there!

 In all these case, you will find that an immediate explanation is provided from which no deviation is permitted later on less some doubts emerge. Almost no study or forensic is done and all questions are systematically referred to as supporting "conspiracy theories".  

 Well, could it be because the conspiracies are actually there? 

 Maybe, maybe not, but in any case the questions MUST be asked and proper answers must be given. Otherwise, we'll get more of the same. A society like the one we have now just only worse as we would deserve.

 

Escobar: No Respite For France As A 'New Africa' Rises

  Game over for France in Africa?

  Africa is still very far from true independence but for the first time in 60 years a light in shinning at the end of the tunnel. It could be another train since the continent still lacks the social infrastructure which helped Asia take off. So although it may or may not strengthen the continent, it will without doubt weaken Europe further. 

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

Like dominos, African states are one by one falling outside the shackles of neocolonialism. Chad, Guinea, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and now Gabon are saying 'non' to France's longtime domination of African financial, political, economic, and security affairs.

By adding two new African member-states to its roster, last week's summit in Johannesburg heralding the expanded BRICS 11 showed once again that Eurasian integration is inextricably linked to the integration of Afro-Eurasia.

Belarus is now proposing to hold a joint summit between BRICS 11, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU).  President Aleksandr Lukashenko's vision for the convergence of these multilateral organizations may, in due time, lead to the Mother of All Multipolarity Summits.

But Afro-Eurasia is a much more complicated proposition. Africa still lags far behind its Eurasian cousins on the road toward breaking the shackles of neocolonialism.   

The continent today faces horrendous odds in its fight against the deeply entrenched financial and political institutions of colonization, especially when it comes to smashing French monetary hegemony in the form of the Franc CFA - or the Communauté Financière Africaine (African Financial Community). 

Still, one domino is falling after another – Chad, Guinea, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and now Gabon. This process has already turned Burkina Faso's President Captain Ibrahim Traoré, into a new hero of the multipolar world – as a dazed and confused collective west can’t even begin to comprehend the blowback represented by its 8 coups in West and Central Africa in less than 3 years. 

Bye bye Bongo 

Military officers decided to take power in Gabon after hyper pro-France President Ali Bongo won a dodgy election that “lacked credibility.” Institutions were dissolved. Borders with Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and the Republic of Congo were closed. All security deals with France were annulled. No one knows what will happen with the French military base.

All that was as popular as it comes: soldiers took to the streets of the capital Libreville in joyful singing, cheered on by onlookers.  

Bongo and his father, who preceded him, have ruled Gabon since 1967. He was educated at a French private school and graduated from the Sorbonne. Gabon is a small nation of 2.4 million with a small army of 5,000 personnel that could fit into Donald Trump’s penthouse. Over 30 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day, and in over 60 percent of regions have zero access to healthcare and drinking water. 

The military qualified Bongo’s 14-year rule as leading to a "deterioration in social cohesion” that was plunging the country “into chaos."

On cue, French mining company Eramet suspended its operations after the coup. That’s a near monopoly. Gabon is all about lavish mineral wealth – in gold, diamonds, manganese, uranium, niobium, iron ore, not to mention oil, natural gas, and hydropower. In OPEC-member Gabon, virtually the whole economy revolves around mining.   

The case of Niger is even more complex. France exploits uranium and high-purity petrol as well as other types of mineral wealth. And the Americans are on site, operating three bases in Niger with up to 4,000 military personnel. The key strategic node in their ‘Empire of Bases’ is the drone facility in Agadez, known as Niger Air Base 201, the second-largest in Africa after Djibouti.  

French and American interests clash, though, when it comes to the saga over the Trans-Sahara gas pipeline. After Washington broke the umbilical steel cord between Russia and Europe by bombing the Nord Streams, the EU, and especially Germany, badly needed an alternative. 

Algerian gas supply can barely cover southern Europe. American gas is horribly expensive.

The ideal solution for Europeans would be Nigerian gas crossing the Sahara and then the deep Mediterranean. 

Nigeria, with 5,7 trillion cubic meters, has even more gas than Algeria and possibly Venezuela. By comparison, Norway has 2 trillion cubic meters. But Nigeria’s problem is how to pump its gas to distant customers - so Niger becomes an essential transit country.  

When it comes to Niger’s role, energy is actually a much bigger game than the oft-touted uranium – which in fact is not that strategic either for France or the EU because Niger is only the 5th largest world supplier, way behind Kazakhstan and Canada. 
Still, the ultimate French nightmare is losing the juicy uranium deals plus a Mali remix: Russia, post-Prighozin, arriving in Niger in full force with a simultaneous expulsion of the French military. 

Adding Gabon only makes things dicier. Rising Russian influence could lead to boosting supply lines to rebels in Cameroon and Nigeria, and privileged access to the Central African Republic, where Russian presence is already strong.  

