• Honoring a Stalwart: Lal Krishna Advani Receives Bharat Ratna


    In a momentous announcement, the Indian government has decided to confer the prestigious Bharat Ratna upon Senior BJP Leader Lal Krishna Advani. This honor comes amidst the nation's jubilation following the consecration of the Ram temple in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his delight in sharing the news, acknowledging Advani's monumental contribution to India's development. As the man behind the Ram Janambhoomi movement, Advani's role has been pivotal in shaping India's political landscape.

    Advani's journey, spanning nearly a century, embodies dedication and selfless service to the nation. Born in Karachi in 1927, his early years were marked by the turbulence of India's partition. Despite the upheaval, Advani's commitment to a more secular India remained steadfast. His association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) from a young age instilled in him the motto 'idam-na-mama' - 'This life is not mine, my life is for my nation'.

    As BJP Chief in 1989, Advani spearheaded the party's Mandir pledge, setting the stage for his iconic 'Rath Yatra' in 1990. This journey from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh galvanized support for the construction of the Ram temple and reshaped Indian politics. The BJP's electoral fortunes surged under Advani's leadership, culminating in significant gains in the 1996 elections. This marked a watershed moment in Indian democracy, with the BJP emerging as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha.

    Advani's parliamentary career, spanning nearly three decades, saw him hold key positions in the government, including Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister during Atal Bihari Vajpayee's tenure. His leadership played a pivotal role in advancing the party's ideology and agenda.

    Acknowledging the honor bestowed upon him, Advani emphasized that the Bharat Ratna is not just a personal accolade but a recognition of the ideals and principles he has espoused throughout his life. His unwavering commitment to the nation has been the guiding force behind his actions, from grassroots activism to serving at the highest echelons of government.

    Prime Minister Modi hailed Advani's contribution as exemplary, noting his tireless efforts in championing the ethos of 'nation first'. In bestowing the Bharat Ratna upon Advani, the government not only honors his individual achievements but also pays tribute to the millions of BJP workers and leaders who have tirelessly worked towards advancing the party's ideologies.

    Advani's journey is a testament to the resilience and fortitude of India's political landscape. From the tumultuous days of partition to the present, he has remained steadfast in his commitment to serving the nation. His leadership has inspired generations of Indians and left an indelible mark on the country's political history.

    In conclusion, Lal Krishna Advani's elevation to the ranks of Bharat Ratna is a fitting tribute to his unparalleled contribution to Indian politics. His life story serves as a beacon of hope and inspiration, reminding us of the power of dedication, integrity, and unwavering commitment to the nation. As India celebrates this momentous occasion, it honors not just one man but the enduring spirit of service and sacrifice that defines the nation.

    Honoring a Stalwart: Lal Krishna Advani Receives Bharat Ratna In a momentous announcement, the Indian government has decided to confer the prestigious Bharat Ratna upon Senior BJP Leader Lal Krishna Advani. This honor comes amidst the nation's jubilation following the consecration of the Ram temple in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his delight in sharing the news, acknowledging Advani's monumental contribution to India's development. As the man behind the Ram Janambhoomi movement, Advani's role has been pivotal in shaping India's political landscape. Advani's journey, spanning nearly a century, embodies dedication and selfless service to the nation. Born in Karachi in 1927, his early years were marked by the turbulence of India's partition. Despite the upheaval, Advani's commitment to a more secular India remained steadfast. His association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) from a young age instilled in him the motto 'idam-na-mama' - 'This life is not mine, my life is for my nation'. As BJP Chief in 1989, Advani spearheaded the party's Mandir pledge, setting the stage for his iconic 'Rath Yatra' in 1990. This journey from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh galvanized support for the construction of the Ram temple and reshaped Indian politics. The BJP's electoral fortunes surged under Advani's leadership, culminating in significant gains in the 1996 elections. This marked a watershed moment in Indian democracy, with the BJP emerging as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha. Advani's parliamentary career, spanning nearly three decades, saw him hold key positions in the government, including Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister during Atal Bihari Vajpayee's tenure. His leadership played a pivotal role in advancing the party's ideology and agenda. Acknowledging the honor bestowed upon him, Advani emphasized that the Bharat Ratna is not just a personal accolade but a recognition of the ideals and principles he has espoused throughout his life. His unwavering commitment to the nation has been the guiding force behind his actions, from grassroots activism to serving at the highest echelons of government. Prime Minister Modi hailed Advani's contribution as exemplary, noting his tireless efforts in championing the ethos of 'nation first'. In bestowing the Bharat Ratna upon Advani, the government not only honors his individual achievements but also pays tribute to the millions of BJP workers and leaders who have tirelessly worked towards advancing the party's ideologies. Advani's journey is a testament to the resilience and fortitude of India's political landscape. From the tumultuous days of partition to the present, he has remained steadfast in his commitment to serving the nation. His leadership has inspired generations of Indians and left an indelible mark on the country's political history. In conclusion, Lal Krishna Advani's elevation to the ranks of Bharat Ratna is a fitting tribute to his unparalleled contribution to Indian politics. His life story serves as a beacon of hope and inspiration, reminding us of the power of dedication, integrity, and unwavering commitment to the nation. As India celebrates this momentous occasion, it honors not just one man but the enduring spirit of service and sacrifice that defines the nation.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6419 Views
  • “I Have Lost Everything”: In Federal Court, Palestinians Accuse Biden of Complicity in Genocide
    Bolstered by a momentous ICJ ruling, Palestinians, including Americans, gave three hours of testimony against the Biden administration.


    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

    To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

    Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

    ***

    In a momentous day for the quest to keep Israel and its allies accountable for its brutal war on Gaza, members of leading Palestinian human rights groups, residents of Gaza, and Palestinian Americans argued in a U.S. District Court on Friday that the Biden administration should halt its financial and military support for Israel and uphold its obligations to prevent genocide.

    The arguments came in a lawsuitOpens in a new tab that the Center for Constitutional Rights, or CCR, filed in November against President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, charging them with complicity and failure to prevent the “unfolding genocide” in the occupied strip. Testifying either in person at the Oakland, California, courthouse or remotely from Palestine, the plaintiffs spoke for nearly three hours about the deliberate devastation wrought by Israel in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks.

    The hearing commenced hours after the International Court of Justice in The Hague found that it’s plausible that Israel has committed acts of genocide in Gaza, in a case brought by South Africa. While the United Nations court fell short of ordering an immediate ceasefire, a panel of judges delivered a historic set of rulings and denied Israel’s request to dismiss the case. A final resolution in that case is expected to take years.

