Trump’s Sham Peace Plan

Chris Hedges
October 11, 2025 (lire en français)

There is no shortage of failed peace plans in occupied Palestine, all of them incorporating detailed phases and timelines, going back to the presidency of Jimmy Carter. They end the same way. Israel gets what it wants initially — in the latest case the release of the remaining Israeli hostages — while it ignores and violates every other phase until it resumes its attacks on the Palestinian people.

It is a sadistic game. A merry-go-round of death. This ceasefire, like those of the past, is a commercial break. A moment when the condemned man is allowed to smoke a cigarette before being gunned down in a fusillade of bullets.

Once Israeli hostages are released, the genocide will continue. I do not know how soon. Let’s hope the mass slaughter is delayed for at least a few weeks. But a pause in the genocide is the best we can anticipate. Israel is on the cusp of emptying Gaza, which has been all but obliterated under two years of relentless bombing. It is not about to be stopped. This is the culmination of the Zionist dream. The United States, which has given Israel a staggering $22 billion in military aid since Oct, 7, 2023, will not shut down its pipeline, the only tool that might halt the genocide.

Israel, as it always does, will blame Hamas and the Palestinians for failing to abide by the agreement, most probably a refusal — true or not — to disarm, as the proposal demands. Washington, condemning Hamas’s supposed violation, will give Israel the green light to continue its genocide to create Trump’s fantasy of a Gaza Riviera and “special economic zone” with its “voluntary”relocation of Palestinians in exchange for digital tokens.

Of the myriads of peace plans over the decades, the current one is the least serious. Aside from a demand that Hamas release the hostages within 72-hours after the ceasefire begins, it lacks specifics and imposed timetables. It is filled with caveats that allow Israel to abrogate the agreement. And that is the point. It is not designed to be a viable path to peace, which most Israeli leaders understand. Israel’s largest-circulation newspaper, Israel Hayom, established by the late casino magnate Sheldon Adelson to serve as a mouthpiece for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and champion messianic Zionism, instructed its readers not to be concerned about the Trump plan because it is only “rhetoric.”

Israel, in one example from the proposal, will “not return to areas that have been withdrawn from, as long as Hamas fully implements the agreement.”

Who decides if Hamas has “fully implemented” the agreement? Israel. Does anyone believe in Israel’s good faith? Can Israel be trusted as an objective arbitrator of the agreement? If Hamas — demonized as a terrorist group — objects, will anyone listen?

How is it possible that a peace proposal ignores the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 Advisory Opinion, which reiterated that Israel’s occupation is illegal and must end?

How can it fail to mention the Palestinian’s right to self-determination?

Why are Palestinians, who have a right under international law to armed struggle against an occupying power, expected to disarm while Israel, the illegally occupying force, is not?

By what authority can the U.S. establish a “temporary transitional government,” — Trump’s and Tony Blair’s so-called “Board of Peace” — sidelining the Palestinian right to self-determination?

Who gave the U.S. the authority to send to Gaza an “International Stabilization Force,” a polite term for foreign occupation?

How are Palestinians supposed to reconcile themselves to the acceptance of an Israeli “security barrier” on Gaza’s borders, confirmation that the occupation will continue?

How can any proposal ignore the slow-motion genocide and annexation of the West Bank?

Why is Israel, which has destroyed Gaza, not required to pay reparations?

What are Palestinians supposed to make of the demand in the proposal for a “deradicalized” Gazan population? How is this expected to be accomplished? Re-education camps? Wholesale censorship? The rewriting of the school curriculum? Arresting offending Imams in mosques?

And what about addressing the incendiary rhetoric routinely employed by Israeli leaders who describe Palestinians as “human animals” and their children as “little snakes”?

“All of Gaza and every child in Gaza, should starve to death,” the Israeli rabbi Ronen Shaulov announced. “I don’t have mercy for those who, in a few years, will grow up and won’t have mercy for us. Only a stupid fifth column, a hater of Israel has mercy for future terrorists, even though today they are still young and hungry. I hope, may they starve to death, and if anyone has a problem with what I’ve said, that’s their problem.”

Israeli violations of peace agreements have historical precedents.

The Camp David Accords, signed in 1978 by Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin — without the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) — led to the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt.

Subsequent phases of the Camp David Accords, which included a promise by Israel to resolve the Palestinian question along with Jordan and Egypt, permit Palestinian self-governance in the West Bank and Gaza within five years, and end the building of Israeli colonies in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, were never implemented.

