(1) War on Terror swapped out for a new existential threat: the permanent pandemic(2) Ben Carson's name removed from School - despite being black & eminent neurosurgeon(3) Detroit School Board Votes To Remove Ben Carson's Name From High School, because allied to Trump(4) Australian Senate votes to ban Gender-Neutral language eg 'chestfeeding', but Labor & Greens opposed it(5) Feminist push for 'Believing the Victim' reverses onus of proof, jeopardises Porter Defamation case(6) Newly discovered eyewitness account puts NIST in a corner on WTC 7 explosions(7) Schools take down UK Flag - but activists wave EU flag(8) Economist (Rothschild): To unblock Israeli politics, get rid of Binyamin Netanyahu(9) Tyranny Will Be Richer Than Freedom, UK Foreign Secretary Warns(10) China 'Copied Its Way' to Economic Success, Chinese Professor Boasts(11) Economist defends Global supply chains: 'Globalisation is the work of decades. Do not let it run aground'(1) War on Terror swapped out for a new existential threat: the permanent pandemichttps://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/permanent-pandemic-covid-19/04/02/21Goodbye War on Terror, Hello Permanent PandemicWhat happened to the War on Terror? World leaders have swapped it out for a new narrative: the permanent pandemic, where society will be controlled under the guise of "pathogen vigilance."By Children's Health Defense Team {RFK jr}The media are telling the public to "start planning for a permanent pandemic."Those in positions of power have long recognized that conditions of fear and panic furnish exploitable opportunities to restructure society. COVID-19 is certainly a textbook example of this observation, illustrating that well-tuned fear campaigns can persuade many people to abandon essential medical and individual freedoms.One of the key elements in the propagandist’s toolkit for perpetuating fear is repetition, particularly if the fear messages come from different directions and sources and are cloaked in a veneer of officialdom and respectability.Thus, in the first few months of 2021, we have seen a proliferation of admonishments telling Americans that pandemics pose an "existential threat" to the United States and are here to stay.‘Existential threats’ — history repeatsIn January, a bipartisan commission released a dramatic 44-page report calling for an "Apollo Program for Biodefense," explicitly comparing the proposal to the efforts that first landed humans on the moon. The commission laid the groundwork for its report in 2015, when it published a National Blueprint for Biodefense.Now, seizing the COVID-19 moment, the commission is making the case for a vastly expanded biodefense budget — amounting to billions of biodefense dollars annually — to implement its conveniently ready-to-go blueprint.Key members of the Biodefense Commission used the "existential threat" language in the aftermath of 9/11 in reference to terrorism — the same language they are using now regarding pandemics. Commission Chair Joseph Lieberman championed the post-9/11 creation of the Department of Homeland Security; Co-chair Thomas Ridge served as the first Homeland Security director.Around 2014, world leaders began signaling their intent to swap out the War on Terror for a new narrative. That fall, President Obama hosted the first major meeting of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) — which he later elevated to a national priority — and soon thereafter pronounced the terrorist threat "over-inflated."Observing the downplaying of terrorism by Obama and senior administration officials, including then-Vice President Biden, journalists at The Guardian chimed in, calling assertions of an "existential [terrorist] threat" hyperbolic, "zany" and "absurd." The next year, the Biodefense Commission issued its National Blueprint.Dovetailing with the Biodefense Commission’s report, the media are telling the public to "start planning for a permanent pandemic." For example, deploying the loaded language so favored by propagandists, German-American writer Andreas Kluth warned Americans on March 24 (in Bloomberg) of a "global arms race" pitting "coronavirus mutations … against vaccinations," suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 could "become our permanent enemy, like the flu but worse."A former writer for The Economist and a self-styled interpreter of historical successes and failures, Kluth conjures up a foe — a mutating virus too "protean and elusive" to ever be conquered — that undoubtedly hits the biodefense wonks’ sweet spot. Far from rejecting pandemic hyperbole as "zany" or "absurd," Kluth instead cheerlessly advises Americans to brace for "endless cycles of outbreaks and remissions, social restrictions and relaxations, lockdowns and reopenings."Ironically, Kluth argued last July in favor of a revival of "classical liberalism," clarifying that he meant "not in the American sense of ‘left’ but in the European sense of ‘freedom.’"Kluth also assures residents of the U.S. and other wealthy nations that vaccination "a couple of times a year" will be part of the "new normal." Arguing for realism, however, he cautions that vaccination against "the latest variant in circulation" will never occur "fast or comprehensively enough to achieve herd immunity."The most positive notes Kluth seems able to strike are his conclusions that this "Brave New World needn’t be dystopian" and that, with each successive lockdown, "we [will] damage the economy less than in the previous one."Global control gridAs Children’s Health Defense and others have pointed out, COVID-19 — and the spectre of pandemics more generally — offer a handy pretext for the wider financial and governance overhaul that is unfolding, benefiting the few while building out a global control grid for the many.In this context, we should not be surprised to see that the Biodefense Commission’s report highlights 15 core technology priorities that would fundamentally restructure society and daily life — in both the physical and digital realms — in the service of pathogen vigilance. These include:A National Public Health Data System to "integrate, curate