    Lawyers involved with the lawsuit playing out in federal court said that the ICJ ruling bolsters their case. Their lawsuit argues that Biden, Blinken, and Austin are liable under U.S. lawOpens in a new tab for failing to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide in Gaza. In Oakland, dozens of people lined up outside the courthouse hours before the hearing on Friday, according to organizers on the ground, while the Zoom stream reached its capacity of 1,000 people tuning in.

    The Biden administration has maintained that genocide allegations against Israel are “meritless” and “unhelpful” while on Friday, U.S. government attorneys argued the court has no standing to decide on what they say is a matter of foreign policy. Plaintiffs meanwhile, including several Palestinian Americans, spoke powerfully about the need for the U.S. government to take immediate action to save lives.

    In the last three months, Israel’s has killed at least 25,000 Palestinians — one in every 100 residentsOpens in a new tab of Gaza.

    Laila el-Haddad, a Palestinian American writer and one of the plaintiffs in the case, described her neighborhood being reduced to “a large pile of sand” and the killing of dozens of her relatives, including some who were buried in mass graves.

    “My family is being killed on my dime,” she told the court. “President Biden could, with one phone call, put an end to this.”

    Questions of Law

    At the hearing, U.S. Judge Jeffrey S. White went to some length to state the impact of Israel’s war on Palestinian civilians and the U.S. government’s support for it but indicated the case might ultimately hinge on questions of jurisdiction.

    “The Palestinian people are living in fear and without food, medical care, clean water, or sufficient humanitarian aid. Defendants — the president of the United States and his secretaries of state and defense — have provided substantial military, financial, and diplomatic support to Israel,” he said.

    “However, the primary concern for this court is the limitation of its own jurisdictional reach.”

    He later described the case as one of the “the most difficult” of his career. “You have been seen, you have been heard by this court,” he told the plaintiffs. “I’m going to take it extremely seriously.”

    CCR and Justice Department attorneys deliberated for more than an hour about the court’s standing to hear the case. Attorneys for the plaintiffs referenced a different legal case accusing Russia of genocide in Ukraine, which the U.S. government has supported, to point to the Biden administration’s awareness of its responsibility to take steps to prevent genocide.

    Katherine Gallagher, a senior attorney at CCR, stressed that the case is not a “wholesale challenge to U.S. military support to Israel.”

    “This case does not present the court with a political question,” she added. “These are not questions of policy. These are questions of law.”

    Justice Department attorney Jean Lin, for her part, referenced a legal concept known as the “political question doctrine” to argue the court has no authority over foreign policy matters. “It’s a long-standing doctrine that the court has no jurisdiction to enjoin the president in his exercise of official duties,” she said.

    “This court is not the proper forum,” she said in her closing remarks.

    “Judges and courts have roles to play in enforcing and making real this duty that all of us in this world have to prevent a genocide,” CCR senior attorney Pamela Spees said in her closing remarks. “And the government’s only response is to say to this court that it can’t even engage with the question.”

    “Everything Has Been Destroyed”

    The legal argument was followed by nearly three hours of testimony by the plaintiffs, which include the human rights groups Defense for Children International – Palestine and Al-Haq, as well as Gaza residents Ahmed Abu Artema, the founder of the 2018 Great March of Return; Omar Al-Najjar, a 24-year-old doctor; and Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokbeh, all of whom have lost many relatives since the war started. The plaintiffs also include Palestinian Americans whose families in Gaza have been subjected to a relentless bombing campaign by Israel.

    Al-Najjar called into the hearing from a hospital hallway in Rafah, on the border with Egypt. Wearing scrubs, he described a medical infrastructure that is overwhelmed and on the brink of collapse, heavy shelling and gun fighting near medical facilities, and medical workers coming under attack in areas the Israeli military had declared safe.

    “I have lost everything in this war … I have nothing but my grief,” he told the court. “This is what Israel and its supporters have done to us.”

    Ahmed Abofoul, a Palestinian lawyer and legal researcher at Al-Haq, testified from the courthouse that he lost 60 relatives on his father’s side of the family alone, 15 in a single airstrike, and that many of their bodies remain under the rubble. His cousin, he said, has been unable to retrieve the bodies of his five children, as the Israeli military fires at him whenever he tries to approach his destroyed home. Abofoul described not being able to get in touch with some family members after the war started and other relatives, including children, with no access to food and water.

    “People are struggling to have anything to survive on,” he said. “Those who survive the bombing most likely will not survive staying in this condition.”

    Abofoul also put the current onslaught in the context of the forced displacement of Palestinians since the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel. Pleading with his grandfather to evacuate to a different part of the territory after the war started, Abofoul’s relatives reassured the grandfather he would eventually return home. “That is exactly what they told me in 1948,” he responded, echoing fears by tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians that Israel is seeking to drive them out for good.

    Schools, universities, churches, and even Gaza’s archives were destroyed in the ongoing war, Abofoul added. “Everything has been destroyed,” he said, “The Gaza that we know no longer exists.”

    El-Haddad, the writer, told the court that she felt an obligation as an American to bring the lawsuit against the Biden administration and that hearing “our president not only actively support this, but cast doubt on the deaths of my family members and other college students in Gaza” had made her feel “dehumanized” and “completely invisible.”

    “I felt it was my duty as an American whose taxes and government have been directly responsible for the deaths of my family,” she added. “My government is complicit in this ongoing genocide against my family and the destruction of everything that I knew and I loved.”

    Barry Trachtenberg, a professor of Jewish history and author of two books about the Holocaust, testified as an expert witness in the case – over repeated objections from Justice Department attorneys. When he filed his declaration in the case in November, he said, some 11,000 Palestinians had been killed. Today, that number is far greater.

    “Everything that we feared and more is unfolding,” he said, noting that often, legal actions about genocide happen long after the fact. “What makes this situation so unique is that we’re watching the genocide unfold as we speak. And we’re in this incredibly unique position where we can actually intervene to stop it using the mechanisms of international law that are available to us.”

    A Historic Case

    CCR’s 89-page complaintOpens in a new tab lays out, in painstaking detail, statements of genocidal intent by Israeli officials, paired with affirmations by U.S. officials that they would back Israel’s war effort with every tool at their disposal.

    “The highest level of Israel’s senior political and military leadership made statements on October 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, laying out that they intended, in effect, to destroy Gaza,” Gallagher, a senior staff attorney at CCR and one of the lead attorneys on the case, said on Intercepted last week. “And as the statements of intent were being made, senior levels of the United States government — including President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin — were likewise making declarations about their intentions in the coming days, weeks, months … And that was to give unconditional and complete support to Israel.”

    Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined as the intention to destroy or partially destroy a group of people based on their ethnic, religious, racial, or national identity, either by direct killing or by the creation of conditions making life impossible. While Israel has for decades flouted international law standards and ignored rebukes, including by the ICJ, the Israeli government’s actions in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks were “qualitatively different,” Gallagher said.

    Two days after the attacks, Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant ordered mass war crimes when he announced “a complete siege of the Gaza Strip,” which is home to 2.2 million Palestinians, nearly half of them children. “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” he said then, a threat that Israel has since largely delivered on. “We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly.”

    As Israel unleashed an onslaught that quickly outpaced any recent conflictsOpens in a new tab for the number and pace of deaths, human rights groups warned the Biden administration that its unconditional support for Israel risked making it complicit in the crime of genocide.

    Josh Paul, a former senior State Department official who resigned over the Biden administration’s support for the war on Gaza and filed a declaration in support of the CCR case, said on Friday morning, “Since October 7th, we’ve seen a sharp increase in the transfer of arms to Israel both through the speeding up of previously authorized transfers and through the ramming through Congress of so-called emergency sales of thousands of rounds of tanks, ammunition, and alternative shells.”

    “The U.S. has likely transferred munitions totaling in the tens of thousands since October 7 to Israel,” he added, speaking at a briefing CCR hosted on Friday morning. “This also demonstrates, I think, the significant amount of leverage that we have if we wanted to push Israel to end or curtail its operations in Gaza.”

    “None of this could be done without the U.S. government,” echoed Ata Hindi, a lawyer who helped draft an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit on behalf of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, at the event preceding the hearing. “It’s for the United States to say whether or not, through its weapons in particular, whether or not this genocide continues.”

    The Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, he noted, was “drowned” in complaints by Palestinian Americans who accused the U.S. government of discriminating against them. “It’s unfortunate to see how little the U.S. government in particular has paid attention to these American citizens and their families,” said Hindi. “And we hope that the court will do something to change that.”

    The lawsuit has garnered significant international attention, with 77 legal and civil society groups from around the world backing it in a late December briefing to the court. They argued that the U.S. is violating its duties under international law to prevent and not be complicit in genocide, contributing to the erosion of “long and widely-held norms of international law,” like the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    The U.S. federal case is one of a number of legal efforts stemming from Israel’s war on Gaza. In another U.S. lawsuit, Palestinian Americans have accused the administrationOpens in a new tab of failing to protect U.S. citizens in Gaza and denying them equal protection, a constitutional right. That lawsuit argues that U.S. officials have not done as much to evacuate U.S. citizens trapped in Gaza as they did for Israeli Americans.

    In addition to South Africa’s genocide case against Israel before the ICJ, a group of South African lawyers have also indicated their intentOpens in a new tab, pending the court’s early rulings, to bring civil action against the U.S. and British governments over their support for Israel’s actions. Other countries have also filed separate complaintsOpens in a new tab against Israel before the ICJ.

    The cascading cases against Israel are a remarkable development for a country that has for decades acted with impunity, largely thanks to unwavering U.S. support. In a further sign of waning support, a poll Opens in a new tab released this week issued its own verdict: One-third of Americans — and nearly half of the country’s Democrats — believe Israel is committing genocide in Palestine.

    *

    Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    Featured image: I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream- by Mr. Fish

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/i-have-lost-everything-federal-court-palestinians-accuse-biden-complicity-genocide/5847895