The 1993 Oslo Accords, signed in 1993, saw the PLO recognize Israel’s right to exist and Israel recognize the PLO as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. Yet, what ensued was the disempowerment of the PLO and its transformation into a colonial police force. Oslo II, signed in 1995, detailed the process towards peace and a Palestinian state. But it too was stillborn. It stipulated that any discussion of illegal Jewish “settlements” were to be delayed until “final” status talks. By then, Israeli military withdrawals from the occupied West Bank were scheduled to have been completed. Governing authority was poised to be transferred from Israel to the supposedly temporary Palestinian Authority. Instead, the West Bank was carved up into Areas A, B and C. The Palestinian Authority had limited authority in Areas A and B while Israel controlled all of Area C, over 60 percent of the West Bank.

The right of Palestinian refugees to return to the historic lands that Jewish settlers seized from them in 1948 when Israel was created — a right enshrined in international law — was given up by the PLO leader Yasser Arafat. This instantly alienated many Palestinians, especially those in Gaza where 75 percent are refugees or the descendants of refugees. As a consequence, many Palestinians abandoned the PLO in favor of Hamas. Edward Said called the Oslo Accords “an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles” and lambasted Arafat as “the Pétain of the Palestinians.”

The scheduled Israeli military withdrawals under Oslo never took place. There were around 250,000 Jewish colonists in the West Bank when the Oslo agreement was signed. Their numbers today have increased to at least 700,000.

The journalist Robert Fisk called Oslo “a sham, a lie, a trick to entangle Arafat and the PLO into abandonment of all that they had sought and struggled for over a quarter of a century, a method of creating false hope in order to emasculate the aspiration of statehood.”

Israel unilaterally broke the last two-month-long ceasefire on March 18 of this year when it launched surprise airstrikes on Gaza. Netanyahu’s office claimed that the resumption of the military campaign was in response to Hamas’s refusal to release hostages, its rejection of proposals to extend the cease-fire and its efforts to rearm. Israel killed more than 400 people in the initial overnight assault and injured over 500, slaughtering and wounding people as they slept. The attack scuttled the second stage of the agreement, which would have seen Hamas release the remaining living male hostages, both civilians and soldiers, for an exchange of Palestinian prisoners and the establishment of a permanent ceasefire along with the eventual lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Israel has carried out murderous assaults on Gaza for decades, cynically calling the bombardment “mowing the lawn.” No peace accord or ceasefire agreement has ever gotten in the way. This one will be no exception.

This bloody saga is not over. Israel’s goals remain unchanged: the dispossession and erasure of Palestinians from their land.

The only peace Israel intends to offer the Palestinians is the peace of the grave.

Source: https://www.unz.com/article/trumps-sham-peace-plan/

9 studies vaxxed vs. unvaxxed, all published in the peer-reviewed literature, show vaccinated are worse off in every measure

 

Here are the 9 studies from Vaxxed-Unvaxxed, thanks to Brian Hooker. 100% show your kids are far better off avoiding all vaccines. Where's the science showing the opposite? Nowhere to be found!

 

Steve Kirsch

Aug 07, 2025

There are 10 studies below. The one by James Lyons-Weiler is a great study, but the journal unethically retracted it. The rest are still in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There aren’t any other vaxxed/unvaxxed studies. 100% show you are better off not vaccinating your kids.

Anthony R. Mawson, et al., “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 to 12-year-old U.S. Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-12, doi: 10.15761/JTS.1000186

Anthony R. Mawson et al., “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-8, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000187.

Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders,” SAGE Open Medicine 8, (2020): 2050312120925344, doi:10.1177/2050312120925344.

Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 7, (2021): 1-11, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000459.

James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22 (2020): 8674, doi:10.3390/ijerph17228674.

Note: The above study was wrongly retracted, and the authors are considering legal action. Below is a follow-up study that completely exonerates the Lyons-Weiler/Thomas study of alleged bias.

James Lyons-Weiler, "Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them" September 2022 International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research 2(2):603-618 DOI:10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.59

NVKP, “Diseases and Vaccines: NVKP Survey Results,” Nederlandse Vereniging Kritisch Prikken, 2006, accessed July 1, 2022.

Joy Garner, “Statistical Evaluation of Health Outcomes in the Unvaccinated: Full Report,” The Control Group: Pilot Survey of Unvaccinated Americans, November 19, 2020.

Joy Garner, “Health versus Disorder, Disease, and Death: Unvaccinated Persons Are Incommensurably Healthier than Vaccinated,” International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research 2, no. 2, (2022): 670-686, doi: 10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.40.

Rachel Enriquez et al., “The Relationship Between Vaccine Refusal and Self-Report of Atopic Disease in Children,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 115, no. 4 (2005): 737-744, doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.12.1128.