It's no wonder that Francophile Paul Biya, in power for 41 years in Cameroon, has opted for a purge of his Armed Forces after the coup in Gabon. Cameroon may be the next domino to fall.

ECOWAS meets AFRICOM

The Americans, as it stands, are playing Sphynx. There’s no evidence so far that Niger's military wants the Agadez base shut down. The Pentagon has invested a fortune in their bases to spy on a great deal of the Sahel and, most of all, Libya. 
About the only thing Paris and Washington agree on is that, under the cover of ECOWAS (the Economic Community of West African States), the hardest possible sanctions should be slapped on one of the world’s poorest nations (where only 21% of the population has access to electricity) - and they should be much worse than those imposed on the Ivory Coast in 2010.  

Then there’s the threat of war. Imagine the absurdity of ECOWAS invading a country that is already fighting two wars on terror on two separate fronts: Against Boko Haram in the southeast and against ISIS in the Tri-Border region.

ECOWAS, one of 8 African political and economic unions, is a proverbial mess. It packs 15 member nations - Francophone, Anglophone and one Lusophone - in Central and West Africa, and it is rife with internal division.

The French and the Americans first wanted ECOWAS to invade Niger as their “peacekeeping” puppet. But that didn’t work because of popular pressure against it. So, they switched to some form of diplomacy. Still, troops remain on stand-by, and a mysterious “D-Day” has been set for the invasion. 

The role of the African Union (AU) is even murkier. Initially, they stood against the coup and suspended Niger's membership. Then they turned around and condemned the possible western-backed invasion. Neighbors have closed their borders with Niger.  

ECOWAS will implode without US, France, and NATO backing. Already it’s essentially a toothless chihuahua – especially after Russia and China have demonstrated via the BRICS summit their soft power across Africa. 

Western policy in the Sahel maelstrom seems to consist of salvaging anything they can from a possible unmitigated debacle - even as the stoic people in Niger are impervious to whatever narrative the west is trying to concoct. 

It's important to keep in mind that Niger’s main party, the “National Movement for the Defense of the Homeland” represented by General Abdourahamane Tchiani, has been supported by the Pentagon – complete with military training – from the beginning.  

The Pentagon is deeply implanted in Africa and connected to 53 nations. The main US concept since the early 2000s was always to militarize Africa and turn it into War on Terror fodder. As the Dick Cheney regime spun it in 2002: “Africa is a strategic priority in fighting terrorism.” 

That’s the basis for the US military command AFRICOM and countless “cooperative partnerships” set up in bilateral agreements. For all practical purposes, AFRICOM has been occupying large swathes of Africa since 2007.

How sweet is my colonial franc

It is absolutely impossible for anyone across the Global South, Global Majority, or “Global Globe” (copyright Lukashenko) to understand Africa's current turmoil without understanding the nuts and bolts of French neocolonialism. 

The key, of course, is the CFA franc, the “colonial franc” introduced in 1945 in French Africa, which still survives even after the CFA - with a nifty terminological twist - began to stand for "African Financial Community". 

The whole world remembers that after the 2008 global financial crisis, Libya’s Leader Muammar Gaddafi called for the establishment of a pan-African currency pegged to gold. 

At the time, Libya had about 150 tons of gold, kept at home, and not in London, Paris, or New York banks. With a little more gold, that pan-African currency would have its own independent financial center in Tripoli – and everything based on a sovereign gold reserve. 

For scores of African nations, that was the definitive Plan B to bypass the western financial system. 

The whole world also remembers what happened in 2011. The first airstrike on Libya came from a French Mirage fighter jet.  France's bombing campaign started even before the end of emergency talks in Paris between western leaders. 

In March 2011, France became the first country in the world to recognize the rebel National Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya. In 2015, the notoriously hacked emails of former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton revealed what France was up to in Libya: "The desire to achieve a greater share in Libyan oil production,” to increase French influence in North Africa, and to block Gaddafi's plans to create a pan-African currency that would replace the CFA franc printed in France. 

It is no wonder the collective west is terrified of Russia in Africa – and not just because of the changing of the guard in Chad, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and now Gabon: Moscow has never sought to rob or enslave Africa. 

Russia treats Africans as sovereign people, does not engage in Forever Wars, and does not drain Africa of resources while paying a pittance for them. Meanwhile, French intel and CIA “foreign policy” translate into corrupting African leaders to the core and snuffing out those that are incorruptible. 

You have the right to no monetary policy 

The CFA racket makes the Mafia look like street punks. It means essentially that the monetary policy of several sovereign African nations is controlled by the French Treasury in Paris.