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-have-lost-everything-in-federal-court.html
    “I Have Lost Everything”: In Federal Court, Palestinians Accuse Biden of Complicity in Genocide Bolstered by a momentous ICJ ruling, Palestinians, including Americans, gave three hours of testimony against the Biden administration. All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth” *** In a momentous day for the quest to keep Israel and its allies accountable for its brutal war on Gaza, members of leading Palestinian human rights groups, residents of Gaza, and Palestinian Americans argued in a U.S. District Court on Friday that the Biden administration should halt its financial and military support for Israel and uphold its obligations to prevent genocide. The arguments came in a lawsuitOpens in a new tab that the Center for Constitutional Rights, or CCR, filed in November against President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, charging them with complicity and failure to prevent the “unfolding genocide” in the occupied strip. Testifying either in person at the Oakland, California, courthouse or remotely from Palestine, the plaintiffs spoke for nearly three hours about the deliberate devastation wrought by Israel in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks. The hearing commenced hours after the International Court of Justice in The Hague found that it’s plausible that Israel has committed acts of genocide in Gaza, in a case brought by South Africa. While the United Nations court fell short of ordering an immediate ceasefire, a panel of judges delivered a historic set of rulings and denied Israel’s request to dismiss the case. A final resolution in that case is expected to take years. Lawyers involved with the lawsuit playing out in federal court said that the ICJ ruling bolsters their case. Their lawsuit argues that Biden, Blinken, and Austin are liable under U.S. lawOpens in a new tab for failing to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide in Gaza. In Oakland, dozens of people lined up outside the courthouse hours before the hearing on Friday, according to organizers on the ground, while the Zoom stream reached its capacity of 1,000 people tuning in. The Biden administration has maintained that genocide allegations against Israel are “meritless” and “unhelpful” while on Friday, U.S. government attorneys argued the court has no standing to decide on what they say is a matter of foreign policy. Plaintiffs meanwhile, including several Palestinian Americans, spoke powerfully about the need for the U.S. government to take immediate action to save lives. In the last three months, Israel’s has killed at least 25,000 Palestinians — one in every 100 residentsOpens in a new tab of Gaza. Laila el-Haddad, a Palestinian American writer and one of the plaintiffs in the case, described her neighborhood being reduced to “a large pile of sand” and the killing of dozens of her relatives, including some who were buried in mass graves. “My family is being killed on my dime,” she told the court. “President Biden could, with one phone call, put an end to this.” Questions of Law At the hearing, U.S. Judge Jeffrey S. White went to some length to state the impact of Israel’s war on Palestinian civilians and the U.S. government’s support for it but indicated the case might ultimately hinge on questions of jurisdiction. “The Palestinian people are living in fear and without food, medical care, clean water, or sufficient humanitarian aid. Defendants — the president of the United States and his secretaries of state and defense — have provided substantial military, financial, and diplomatic support to Israel,” he said. “However, the primary concern for this court is the limitation of its own jurisdictional reach.” He later described the case as one of the “the most difficult” of his career. “You have been seen, you have been heard by this court,” he told the plaintiffs. “I’m going to take it extremely seriously.” CCR and Justice Department attorneys deliberated for more than an hour about the court’s standing to hear the case. Attorneys for the plaintiffs referenced a different legal case accusing Russia of genocide in Ukraine, which the U.S. government has supported, to point to the Biden administration’s awareness of its responsibility to take steps to prevent genocide. Katherine Gallagher, a senior attorney at CCR, stressed that the case is not a “wholesale challenge to U.S. military support to Israel.” “This case does not present the court with a political question,” she added. “These are not questions of policy. These are questions of law.” Justice Department attorney Jean Lin, for her part, referenced a legal concept known as the “political question doctrine” to argue the court has no authority over foreign policy matters. “It’s a long-standing doctrine that the court has no jurisdiction to enjoin the president in his exercise of official duties,” she said. “This court is not the proper forum,” she said in her closing remarks. “Judges and courts have roles to play in enforcing and making real this duty that all of us in this world have to prevent a genocide,” CCR senior attorney Pamela Spees said in her closing remarks. “And the government’s only response is to say to this court that it can’t even engage with the question.” “Everything Has Been Destroyed” The legal argument was followed by nearly three hours of testimony by the plaintiffs, which include the human rights groups Defense for Children International – Palestine and Al-Haq, as well as Gaza residents Ahmed Abu Artema, the founder of the 2018 Great March of Return; Omar Al-Najjar, a 24-year-old doctor; and Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokbeh, all of whom have lost many relatives since the war started. The plaintiffs also include Palestinian Americans whose families in Gaza have been subjected to a relentless bombing campaign by Israel. Al-Najjar called into the hearing from a hospital hallway in Rafah, on the border with Egypt. Wearing scrubs, he described a medical infrastructure that is overwhelmed and on the brink of collapse, heavy shelling and gun fighting near medical facilities, and medical workers coming under attack in areas the Israeli military had declared safe. “I have lost everything in this war … I have nothing but my grief,” he told the court. “This is what Israel and its supporters have done to us.” Ahmed Abofoul, a Palestinian lawyer and legal researcher at Al-Haq, testified from the courthouse that he lost 60 relatives on his father’s side of the family alone, 15 in a single airstrike, and that many of their bodies remain under the rubble. His cousin, he said, has been unable to retrieve the bodies of his five children, as the Israeli military fires at him whenever he tries to approach his destroyed home. Abofoul described not being able to get in touch with some family members after the war started and other relatives, including children, with no access to food and water. “People are struggling to have anything to survive on,” he said. “Those who survive the bombing most likely will not survive staying in this condition.” Abofoul also put the current onslaught in the context of the forced displacement of Palestinians since the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel. Pleading with his grandfather to evacuate to a different part of the territory after the war started, Abofoul’s relatives reassured the grandfather he would eventually return home. “That is exactly what they told me in 1948,” he responded, echoing fears by tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians that Israel is seeking to drive them out for good. Schools, universities, churches, and even Gaza’s archives were destroyed in the ongoing war, Abofoul added. “Everything has been destroyed,” he said, “The Gaza that we know no longer exists.” El-Haddad, the writer, told the court that she felt an obligation as an American to bring the lawsuit against the Biden administration and that hearing “our president not only actively support this, but cast doubt on the deaths of my family members and other college students in Gaza” had made her feel “dehumanized” and “completely invisible.” “I felt it was my duty as an American whose taxes and government have been directly responsible for the deaths of my family,” she added. “My government is complicit in this ongoing genocide against my family and the destruction of everything that I knew and I loved.” Barry Trachtenberg, a professor of Jewish history and author of two books about the Holocaust, testified as an expert witness in the case – over repeated objections from Justice Department attorneys. When he filed his declaration in the case in November, he said, some 11,000 Palestinians had been killed. Today, that number is far greater. “Everything that we feared and more is unfolding,” he said, noting that often, legal actions about genocide happen long after the fact. “What makes this situation so unique is that we’re watching the genocide unfold as we speak. And we’re in this incredibly unique position where we can actually intervene to stop it using the mechanisms of international law that are available to us.” A Historic Case CCR’s 89-page complaintOpens in a new tab lays out, in painstaking detail, statements of genocidal intent by Israeli officials, paired with affirmations by U.S. officials that they would back Israel’s war effort with every tool at their disposal. “The highest level of Israel’s senior political and military leadership made statements on October 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, laying out that they intended, in effect, to destroy Gaza,” Gallagher, a senior staff attorney at CCR and one of the lead attorneys on the case, said on Intercepted last week. “And as the statements of intent were being made, senior levels of the United States government — including President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin — were likewise making declarations about their intentions in the coming days, weeks, months … And that was to give unconditional and complete support to Israel.” Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined as the intention to destroy or partially destroy a group of people based on their ethnic, religious, racial, or national identity, either by direct killing or by the creation of conditions making life impossible. While Israel has for decades flouted international law standards and ignored rebukes, including by the ICJ, the Israeli government’s actions in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks were “qualitatively different,” Gallagher said. Two days after the attacks, Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant ordered mass war crimes when he announced “a complete siege of the Gaza Strip,” which is home to 2.2 million Palestinians, nearly half of them children. “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” he said then, a threat that Israel has since largely delivered on. “We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly.” As Israel unleashed an onslaught that quickly outpaced any recent conflictsOpens in a new tab for the number and pace of deaths, human rights groups warned the Biden administration that its unconditional support for Israel risked making it complicit in the crime of genocide. Josh Paul, a former senior State Department official who resigned over the Biden administration’s support for the war on Gaza and filed a declaration in support of the CCR case, said on Friday morning, “Since October 7th, we’ve seen a sharp increase in the transfer of arms to Israel both through the speeding up of previously authorized transfers and through the ramming through Congress of so-called emergency sales of thousands of rounds of tanks, ammunition, and alternative shells.” “The U.S. has likely transferred munitions totaling in the tens of thousands since October 7 to Israel,” he added, speaking at a briefing CCR hosted on Friday morning. “This also demonstrates, I think, the significant amount of leverage that we have if we wanted to push Israel to end or curtail its operations in Gaza.” “None of this could be done without the U.S. government,” echoed Ata Hindi, a lawyer who helped draft an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit on behalf of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, at the event preceding the hearing. “It’s for the United States to say whether or not, through its weapons in particular, whether or not this genocide continues.” The Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, he noted, was “drowned” in complaints by Palestinian Americans who accused the U.S. government of discriminating against them. “It’s unfortunate to see how little the U.S. government in particular has paid attention to these American citizens and their families,” said Hindi. “And we hope that the court will do something to change that.” The lawsuit has garnered significant international attention, with 77 legal and civil society groups from around the world backing it in a late December briefing to the court. They argued that the U.S. is violating its duties under international law to prevent and not be complicit in genocide, contributing to the erosion of “long and widely-held norms of international law,” like the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. federal case is one of a number of legal efforts stemming from Israel’s war on Gaza. In another U.S. lawsuit, Palestinian Americans have accused the administrationOpens in a new tab of failing to protect U.S. citizens in Gaza and denying them equal protection, a constitutional right. That lawsuit argues that U.S. officials have not done as much to evacuate U.S. citizens trapped in Gaza as they did for Israeli Americans. In addition to South Africa’s genocide case against Israel before the ICJ, a group of South African lawyers have also indicated their intentOpens in a new tab, pending the court’s early rulings, to bring civil action against the U.S. and British governments over their support for Israel’s actions. Other countries have also filed separate complaintsOpens in a new tab against Israel before the ICJ. The cascading cases against Israel are a remarkable development for a country that has for decades acted with impunity, largely thanks to unwavering U.S. support. In a further sign of waning support, a poll Opens in a new tab released this week issued its own verdict: One-third of Americans — and nearly half of the country’s Democrats — believe Israel is committing genocide in Palestine. * Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. Featured image: I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream- by Mr. Fish https://www.globalresearch.ca/i-have-lost-everything-federal-court-palestinians-accuse-biden-complicity-genocide/5847895 https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-have-lost-everything-in-federal-court.html
    WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA
    “I Have Lost Everything”: In Federal Court, Palestinians Accuse Biden of Complicity in Genocide
    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel …
    Haha
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 12434 Views
  • Klaus Schwab wants to stop the retreat of globalisation and global governance with a new form of globalisation and global governance
    Rhoda WilsonDecember 19, 2023
    Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret’s book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ identified “the global governance free fall” as an existential challenge and if we do not collaborate “we are doomed.”