 

Source: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/9-studies-vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-all?utm_source=publication-search&utm_medium=email

Sarkozy, Gaddafi and the Fall of Libya

Nicholas Reed argues that Sarkozy's five-year prison sentence highlights Libya's influence-buying scheme in 2007, France's rush to crush Gaddafi's pan-African project in 2011, and a neocolonial calculation that destroyed Libya.

Nicholas Reed 
September 30th, 2025

The criminal case against former French President Sarkozy touches on the historic tensions between Muammar Gaddafi's Libya and Western powers, France in particular. Recently, a Paris court sentenced Sarkozy to five years in prison for criminal conspiracy, which is a historic conviction for a former French president.

The charges? Allegations that the Libyan government diverted millions of Euros (estimates range from €5 million to €50 million) to Sarkozy's 2007 presidential campaign to facilitate Libya's rapprochement with the West. France's leading role in the destruction of Libya was subsequently motivated both by geopolitical fears of a strengthened Africa and by Sarkozy's need to conceal his own corruption. At his trial on September 25, 2025, Sarkozy told reporters that he was innocent. "I will not apologize for something I did not do." The prison sentence is immediately enforceable; the judge specified that Sarkozy would have little time to organize his affairs before the prosecutor invited him to report to prison. French media reported that Sarkozy would be summoned on October 13 to be informed of his incarceration date. Ironically, this will be seven days before the anniversary of Gaddafi's death, which occurred on October 20, 2011, when French fighter jets and ground agents were directly complicit in the assassination of a foreign head of state.

Libya, a North African country, was once a continental leader. It led the continent in forming the African Union in September 1999, an initiative known as the "Sirte Declaration." Delegations from across the continent flocked to the coastal city to build a new African future.

To the north, France watched all this with envy. Since 1969, Libya had been a thorn in the side of European colonial powers as the country supported liberation movements on the African continent and beyond. So the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi's revolutionary government had been a long-held dream by Western powers. Muammar Gaddafi  - the "Guide" - constantly poked his finger at the wounds of the colonial West, whether by supporting groups such as the Irish Republican Army or opposing apartheid in Gaza and South Africa. Nelson Mandela hailed Libya as a pan-African leader, explaining that its support had been crucial to the success of the South African anti-apartheid movement. Many African countries saw Libya not only as a leader but also as a stabilizing force, including in so-called Francophone Africa. 

 

When it underwent the 1969 Al-Fateh Revolution, known as Gaddafi's bloodless coup, Libya was one of the poorest countries in the world. In a short time, Gaddafi's revolutionary government transformed the country into an oasis, thanks in part to its significant national oil reserves and its leader's shrewd policies. Libya was indeed the first country in the world to hold a majority stake in its own oil production, a fact that worried the colonial powers. In the 20th century, Libya's revolutionary ambitions were largely protected through various international friendships, including with the USSR, Mao's China, and several Third World countries. However, after the collapse of the USSR, many countries had to adapt to the new unipolar era.

Gaddafi's Jamahiriya, or State of the Masses, was no exception. After decades of sanctions, Libya aspired to join the new "international community." It abandoned its weapons of mass destruction program in 2003, also bowing to pressure to resolve the infamous Lockerbie scandal. Moreover, Gaddafi agreed to begin transitioning Libya's planned economy to a market one. But it quickly became clear to everyone that these changes were merely cosmetic and that Colonel Gaddafi had not forgotten his anti-colonialism. His tactics only changed: instead of funding liberation movements, Gaddafi invested massively in the continent, for example, financing the first African satellite in 2008, which saved the continent a total of $500 million a year, a sum that had previously gone to European telecommunications companies.

Gaddafi wanted to strengthen Africa by using the newly formed African Union (AU) as a driving force for integration projects. These liberation projects were viewed favorably in Europe—until the AU began to succeed. The most well-known, of course, was the planned single continental currency, the gold-backed African dinar, a project France closely monitored, fearing that its neocolonial territories in West Africa would slip away. This was revealed by WikiLeaks in the famous Clinton emails. Then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed enthusiasm for the destruction of Libya, claiming that Gaddafi's plans for the African Union were a direct threat to French and American interests. France was particularly concerned that Libya would supplant France as the dominant power in North Africa, given that it was already financing infrastructure, playing a role in armed conflicts, and maintaining fruitful bilateral ties. However, the question remains: why did the Libyan government finance Nicolas Sarkozy's presidential campaign in 2007?