The Central Bank of each African nation was initially required to keep at least 65 percent of their annual foreign exchange reserves in an “operation account” held at the French Treasury, plus another 20 percent to cover financial “liabilities.” 

Even after some mild “reforms” were enacted since September 2005, these nations were still required to transfer 50 percent of their foreign exchange to Paris, plus 20 percent V.A.T.

And it gets worse. The CFA Central Banks impose a cap on credit to each member country. The French Treasury invests these African foreign reserves in its own name on the Paris bourse and pulls in massive profits on Africa's dime.

The hard fact is that more than 80 percent of foreign reserves of African nations have been in “operation accounts” controlled by the French Treasury since 1961. In a nutshell, none of these states has sovereignty over their monetary policy. 

But the theft doesn't stop there: the French Treasury uses African reserves as if they were French capital, as collateral in pledging assets to French payments to the EU and the ECB. 

Across the “FranceAfrique” spectrum, France still, today, controls the currency, foreign reserves, the comprador elites, and trade business. 

The examples are rife: French conglomerate Bolloré's control of port and marine transport throughout West Africa; Bouygues/Vinci dominate construction and public works, water, and electricity distribution; Total has huge stakes in oil and gas. And then there’s France Telecom and big banking - Societe Generale, Credit Lyonnais, BNP-Paribas, AXA (insurance), and so forth. 

France de facto controls the overwhelming majority of infrastructure in Francophone Africa. It is a virtual monopoly. 

“FranceAfrique” is all about hardcore neocolonialism. Policies are issued by the President of the Republic of France and his “African cell.” They have nothing to do with parliament, or any democratic process, since the times of Charles De Gaulle. 

The “African cell” is a sort of General Command. They use the French military apparatus to install “friendly” comprador leaders and get rid of those that threaten the system. There’s no diplomacy involved. Currently, the cell reports exclusively to Le Petit Roi, Emmanuel Macron.  

Caravans of drugs, diamonds, and gold

Paris completely supervised the assassination of Burkina Faso's anti-colonial leader Thomas Sankara, in 1987. Sankara had risen to power via a popular coup in 1983, only to be overthrown and assassinated four years later. 

As for the real “war on terror” in the African Sahel, it has nothing to do with the infantile fictions sold in the West. There are no Arab “terrorists” in the Sahel, as I saw when backpacking across West Africa a few months before 9/11. They are locals who converted to Salafism online, intent on setting up an Islamic State to better control smuggling routes across the Sahel. 

Those fabled ancient salt caravans plying the Sahel from Mali to southern Europe and West Asia are now caravans of drugs, diamonds, and gold. This is what funded Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), for instance, then supported by Wahhabi lunatics in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. 

After Libya was destroyed by NATO in early 2011, there was no more “protection,” so the western-backed Salafi-jihadis who fought against Gaddafi offered the Sahel smugglers the same protection as before - plus a lot of weapons.

Assorted Mali tribes continue the merry smuggling of anything they fancy. AQIM still extracts illegal taxation. ISIS in Libya is deep into human and narcotics trafficking. And Boko Haram wallows in the cocaine and heroin market.  

There is a degree of African cooperation to fight these outfits. There was something called the G5 Sahel, focused on security and development. But after Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, and Chad went the military route, only Mauritania remains. The new West Africa Junta Belt, of course, wants to destroy terror groups, but most of all, they want to fight FranceAfrique, and the fact that their national interests are always decided in Paris. 

France has for decades made sure there’s very little intra-Africa trade. Landlocked nations badly need neighbors for transit. They mostly produce raw materials for export. There are virtually no decent storage facilities, feeble energy supply, and terrible intra-African transportation infrastructure: that’s what Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects are bent on addressing in Africa.  

In March 2018, 44 heads of state came up with the African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA) – the largest in the world in terms of population (1.3 billion people) and geography. In January 2022, they established the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS) – focused on payments for companies in Africa in local currencies. 

So inevitably, they will be going for a common currency further on down the road. Guess what’s in their way: the Paris-imposed CFA. 

A few cosmetic measures still guarantee direct control by the French Treasury on any possible new African currency set up, preference for French companies in bidding processes, monopolies, and the stationing of French troops. The coup in Niger represents a sort of “we’re not gonna take it anymore.”

All of the above illustrates what the indispensable economist Michael Hudson has been detailing in all his works: the power of the extractivist model. Hudson has shown how the bottom line is control of the world’s resources; that’s what defines a global power, and in the case of France, a global mid-ranking power.

France has shown how easy it is to control resources via control of monetary policy and setting up monopolies in these resource-rich nations to extract and export, using virtual slave labor with zero environmental or health regulations. 

It's also essential for exploitative neocolonialism to keep those resource-rich nations from using their own resources to grow their own economies. But now the African dominoes are finally saying, “The game is over.” Is true decolonization finally on the horizon?