    “Nation states make global governance possible (one leads the other),” the book states. “The more nationalism and isolationism pervade the global polity, the greater the chance that global governance loses its relevance and becomes ineffective. Sadly, we are now at this critical juncture. Put bluntly, we live in a world in which nobody is really in charge.”

    The book defines “global governance” as the cooperation among transnational actors to respond to global problems and “globalisation” as a broad and vague notion that refers to the global exchange between nations of goods, services, people, capital and data.

    Although global governance is defined as a different concept, they are intertwined and the reasons for its “free fall” are the same as those for the retreat of globalisation.

    The solution to the retreat from globalisation, Schwab and Malleret said, was a new form of globalisation which required policies and effective global governance.

    Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

    Earlier this month, the US deep state’s Council on Foreign Relations publicised what they proposed to do about the rise in anti-globalisation through two interviews. One was with Peter Trubowitz, an associate fellow at the UK deep state’s Chatham House. The other was with Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.

    The general outcome of both was that the plan was to counteract anti-globalisation with a different form of globalisation. Trubowitz suggested that what needs to be done is “to re-imagine the relationship between foreign and domestic policies” while Georgieva suggested “concentrating on the areas where, without working together, we are doomed.” The examples she gave as “we are doomed” without globalisation were “climate change,” the “green transition” and debt.

    Read more: Council on Foreign Relations tries to combat rise of anti-globalisation

    Not only were Trubowitz and Georgieva parroting each other in the ideas and some of the language they used, but both were parroting Klaus Schwab and his book ‘The Great Reset’.

    Plans to tackle Anti-Globalisation with a New Globalisation

    After having to admit that it is inevitable that “some deglobalisation will happen,” the authors of ‘The Great Reset’ attempted to instil fear about anti-globalisation.

    “A hasty retreat from globalisation would entail trade and currency wars, damaging every country’s economy, provoking social havoc and triggering ethno- or clan nationalism,” the authors claimed. (See The Great Reset pg. 81)

    They proposed “managing” the retreat of globalisation with a new form of globalisation. Written using the verbiage of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, the new globalisation, according to Schwab and Malleret, will be “a much more inclusive and equitable form that … makes it sustainable, both socially and environmentally.”

    They said this requires policy solutions and some form of effective global governance.

    Their policy solutions were “addressed in the concluding chapter.” Taking these words literally, the concluding chapter is ‘Chapter 3: Individual Reset’.

    Chapter 3 suggests “redefining our humanness” and “changing priorities” as “solutions.” Under the heading ‘Redefining our Humanness’ is a section titled ‘Moral Choices’. It is a mystery why Schwab and Malleret think they have the authority to redefine our humanness and decide our moral choices. But in doing so they have made their ideology clear.

    Under “moral choices” the two discussed how to maximise the common good:

    [It is] a moral choice about whether to prioritise the qualities of individualism or those that favour the destiny of the community. It is an individual as well as a collective choice (that can be expressed through elections), but the example of the pandemic shows that highly individualistic societies are not very good at expressing solidarity.

    … If (but it is a big “if”) in the future we abandon the posture of self-interest that pollutes so many of our social interactions, we may be able to pay more attention to issues like inclusivity and fairness.

    The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, July 2020, pg. 154 and 157none
    As we have said before, the term “the common good” and its ugly sister “the greater good” represent collectivism which is found in socialist, communist and fascist movements. These movements use “the common good” as a tool for social control.

    The authors don’t explain why there is a need for an “individual reset,” they simply assumed it was a consequence of the covid “pandemic.” However, as they did throughout the book, they used collectivism as a tool of social control. “If, as human beings, we do not collaborate to confront our existential challenges (the environment and the global governance free fall, among others), we are doomed,” they claimed. (See The Great Reset pg. 152)

    World Economic Forum’s Solution for the Precariat Class

    The threat of anti-globalisation to Globalists’ plans had been recognised long before Schwab and Malleret published their book. The Great Reset noted two “momentous markers” that demonstrated the retreat of globalisation.

    “The rise of nationalism makes the retreat of globalisation inevitable in most of the world – an impulse particularly notable in the West. The vote for Brexit and the election of President Trump on a protectionist platform are two momentous markers of the Western backlash against globalisation,” the two authors wrote. (See The Great Reset pg. 78)

    The EU or Brexit referendum which decided that the UK should leave the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as president of the USA both took place in 2016.

    The following year Schwab delivered the main address at the World Government Summit. “Let me give a short rundown on where we stand in our world and what directions we should choose,” he pontificated.