The issue of electoral interference remains a controversial topic, regardless of one's position. In Sarkozy's case, however, the allegations appear to be well-founded. For nearly twenty years, Sarkozy has faced accusations and trials on this matter. The September 2025 case is the latest, in which he was officially sentenced to five years in prison. Sarkozy is accused of accepting millions of euros from the Libyan government—an unspecified amount, between 5 and 50 million euros. The prosecution suggests that this funding was intended to encourage France to help Libya move closer to the West. But according to Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, the reasons run much deeper.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi has never hidden his disappointment with Nicolas Sarkozy. At the start of the NATO bombing in 2011, Saif Gaddafi gave an interview to Euronews in which he ironically declared that “this clown should return the money to the Libyan people.” Saif al-Islam claimed that he had personally monitored some of the suitcases handed over to French officials. During the trial, Saif was willing to provide audio evidence and witnesses. Later, in 2018, he prepared a sworn statement for French investigators. In an exclusive interview with RIF in 2025, Saif Gaddafi confirmed the facts once again. He said that Sarkozy had tried to pressure him regarding this evidence. The first attempt reportedly took place in 2021 through Parisian consultant Souha al-Bedri, who allegedly asked him to deny any Libyan support for Sarkozy’s campaign in exchange for help resolving his case before the ICC, where he is still wanted. The backroom agreement between the Libyan and French governments remains mysterious. However, the actions of both sides demonstrate a rapprochement with the West. Was this naiveté? Or desperate pragmatism?

 

Moussa Ibrahim (pictured), former Libyan government spokesman, has spoken out numerous times on Russia Today (RT) regarding Libya. In a 2019 interview with Going Underground, Moussa stated that the Gaddafi government wanted to keep the Western front calm so it could focus on the African continent. Was Libya's funding of Sarkozy one of these enigmatic chess moves? An attempt at peacemaking? Indeed, after Sarkozy's election, he relaxed several legal proceedings against Libyan officials accused of supporting state terrorism. In addition, sanctions were lifted and new bilateral ties were established. This climate of peace gave Gaddafi the space he needed to develop his plans for liberation. In his interview with Going Underground, Ibrahim bitterly confided:

We didn't have enough time to build up our capabilities. If the 2011 conspiracy had been delayed… even by five years… we would have been much stronger. We would have had solid alliances, a robust economy, and our African brothers behind us. But the West understood our weaknesses. That's why they intervened at that time [in 2011].

Gaddafi had temporarily tamed the French rooster, but the leash was too thin. France's reputation in Africa remains appalling to this day. Sarkozy was finally convicted this year, but not for his real crime. The real crime for which Sarkozy was not held accountable was the destruction of Libya. France was the first country to send fighter jets to North Africa. Was this to cover up Sarkozy's personal corruption? Indeed, Sarkozy had a personal stake in this war against Libya. Yet France's geopolitical interests were paramount. Everyone knew that Libya's growing power in Africa was a spark that could spread rapidly. Sarkozy may not pay for his crimes in prison, but he will remain a footnote, a bloody and insignificant one.

Libya will not forget. 

 

Source: http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2025/09/30/sarkozy-kadhafi-et-la-chute-de-la-libye.html 

Canada is turning its assisted suicide regime into an organ donation supply chain

Ethicists have warned that harvesting organs from euthanized patients could result in pressuring people to opt for death so that their organs can be used by those with better prognoses.

Jonathon Van Maren
Oct 2, 2025

(LifeSiteNews) — The heart of a 38-year-old Canadian man who was euthanized was successfully harvested and donated to a 59-year-old American man with heart failure, according to the National Post. The case highlights a growing trend: organs being harvested from euthanasia victims.

A report from The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and The Ottawa Hospital detailed the procedure. “Here we report the first case of successful cardiac transplantation after MAiD,” the medical team wrote. And, more ominously: “Provision of MAiD and death determination occurred in keeping with Canadian standards. Death was declared within seven minutes of initiating the MAiD protocol.”

The Canadian was suffering from ALS (or Lou Gehrig’s disease), and had indicated his desire to donate his organs, but this is a “landmark case of a heart transplant following euthanasia.” According to the National Post: “The dead donor’s heart was removed, attached to a special machine that ‘reanimates’ or restarts the heart to keep blood flowing through the organs while keeping them warm, and then transported to Pittsburgh, where the transplant took place.”

Organs being harvested from freshly euthanized patients are becoming more common; while this is the first heart transplant, there have already been liver, kidney, and lung transplants, and “at least 155 people in Canada have donated their organs and tissues after receiving a doctor-administered lethal injection” since 2016, although a “number of doctors are concerned that some Canadians receiving medical assisted death don’t actually meet Health Canada’s criteria for the procedure.”