and analyze" granular data at all levels in "real time."Artificial-intelligence-driven "digital pathogen surveillance" involving tracking of data sources like social media, online forums and internet search queries."Pathogen transmission suppression in the built environment," including "air filtration and sterilization systems" that could involve diffusion of nanoparticles (no consent required) via HVAC systems."Needle-free" methods of drug and vaccine administration to "increase uptake" and work around "the logistical challenges of delivering these pharmaceuticals to potentially billions of people."In light of these stated priorities, it is interesting to note that the Biodefense Commission’s Ridge heads up an eponymous Beltway security consulting firm, while Lieberman serves as senior counsel for a New York law firm whose roster of financial services, real estate and (bio)technology clients includes Google and Israel’s Teva Pharmaceuticals.Teva announced in February that it is in discussion with COVID-19 vaccine makers about possible "co-production" of some of the shots. The same day, Teva’s CEO told CNBC’s Meg Tirrell (who asked about this "very bright spot in Teva’s business") that the company was "proud to be the partners" for the distribution and logistics of Pfizer’s experimental vaccine in Israel which, as of mid-March, had administered the shots to nearly 60% of the population, "more doses per capita than any other country," according to Tirrell.Teva’s CEO said nary a peep about the experts who are warning that Pfizer’s injection of Israelis is producing mortality far in excess of what would be expected from COVID itself.Like Teva’s CEO, Andreas Kluth has been an enthusiastic booster of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology, happy about synthetic mRNA’s endless permutations and the possibility of telling cells "to make whatever protein we want."While acknowledging that experimental mRNA vaccines had problems in the past (such as their tendency to cause "fatal inflammation" in animals), Kluth celebrates the COVID-19 pandemic as the "grand debut of mRNA vaccines and their definitive proof of concept," stating: "Henceforth, mRNA will have no problems getting money, attention or enthusiasm — from investors, regulators and policymakers."In short, permanent pandemics promise to be good for technocracy and good for Big Business.(2) Ben Carson's name removed from School - despite being black & eminent neurosurgeonhttps://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/candy-carson-and-the--woke--media-project/March 31, 2021Candy Carson and the 'Woke' Media ProjectBy Paul GottfriedIn 2015 Michelle Malkin wrote a column, praising the wife of distinguished neurosurgeon and later Trump Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Ben Carson. Malkin appropriately designated her subject as the "anti-Michelle Obama." Her description encapsulates some of the merits of Candy Carson, who graduated from Yale with a triple major in music, psychology, and pre-med, and who has written books in defense of constitutional freedoms:Candy Carson — wife of GOP 2016 hopeful Dr. Ben Carson, mother of three sons, and grandmother of two — is the anti-Michelle Obama. She’s a quiet but confident ray of sunshine: down-to-earth, devoutly Christian and proudly patriotic.Mrs. Carson would be a thoroughly admirable person, whether she was male or female, white or black. The question we might ask is why she is not more widely celebrated, when the media claim to be honoring blacks and women. Why does this lady not earn the accolades of black and feminist organizations that have frantically showered praise on Michelle Obama and more recently, Vice President Kamala Harris? What have these women done that can equal the intellectual and humanitarian accomplishments of Mrs. Carson, who among her other achievements has set up a scholarship fund for poor, but diligent, high school students?I am asking this question rhetorically because I could not imagine anyone whom the media would loathe more thoroughly than they do Candy Carson. The "woke" media never hold her up as a model for the young. She is everything Michelle and Kamala are not. Unlike Kamala, who has likened our border control officers to KKK members, and who called for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, Mrs. Carson is "down-to-earth, devoutly Christian, and proudly patriotic." Perhaps our current vice president should be allowed to decorate her mansion in Washington instead of assuming her responsibility to control the border situation in south Texas. She is undoubtedly better at decorating her pleasure dome than bringing order to the present border chaos, a situation that she did everything possible to incite as a presidential candidate in 2020.Malkin is also correct to contrast Candy Carson to the grousing, self-important Michelle Obama, who beside marrying a future president has done nothing worth comparing to Mrs. Carson’s considerable achievements. But, as I have argued elsewhere, it is precisely the most disagreeable aspects of Michelle that render her so beloved by the media. Her nonstop diatribes against white America are the source of Michelle’s popularity. They can be cited by the culturally leftist media as evidence that this "most admired woman in the world," a status the media have meticulously fostered, is courageously exposing our terrible shortcomings.The media’s goal is to force us to  accept the racialization of our politics and culture. They manufacture a sense of guilt for the rest of us to wallow in—it is not meant to be shared by the media class any more than it is for Michelle and Kamala.Candy’s husband has also received the short end of the stick for not grousing enough about white racism and perhaps for being "proudly patriotic" in his own right. The Benjamin Carson High School for Science and Medicine in Detroit has had the name of the eminent surgeon removed from this largely black institution. This seems entirely appropriate. We wouldn’t want black students attending a school named for a black neurosurgeon who disgraced his race by serving in Donald Trump’s cabinet.  