    First on his list was deglobalisation. “First, we are at historical crossroads. So, there’s one post sign, which directs us into what we called – to continue the way of what some people call neoliberalism – global cooperation. But we face a backlash of millions of people, particularly in the West, who feel that globalisation is not working to their advantage,” he said.

    In a self-defeating way, later in his speech after he mentioned some arbitrary benefits of globalisation, Schwab said that “globalisation has created a new economic equation; skills, labour is less in demand, which means if we look at the pie of GDP, the rent for labour is low and those who have capital, those who have new ideas have benefited more from globalisation.”

    This sort of sums up one of the reasons why billions, not millions, feel that globalisation is not working to their advantage. Effectively, globalisation means the self-proclaimed global elite get richer and own more while the poor get poorer and own less. Even Schwab had to admit it: “For this reason, what we have seen in the elections in the United States, in the Brexit vote, this anger of people against globalisation and against the elites, which they feel have profited from globalisation.”

    The second signpost of where the world was, according to Schwab, was the “re-erecting of walls, into, probably, a world which is more anchored in yesterday, and a world which probably is characterised by fragility and hostility.”

    What exactly Schwab meant when he used the term “re-erecting walls” perhaps only he knows. But in a broad sense, this again could be taken as referring to countries turning inward and so turning against globalisation.

    “I would suggest that we do not choose either of those two ways,” he declared.

    He then gave a sales pitch for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution will change our lives, will change how we live, how we consume, and how we work,” Schwab said. He listed drones, self-driving cars, artificial intelligence and new methods to manipulate genes as no longer being just an idea but a reality.

    There is a new class of people, Schwab said, called the precariats; “people who feel in a precarious situation who do not know whether they have enough when they get older, whether they can pay the medical bills.”

    In a 2016 article, the World Economic Forum accused the precariat of being “the new global class fuelling the rise of populism.”

    According to the Oxford Review, modern-day “gig economy” workers, mainly freelancers without long-term or permanent contracts and people on short-term and zero-hours contacts are all considered to be precariats. We have to ask if the new class of people Schwab refers to has been created by the activities of the so-called global elites at organisations such as the World Economic Forum.

    To address the issues the precariat class are experiencing and those who don’t know what the purpose of their life is or how they fit into the world as “global citizens,” the self-styled global elite and saviour of the world Klaus Schwab proposed some paradigms.

    After rejecting neoliberalism and the dismantling of the current globalist system as options, Schwab suggested that “we should prepare ourselves for the Fourth Industrial Revolution” and integrate the multi-stakeholder concept on which his World Economic Forum was built.

    As another possibility, Schwab wanted the Summit’s attendees to embrace “the Eastern philosophy.” In the West, Schwab said, there is a concept which protects the individual against the collective. Conversely, in the East is a concept to protect the collective against the individual, he said.


    World Government Summit: WGS17 Session: The Challenges of Globalism, 9 March 2017
    The problem with the “Eastern philosophy” as Schwab calls it, is who decides what the collective needs protecting from and the protection measures that should be taken?

    Elected Governments are “Old Fashioned”

    A few months earlier, Schwab showcased Google founder Sergey Brin’s dystopian ideas at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting. Schwab introduced the topic of the predictive power of artificial intelligence (“AI”).

    “Digital technologies [now] have an analytical power … the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict … and afterwards say: ‘Why do we need elections because we know what the result will be’.”

    “You might further ask, why do we need to have elected leaders because you might as well have all the decisions made,” Brin said.

    Schwab pressed the issue of the world being run by unelected decision-makers: He called the process of governments “old fashioned.” He cited the example of governments hearing about a technological development and then involving regulatory agencies, parliamentary commissions and then finally regulations being debated in and passed by parliaments.

    “This [process] is absolutely not suited anymore to our new technologies,” he said. “We need much more agile interaction between business, regulators, civil society and so on”.

    Brin added that he thinks the relationship between governments and business is often antagonistic, which, he said, is unhealthy. “Not only should we try to tackle things more quickly but also in a real collaborative way,” Brin said.


    World Economic Forum: Davos 2017 – An Insight, An Idea with Sergey Brin, 19 January 2017
    This brings us back to the quote from The Great Reset noted at the beginning of this article. Collective choice, The Great Reset said, can be expressed through elections. “But the example of the pandemic shows that highly individualistic societies are not very good at expressing solidarity.”

    As with Schwab’s proposed use for predictive artificial intelligence, they are using jargon to accustom people to the idea of them removing our ability to make a choice and allowing self-appointed elites to make our choices – for the common good.

    Schwab’s version of “Eastern philosophy” is that business and like-minded profiteers, most likely through the World Economic Forum, will decide for “the collective.” In a nutshell, this is Schwab and his cronies’ plan for a new form of globalisation with its policy solutions and effective global governance.

    From the billions of us, no thanks, Schwab.


    The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help..

    Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

    .

    Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come…

    Your Government & Big Tech organisations
    such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal
    are trying to silence & shut down The Expose.

    So we need your help to ensure
    we can continue to bring you the
    facts the mainstream refuse to…

    We’re not funded by the Government
    to publish lies & propaganda on their
    behalf like the mainstream media.

    Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
    please support us in our efforts to bring you
    honest, reliable, investigative journalism
    today. It’s secure, quick and easy…

    Just choose your preferred method
    to show your support belowV support

    The FDA Can Now Withhold COVID Vaccine Safety Records. Again, We Ask – Are The FDA, With Their Ties to Bill Gates, Fit For Purpose?
    CJ Hopkins: The Gestapo raided homes in New Normal Germany as part of the Third European Day of Action Against Hate Crimes
    Switzerland: Health insurance data shows 73% increase in people receiving cancer treatment since 2020
    Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Is Building A Massive Doomsday Bunker.