The successful heart transplant provides an incentive for repeat procedures. “While longer term data and data on additional cases will be required, this case suggests that safe cardiac transplantation can be performed after MAiD,” the report stated. Pro-lifers – and many ethicists – have noted that the practice of harvesting the organs from euthanized patients could result in pressure being put on people to opt for death so that their organs can be used by healthier people or those with better prognoses.

Canada has already achieved the dubious distinction of becoming a “world leader in ODE – organ donation after euthanasia.” A Dutch study indicated that of 286 instances of ODE leading up to 2021, 136 instances were Canadian. CIHI data indicates that 235 people have “consented to donating their organs” after being killed by euthanasia, and of 894 euthanized donors, 7 percent had their organs harvested for donation and 5 percent of organ transplants in 2024 used the organs of euthanized Canadians.

The National Post noted that even as the practice becomes more common, controversy surrounding the process continues:

However, how, and when, to approach people requesting MAiD about organ donation is controversial and varies in Canada, according to the review paper. Organ donor organizations in Ontario and British Columbia recommend that people who request MAiD “are approached and informed about the possibility of organ donation.” In others, like Alberta and Manitoba, people aren’t asked about organ donation unless they start the conversation themselves.

“Not informing patients about the possibility of donation can prevent them from exploring the opportunity to donate their organs and negatively impact their autonomy, while informing them of this possibility may cause undue societal pressure for donation, and the desire to become a donor may be a driver for the MAiD request,” the review authors wrote.

In fact, the authors also warned that “some patients may feel they are a burden to their family and friends and feel motivated to undergo MAiD to relieve this burden,” stating that those both assessing and killing the patients should be on watch for “potential indicators that the patient may somehow be feeling pressured to proceed with MAiD or MAiD and organ donation.”

Considering how lax Canadian MAiD assessors have been thus far – and the fact that up to a quarter of “MAiD providers” in Ontario may have violated the criminal code – it is very unlikely that assessors can be trusted in this regard.

In 2011, the medical journal Applied Cardiopulmonary Pathophysiology published a description of how several instances of ODE were carried out:

Donors were admitted to the hospital a few hours before the planned euthanasia procedure. A central venous line was placed in a room adjacent to the operating room. Donors were heparinized [a drug to maintain organ viability] immediately before a cocktail of drugs was given by the treating physician who agreed to perform the euthanasia. The patient was announced dead on cardiorespiratory criteria by 3 independent physicians as required by Belgian legislation for every organ donor … The deceased was then rapidly transferred, installed on the operating table, and intubated [in preparation for organ removal].

“Ponder the enormity of what was done here,” ethicist Wesley J. Smith wrote at the time. “Four people – who were not otherwise dying – were killed and then swiftly wheeled into a surgery suite to have their organs removed. Three of the donors were struggling with neuromuscular disabilities – people who often face social isolation and discrimination – and one was mentally ill. In a particularly bitter irony, the latter patient was a chronic self-harmer, the ‘treatment’ for which was a willing professional team ready to administer the ultimate harm.”

Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/canada-is-turning-its-assisted-suicide-regime-into-an-organ-donation-supply-chain/

Staggering Hypocrisy: MI6 admits sustained collaboration with Syrian 'Al-Qaeda'

 

Craig Murray
September 22nd 2025

The outgoing Head of MI6 Richard Moore has formally admitted in a public speech in Istanbul that MI6 has been cooperating with HTS in Syria – a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act – for years.

 

The government is arresting little old ladies for holding signs supporting one proscribed organisation, Palestine Action, while it admits it has been actively supporting another proscribed organisation. HTS was proscribed as a division of Al Qaida, as shown on the government website:

 

As I learnt while in Lebanon, the British support for HTS included intelligence support, training and weapons, based at secret UK bases in the Bekaa valley, including inside the Rayak airbase. It also included support via an NGO named Inter-Mediate, run by current British National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, who is Tony Blair’s old Downing Street Chief of Staff.

In the UK neither the government nor the security services stand above the law. The fact that neither Moore nor Powell nor any of those on the ground directly involved in actively and substantively supporting HTS – a proscribed organisation – has been arrested, while people are arrested for holding a placard supporting Palestine Action because it is a proscribed organisation, is the very definition of arbitrary and oppressive government.

The impartial rule of law in the UK has collapsed completely. All of this was material support to a proscribed organisation.

Meanwhile we have Starmer’s hollow gesture of recognising Palestine. This is designed to placate those in the Labour Party who are horrified by the Genocide in Gaza.  As it is accompanied by zero intention to limit or even acknowledge the Genocide, it is the very definition of a useless gesture.

Palestine was already recognised by three quarters of the nations of the world.  What Starmer believes he has furthered is a Bantustan state, hopelessly divided between an obliterated Gaza, small and isolated remnants of the West Bank and what remains of East Jerusalem. That these fissiparous remnants could ever constitute a viable state is plainly impossible – which is the idea.

Furthermore Starmer attacks the very definition of a state by insisting that the Palestinians can be told who they must have to rule them. The notion that the traitor Abbas and his Palestinian Authority would ever be chosen by the Palestinian people is utter nonsense. Furthermore Macron and Starmer have both specified that a Palestinian state must be disarmed, have no armed forces, and lie prey to the genocidal state next door at all times. The Saudi/French plan even states that Israel should have vetting control over the appointment of individual Palestinian police officers!

The only virtue to this act of recognition is that it will make it more difficult politically for the UK not to react with the first genuine sanctions against Israel once Israel formally annexes Gaza or the West Bank. It is thus a very minor political improvement. With the British government already having repudiated the UN Commission of Inquiry’s finding of Genocide, the attack on Gaza in full flow, and the Global Sumud Flotilla very likely to be met by Israel with deadly force, Starmer is, as usual, completely out of touch with public opinion if he believes he has reduced political pressure over his complicity in Genocide.

The "International Community" embraces Al Qaeda at UN: 

Source:  https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/09/staggering-hypocrisy/

Business Insider: «El 99 por ciento de los trabajadores podrían estar desempleados en 2030, incluidos programadores e ingenieros de punta»

Thibault Spirlet
9 de septiembre de 2025
KontraInfo

La inteligencia artificial (IA) podría desencadenar pronto una crisis de desempleo sin precedentes, según Roman Yampolskiy , uno de los primeros científicos en advertir sobre los riesgos de la IA. Yampolskiy, profesor de informática de la Universidad de Louisville y creador del término «seguridad de la IA», afirmó que la inteligencia artificial general (sistemas con la misma capacidad que los humanos en todos los ámbitos) probablemente se convertirá en una realidad para 2027.

Predice que el mercado laboral podría colapsar tan solo tres años después. «En cinco años, veremos una tasa de desempleo sin precedentes», declaró Yampolskiy en un episodio del podcast « Diario de un CEO ».

Argumentó que las herramientas de IA y los robots humanoides podrían hacer que contratar humanos fuera poco rentable en casi todas las industrias. «¡Ojalá pudiera conseguir una suscripción de 20 dólares o un modelo gratuito que hiciera el trabajo de un empleado! En primer lugar, todo lo que funciona en una computadora estará automatizado. Y luego, creo que los robots humanoides podrían quedarse atrás otros cinco años. Pero entonces, en cinco años, todo el trabajo físico podría estar automatizado».

Si las predicciones de Yampolskiy se hacen realidad, los analistas, contadores, profesores e incluso los podcasters podrían ser los primeros en ser reemplazados por software, mientras que los fontaneros y conductores podrían ser reemplazados por máquinas en la década de 2030.

Incluso mencionó profesiones como la programación y la ingeniería de avisos, que antes se consideraban a prueba de futuro, y que, según él, no se salvarán. «La IA es mucho mejor diseñando avisos para otras IA que cualquier humano», dijo. «Así que eso ya no existe».

También argumentó que la reconversión profesional está obsoleta. «Todos los trabajos se automatizarán, y entonces no habrá un plan B. No es posible reconvertirse», afirmó. El profesor añadió que las consecuencias van más allá de la economía.

Los gobiernos no están preparados para el desempleo masivo, y muchas personas están atadas a su trabajo, dijo. «Entonces todos perderemos nuestros empleos. ¿Qué haremos financieramente? ¿Quién nos pagará?», preguntó.

El mayor desafío, argumentó, es el de la significatividad: sin trabajo, muchas personas tendrían dificultades para llenar sus vidas diarias o sentirse útiles, advirtió.

«Para muchas personas, su trabajo es lo que da sentido a sus vidas. Así que estarían un poco perdidos», dijo Yampolskiy. «Los gobiernos no han preparado programas para afrontar una tasa de desempleo del 99 %».

El pronóstico de Yampolskiy va mucho más allá de lo que la mayoría de los líderes tecnológicos e investigadores de IA han predicho. Adam Dorr, del think tank RethinkX, advirtió sobre la pérdida masiva de empleos para 2045, de la que solo se salvarán áreas específicas como el «trabajo sexual» y la política.