    https://expose-news.com/2023/12/19/klaus-schwab-wants-to-stop-the-retreat/
    Klaus Schwab wants to stop the retreat of globalisation and global governance with a new form of globalisation and global governance Rhoda WilsonDecember 19, 2023 Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret’s book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ identified “the global governance free fall” as an existential challenge and if we do not collaborate “we are doomed.” “Nation states make global governance possible (one leads the other),” the book states. “The more nationalism and isolationism pervade the global polity, the greater the chance that global governance loses its relevance and becomes ineffective. Sadly, we are now at this critical juncture. Put bluntly, we live in a world in which nobody is really in charge.” The book defines “global governance” as the cooperation among transnational actors to respond to global problems and “globalisation” as a broad and vague notion that refers to the global exchange between nations of goods, services, people, capital and data. Although global governance is defined as a different concept, they are intertwined and the reasons for its “free fall” are the same as those for the retreat of globalisation. The solution to the retreat from globalisation, Schwab and Malleret said, was a new form of globalisation which required policies and effective global governance. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Earlier this month, the US deep state’s Council on Foreign Relations publicised what they proposed to do about the rise in anti-globalisation through two interviews. One was with Peter Trubowitz, an associate fellow at the UK deep state’s Chatham House. The other was with Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. The general outcome of both was that the plan was to counteract anti-globalisation with a different form of globalisation. Trubowitz suggested that what needs to be done is “to re-imagine the relationship between foreign and domestic policies” while Georgieva suggested “concentrating on the areas where, without working together, we are doomed.” The examples she gave as “we are doomed” without globalisation were “climate change,” the “green transition” and debt. Read more: Council on Foreign Relations tries to combat rise of anti-globalisation Not only were Trubowitz and Georgieva parroting each other in the ideas and some of the language they used, but both were parroting Klaus Schwab and his book ‘The Great Reset’. Plans to tackle Anti-Globalisation with a New Globalisation After having to admit that it is inevitable that “some deglobalisation will happen,” the authors of ‘The Great Reset’ attempted to instil fear about anti-globalisation. “A hasty retreat from globalisation would entail trade and currency wars, damaging every country’s economy, provoking social havoc and triggering ethno- or clan nationalism,” the authors claimed. (See The Great Reset pg. 81) They proposed “managing” the retreat of globalisation with a new form of globalisation. Written using the verbiage of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, the new globalisation, according to Schwab and Malleret, will be “a much more inclusive and equitable form that … makes it sustainable, both socially and environmentally.” They said this requires policy solutions and some form of effective global governance. Their policy solutions were “addressed in the concluding chapter.” Taking these words literally, the concluding chapter is ‘Chapter 3: Individual Reset’. Chapter 3 suggests “redefining our humanness” and “changing priorities” as “solutions.” Under the heading ‘Redefining our Humanness’ is a section titled ‘Moral Choices’. It is a mystery why Schwab and Malleret think they have the authority to redefine our humanness and decide our moral choices. But in doing so they have made their ideology clear. Under “moral choices” the two discussed how to maximise the common good: [It is] a moral choice about whether to prioritise the qualities of individualism or those that favour the destiny of the community. It is an individual as well as a collective choice (that can be expressed through elections), but the example of the pandemic shows that highly individualistic societies are not very good at expressing solidarity. … If (but it is a big “if”) in the future we abandon the posture of self-interest that pollutes so many of our social interactions, we may be able to pay more attention to issues like inclusivity and fairness. The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, July 2020, pg. 154 and 157none As we have said before, the term “the common good” and its ugly sister “the greater good” represent collectivism which is found in socialist, communist and fascist movements. These movements use “the common good” as a tool for social control. The authors don’t explain why there is a need for an “individual reset,” they simply assumed it was a consequence of the covid “pandemic.” However, as they did throughout the book, they used collectivism as a tool of social control. “If, as human beings, we do not collaborate to confront our existential challenges (the environment and the global governance free fall, among others), we are doomed,” they claimed. (See The Great Reset pg. 152) World Economic Forum’s Solution for the Precariat Class The threat of anti-globalisation to Globalists’ plans had been recognised long before Schwab and Malleret published their book. The Great Reset noted two “momentous markers” that demonstrated the retreat of globalisation. “The rise of nationalism makes the retreat of globalisation inevitable in most of the world – an impulse particularly notable in the West. The vote for Brexit and the election of President Trump on a protectionist platform are two momentous markers of the Western backlash against globalisation,” the two authors wrote. (See The Great Reset pg. 78) The EU or Brexit referendum which decided that the UK should leave the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as president of the USA both took place in 2016. The following year Schwab delivered the main address at the World Government Summit. “Let me give a short rundown on where we stand in our world and what directions we should choose,” he pontificated. First on his list was deglobalisation. “First, we are at historical crossroads. So, there’s one post sign, which directs us into what we called – to continue the way of what some people call neoliberalism – global cooperation. But we face a backlash of millions of people, particularly in the West, who feel that globalisation is not working to their advantage,” he said. In a self-defeating way, later in his speech after he mentioned some arbitrary benefits of globalisation, Schwab said that “globalisation has created a new economic equation; skills, labour is less in demand, which means if we look at the pie of GDP, the rent for labour is low and those who have capital, those who have new ideas have benefited more from globalisation.” This sort of sums up one of the reasons why billions, not millions, feel that globalisation is not working to their advantage. Effectively, globalisation means the self-proclaimed global elite get richer and own more while the poor get poorer and own less. Even Schwab had to admit it: “For this reason, what we have seen in the elections in the United States, in the Brexit vote, this anger of people against globalisation and against the elites, which they feel have profited from globalisation.” The second signpost of where the world was, according to Schwab, was the “re-erecting of walls, into, probably, a world which is more anchored in yesterday, and a world which probably is characterised by fragility and hostility.” What exactly Schwab meant when he used the term “re-erecting walls” perhaps only he knows. But in a broad sense, this again could be taken as referring to countries turning inward and so turning against globalisation. “I would suggest that we do not choose either of those two ways,” he declared. He then gave a sales pitch for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution will change our lives, will change how we live, how we consume, and how we work,” Schwab said. He listed drones, self-driving cars, artificial intelligence and new methods to manipulate genes as no longer being just an idea but a reality. There is a new class of people, Schwab said, called the precariats; “people who feel in a precarious situation who do not know whether they have enough when they get older, whether they can pay the medical bills.” In a 2016 article, the World Economic Forum accused the precariat of being “the new global class fuelling the rise of populism.” According to the Oxford Review, modern-day “gig economy” workers, mainly freelancers without long-term or permanent contracts and people on short-term and zero-hours contacts are all considered to be precariats. We have to ask if the new class of people Schwab refers to has been created by the activities of the so-called global elites at organisations such as the World Economic Forum. To address the issues the precariat class are experiencing and those who don’t know what the purpose of their life is or how they fit into the world as “global citizens,” the self-styled global elite and saviour of the world Klaus Schwab proposed some paradigms. After rejecting neoliberalism and the dismantling of the current globalist system as options, Schwab suggested that “we should prepare ourselves for the Fourth Industrial Revolution” and integrate the multi-stakeholder concept on which his World Economic Forum was built. As another possibility, Schwab wanted the Summit’s attendees to embrace “the Eastern philosophy.” In the West, Schwab said, there is a concept which protects the individual against the collective. Conversely, in the East is a concept to protect the collective against the individual, he said. World Government Summit: WGS17 Session: The Challenges of Globalism, 9 March 2017 The problem with the “Eastern philosophy” as Schwab calls it, is who decides what the collective needs protecting from and the protection measures that should be taken? Elected Governments are “Old Fashioned” A few months earlier, Schwab showcased Google founder Sergey Brin’s dystopian ideas at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting. Schwab introduced the topic of the predictive power of artificial intelligence (“AI”). “Digital technologies [now] have an analytical power … the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict … and afterwards say: ‘Why do we need elections because we know what the result will be’.” “You might further ask, why do we need to have elected leaders because you might as well have all the decisions made,” Brin said. Schwab pressed the issue of the world being run by unelected decision-makers: He called the process of governments “old fashioned.” He cited the example of governments hearing about a technological development and then involving regulatory agencies, parliamentary commissions and then finally regulations being debated in and passed by parliaments. “This [process] is absolutely not suited anymore to our new technologies,” he said. “We need much more agile interaction between business, regulators, civil society and so on”. Brin added that he thinks the relationship between governments and business is often antagonistic, which, he said, is unhealthy. “Not only should we try to tackle things more quickly but also in a real collaborative way,” Brin said. World Economic Forum: Davos 2017 – An Insight, An Idea with Sergey Brin, 19 January 2017 This brings us back to the quote from The Great Reset noted at the beginning of this article. Collective choice, The Great Reset said, can be expressed through elections. “But the example of the pandemic shows that highly individualistic societies are not very good at expressing solidarity.” As with Schwab’s proposed use for predictive artificial intelligence, they are using jargon to accustom people to the idea of them removing our ability to make a choice and allowing self-appointed elites to make our choices – for the common good. Schwab’s version of “Eastern philosophy” is that business and like-minded profiteers, most likely through the World Economic Forum, will decide for “the collective.” In a nutshell, this is Schwab and his cronies’ plan for a new form of globalisation with its policy solutions and effective global governance. From the billions of us, no thanks, Schwab. The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help.. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… . Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come… Your Government & Big Tech organisations such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal are trying to silence & shut down The Expose. So we need your help to ensure we can continue to bring you the facts the mainstream refuse to… We’re not funded by the Government to publish lies & propaganda on their behalf like the mainstream media. Instead, we rely solely on our support. So please support us in our efforts to bring you honest, reliable, investigative journalism today. It’s secure, quick and easy… Just choose your preferred method to show your support belowV support The FDA Can Now Withhold COVID Vaccine Safety Records. Again, We Ask – Are The FDA, With Their Ties to Bill Gates, Fit For Purpose? CJ Hopkins: The Gestapo raided homes in New Normal Germany as part of the Third European Day of Action Against Hate Crimes Switzerland: Health insurance data shows 73% increase in people receiving cancer treatment since 2020 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Is Building A Massive Doomsday Bunker. https://expose-news.com/2023/12/19/klaus-schwab-wants-to-stop-the-retreat/
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    Klaus Schwab wants to stop the retreat of globalisation and global governance with a new form of globalisation and global governance
    Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret’s book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ identified “the global governance free fall” as an existential challenge and if we do not collaborate “we are doomed.” “Nation s…
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 18490 Views
  • Sunlight NFT.