Geoffrey Hinton , a menudo llamado el «Padrino de la IA», cree que el «trabajo intelectual mundano», como el trabajo en un centro de llamadas y las tareas de asistente legal, serán reemplazados, pero considera que las tareas manuales, como la plomería, son relativamente seguras.

Dario Amodei, CEO de Anthropic, ha declarado que la mitad de todos los empleos de cuello blanco de nivel inicial podrían desaparecer en cinco años, mientras que Sam Altman, de OpenAI, ha argumentado que la sociedad se adaptará y creará nuevos roles, incluso si pueden parecer «cada vez más tontos».

Jensen Huang , CEO de Nvidia , y Yann LeCun de Meta adoptan una postura aún más optimista y afirman que la IA transformará los empleos en lugar de reemplazarlos por completo.

*Originalmente publicado en Business Insider

Fuente: https://noticiasholisticas.com.ar/business-insider-el-99-por-ciento-de-los-trabajadores-podrian-estar-desempleados-en-2030-incluidos-programadores-e-ingenieros-de-punta/

32% of Mass Shooters Are Veterans. 0% of Media Outlets Will Say So.

David Swanson
September 30th, 2025

Two U.S. military veterans allegedly shot and killed at least three people each this past weekend, Thomas Jacob Sanford in Michigan, and Nigel Max Edge in North Carolina. So, it is a safe bet that they will both be added (with, almost certainly, no mention of their status as veterans) to the database maintained by Mother Jones that I have for years been using as a starting point to track statistics on mass shootings.

It’s been almost two years since I posted an update. In that time, Mother Jones has added seven mass shootings to its database. These two new ones will make nine. Of those other seven, one of the shooters — bizarrely, and I hope nobody gets reprimanded — is actually identified as a veteran by Mother Jones. Another of the seven was 14 years old and yet another was 67; they don’t factor into calculations about men under 60. Another was a veteran of an institution that uses the word “veteran” to associate itself with the military: football. He blamed his football injuries for his crime. He counts statistically as NOT a military veteran. In a quick internet search, I’ve been unable to identify any of the others as military veterans either, so will count them as non-veterans. But it’s worth noting that often in the past I’ve managed to find out about veteran status only after lengthy searching.

So, the data has now changed from 40 of 127 mass shooters (who are men under 60) being military veterans when last I wrote about this to now 43 of 134 mass shooters being military veterans. That’s 32%, up from 31%. That figure has been between 31% and 36% for as long as I’ve been doing these calculations

In the United States, only a very small percentage of men under 60 are military veterans.

In the United States, at least 32% of male mass shooters under 60 (which is almost all mass shooters) are military veterans.

As I reported in June 2023, a University of Maryland report touching on this topic was virtually ignored by media outlets.

But here are the facts:

Looking at males, aged 18-59, veterans are well over twice, maybe over three times as likely to be mass shooters compared with the group as a whole. And they shoot somewhat more fatally.

The numbers have changed slightly since I began writing about this:

• October 28, 2023: ABC News Report Claims No Past Mass Shooters Have Been Veterans; At Least 31% Have Been
• October 26, 2023: At Least 31% of Mass Shooters Were Trained to Shoot by the U.S. Military
• May 10, 2023: At Least 32% of U.S. Mass Shooters Were Trained to Shoot by the U.S. Military
• March 23, 2021: At Least 36% of Mass Shooters Have Been Trained By the U.S. Military
• June 4, 2019: Updated Data: Mass Shooters Still Disproportionately Veterans
  (At this point it was 35%)
• November 4, 2018: Mass Shooters’ Histories in the U.S. Military Most Amazing Coincidence
  (At this point it was 35%)
• November 14, 2017: U.S. Mass Shooters Are Disproportionately Veterans
  (At this point it was 34%)

The training and conditioning and arming of shooters is of far less interest to media outlets than “motivation,” but what we should actually know about shooters’ ideology is not unrelated to the disproportionate presence of military veterans in the list of mass shooters. These are people who have been armed and trained and conditioned at public expense and then generally thanked for the supposed service of what they’ve done when it has not yet included shooting any of the wrong people.

All sorts of correlations are carefully examined when it comes to mass shooters. But the fact that the largest institution in the United States has trained many of them to shoot is scrupulously avoided.

Many of those mass shooters who are not military veterans tend to dress and speak as if they were. Some of them are veterans of police forces with military-sounding titles, or have been prison guards or security guards. Counting those who’ve been in either the U.S. military or a police force or a prison or worked as an armed guard of any kind would give us an even larger percentage of mass shooters to consider. The factor of having been trained and employed to shoot is larger than just the military veterans, yet carefully ignored by every single U.S. corporate media outlet (that sounds like an exaggeration, but can you prove it wrong?).

Some of the non-military mass-shooters have worked as civilians for the military. Some have tried to join the military and been rejected. The whole phenomenon of mass-shootings has skyrocketed during the post-2001 endless wars. The militarism of mass-shootings may be too big to see, but the avoidance of the topic is stunning.

Needless to say, out of a country of over 330 million people a database of 134 mass shooters is a very, very small group. Needless to say, statistically, virtually all veterans are not mass shooters. But that can hardly be the reason for not a single news article ever mentioning that mass shooters are very disproportinately likely to be veterans. After all, statistically, virtually all males, mentally ill people, domestic abusers, Nazi-sympathizers, loners, and gun-purchasers are also not mass-shooters. Yet articles on those topics proliferate like NRA campaign bribes.

There seem to me to be two key reasons that a sane communications system would not censor this topic. First, our public dollars and elected officials are training and conditioning huge numbers of people to kill, sending them abroad to kill, thanking them for the “service,” praising and rewarding them for killing, and then some of them are killing where it is not acceptable. This is not a chance correlation, but a factor with a clear connection.

Second, by devoting so much of our government to organized killing, and even allowing the military to train in schools, and to develop video games and Hollywood movies, we’ve created a culture in which people imagine that militarism is praiseworthy, that violence solves problems, and that revenge is one of the highest values. Virtually every mass shooter has used military weaponry. Most of those whose dress we are aware of dressed as if in the military. Those who’ve left behind writings that have been made public have tended to write as if they were taking part in a war. So, while it might surprise many people to find out how many mass shooters are veterans of the military, it might be harder to find mass shooters (actual veterans or not) who did not themselves think they were soldiers.

There seems to me to be one most likely reason that it’s difficult to find out which shooters have been in the military (meaning that some additional shooters probably have been, about whom I’ve been unable to learn that fact). We’ve developed a culture dedicated to praising and glorifying participation in war. It need not even be a conscious decision, but a journalist convinced that militarism is laudable would assume it was irrelevant to a report on a mass shooter and, in addition, assume that it was distasteful to mention that the man was a veteran. That sort of widespread self-censorship is the only possible explanation for the complete whiting out of this story.

The phenomenon of shutting down this story does not exactly require a “motive,” and I would like to recommend to reporters on mass shootings that they, too, devote a bit less energy to the often meaningless hunt for “a motive,” and a tad more to considering whether the fact that a shooter lived and breathed in an institution dedicated to mass shooting might be relevant.

• First published at David Swanson.org. 

 

Source: https://dissidentvoice.org/2025/09/32-of-mass-shooters-are-veterans-0-of-media-outlets-will-say-so/

The Sahel countries refuse to solve Europe's gas supply problems

Mpr21
September 27 2025

 One of the European plans to permanently eliminate Russian gas was the construction of the Trans-Saharan gas pipeline, which was to cross the territory of three countries (Algeria, Nigeria, and Niger) northward to reach the Mediterranean.

The project, designed in 2009 and then forgotten until the outbreak of the Ukrainian War, had an estimated cost of €13 billion, with a capacity to transport up to 30 billion cubic meters of gas annually, equivalent to the total consumption of Spain.

The pipeline was 80 percent complete. Of the more than 4,000 kilometers, less than 800 remained to be laid. However, Niger has opposed the European Union's plans, counting on the support of the other two members of the Sahel Alliance (Mali and Burkina Faso).

The confrontation between the Sahel countries and European countries, and more specifically, France, is increasing due to their support for jihadists, who are the executors of the destabilization of the region.

The same can be said of Algeria, whose government maintains a murky stance, especially toward Mali.

In addition to gas, Niger, the poorest country in the world, has not only expelled the French (both military and industrial) from its territory, but has also deprived them of the exploitation and supply of uranium.

Niger enjoys the support of Mali and Burkina Faso, which promised military support in the event of an intervention by the countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The three countries simultaneously abandoned this alliance, as it is aimed at promoting the interests of Western powers.

The European Union has lost major investments and loans from the world's largest banks. Insurance companies are also trembling. This is a double failure for Brussels' energy policy. First, it failed with its support for renewable energy, and then it failed again with African gas.

It is also a major setback for Algeria, which hoped to consolidate its position as a gas export hub to Europe. It has already lost its gas pipeline to Spain via Morocco and is now suffering its second setback.

Needless to say, African countries export huge quantities of gas to Europe, even though most of their homes lack electricity. 

 

Source: https://mpr21.info/los-paises-del-sahel-se-niegan-a-solucionar-los-problemas-de-suministro-de-gas-a-europa/