    https://bit.ly/47EcH9V

    #sun #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork #sunrise #sunlight #nftart #nftartwork #nftartist
    Sunlight NFT. https://bit.ly/47EcH9V #sun #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork #sunrise #sunlight #nftart #nftartwork #nftartist
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2838 Views
  • A falling meteor.

    https://bit.ly/3sHhN6t

    #meteor #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork
    A falling meteor. https://bit.ly/3sHhN6t #meteor #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2156 Views
  • Zombie attack NFT.

    https://bit.ly/3uuydQ0

    #zombie #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork
    Zombie attack NFT. https://bit.ly/3uuydQ0 #zombie #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2012 Views
  • Simpsons neighbour NFT.

    https://bit.ly/3QPB3Hc

    #simpsons #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork
    Simpsons neighbour NFT. https://bit.ly/3QPB3Hc #simpsons #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1845 Views
  • Sniper NFT.

    https://bit.ly/40Ep83q

    #sniper #nft #gun #momentonft #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #solcial #sol #solana #solananft
    Sniper NFT. https://bit.ly/40Ep83q #sniper #nft #gun #momentonft #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #solcial #sol #solana #solananft
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1533 Views
  • Robot Warrior NFT.

    https://bit.ly/3QPA6j4

    #robot #warrior #nft #gun #momentonft #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #solcial
    Robot Warrior NFT. https://bit.ly/3QPA6j4 #robot #warrior #nft #gun #momentonft #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #solcial
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1476 Views
  • Universe NFT.

    https://bit.ly/47d94Is

    #universe #galaxy #nft #momentonft #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #stars
    Universe NFT. https://bit.ly/47d94Is #universe #galaxy #nft #momentonft #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #stars
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2007 Views
  • A zombie hunter NFT.

    https://bit.ly/3QFLUn0

    #zombie #nft #momentonft #momento #gun #nftcollectibles #nftcollection
    A zombie hunter NFT. https://bit.ly/3QFLUn0 #zombie #nft #momentonft #momento #gun #nftcollectibles #nftcollection
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1269 Views
  • Neon City NFT.

    https://bit.ly/3QGdSPh

    #neon #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork #lights
    Neon City NFT. https://bit.ly/3QGdSPh #neon #momento #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #sol #solana #solananft #nft #nfts #art #artwork #lights
    Love
    1
    2 Comments 0 Shares 1534 Views
  • ⏯️ Veja e ouça seus temas preferidos sobre Meditação em vídeos curtos de até 10 minutos. Acessa:👇http://meditantes.com.br/momentos
    .
    🎧 Meditantes PodCast Melhores Momentos.
    .
    #meditação #méditer #meditation #meditazione #meditación #nachdenken #meditar #muse #meditativo #meditantespodcast #meditantes #podcast #shantirham
    ⏯️ Veja e ouça seus temas preferidos sobre Meditação em vídeos curtos de até 10 minutos. Acessa:👇http://meditantes.com.br/momentos . 🎧 Meditantes PodCast Melhores Momentos. . #meditação #méditer #meditation #meditazione #meditación #nachdenken #meditar #muse #meditativo #meditantespodcast #meditantes #podcast #shantirham
    Like
    Love
    2
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1681 Views