After all, there are worthier and more honorable black people for whom that school could be named: Al Sharpton or Maxine Waters, or perhaps someone on the board of Black Lives Matter. The school administration might also pick one of the media favs, say Kamala or Michelle.(3) Detroit School Board Votes To Remove Ben Carson's Name From High School, because allied to Trumphttps://www.essence.com/news/detroit-school-board-votes-to-remove-ben-carsons-name-from-high-school/Detroit School Board Votes To Remove Ben Carson's Name From High SchoolTHE DETROIT SCHOOL BOARD VOTED 6-1 TO RENAME BENJAMIN CARSON HIGH SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE, BUT THERE'S STILL A LONG ROAD AHEAD.BY BREANNA EDWARDS · NOVEMBER 19, 2018There was a time when Ben Carson was highly revered. His contribution to medicine as a neurosurgeon cannot be denied.But ever since Carson found himself working with President Donald Trump (and opening his mouth about politics in general), that admiration has largely fallen by the wayside. Subsequently, the Detroit school board voted last week to rename the Benjamin Carson High School of Science And Medicine, according to the Detroit News. To be fair, the high school isn’t the only building that is being slated for a possible rename.Earlier this year the panel approved a new policy to commemorate, name and rename school buildings and facilities, according to the news site, giving the board the option to change a school’s name to honor "individuals who have made a significant contribution to the enhancement of education."The Detroit News writes:  The board also can select another name under circumstances that include when a building is newly built or redesigned, where the name no longer reflects the current student population or "the community of the geographic area where the school is located requests a name change that more closely aligns with the history of the locality, or information newly discovered about the current name of the school is negative in nature."Among those who want Carson’s name removed from the high school, however, is LaMar Lemmons, a board member, who claimed that residents "don’t support the [Trump] administration." Last week, Lemmons told the Washington Post, that having Carson’s name on the school was "synonymous with having Trump’s name on our school in blackface." Carson, he contended, "is doing Trump’s bidding, and he has adversely affected the African American community in Detroit as well as the nation with his housing policies." "And he’s allied himself with a president that says he is a white nationalist and sends dog whistles that even the deaf can hear," Lemmons added.The board voted 6-1 to change the name, but that doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen. The district is expected to have community meetings and issue surveys for each site to figure out if there is indeed any interest in renaming any facilities, and also to figure out possible new names. The results will be reported by the superintendent, who will make a final recommendation to the board. So Benjamin Carson High School of Science and Medicine will still be, for now, at least until next school year.(4) Australian Senate votes to ban Gender-Neutral language eg 'chestfeeding', but Labor & Greens opposed ithttps://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/senate-votes-to-ban-distorted-genderneutral-language-such-as-chestfeeding-from-official-materials/news-story/9e01b1ebab6dc6d6eece729e13bffe8eSenate votes to ban 'distorted' gender-neutral language such as 'chestfeeding' from official materialsA Senator has reacted with fury after the Morrison government sided with One Nation to pass a "bigoted, disgusting" motion.Frank ChungThe Australian Senate has passed a motion brought by One Nation banning the use of "distorted" gender-neutral language such as "chestfeeding" in official government materials.One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts put forward the motion in the Upper House on Wednesday, with the Morrison government voting to approve the ban.The motion narrowly passed 33-31.Tasmanian Liberal Senator Jonathon "Jonno" Duniam read a statement outlining the government's position before the vote."The government supports the rights of individuals to make use of any pronouns or descriptors they prefer, while encouraging respect for the preferences of others," he said."The government will use language in communications that is appropriate for the purpose of those communications and is respectful of its audiences."Mr Roberts' motion stated that "our fundamental biology and relationships are represented through the following descriptors – mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, boy, girl, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, female, male, man, woman, lady, gentleman, Mr, Mrs, Ms, sir, madam, dad, mum, husband, wife"."Broad scale genuine inclusion cannot be achieved through distortions of biological and relational descriptors," it said."An individual's right to choose their descriptors and pronouns for personal use must not dehumanise the human race and undermine gender."Mr Roberts referred to a doctor from Queensland who "reports incidences of young children feeling stressed and panicked about whether it is okay to use the words boy and girl, and pushing gender-neutral language is no replacement for appropriate emotional and psychological support for children while growing up".The motion called on the federal government to "reject the use of distorted language such as gestational/non-gestational parent, chest-feeding, human milk, lactating parent, menstruators, birthing/non-birthing parent, and ensure all federal government and federal government funded agencies do not include these terms in their material, including legislation, websites, employee documentation and training materials".Greens Senator Janet Rice asked to speak but was denied permission, Daily Mail Australia reported.Posting on Twitter shortly after, she slammed the Morrison government for voting in favour of the "bigoted" motion.I expect this shit from One Nation. But the Morrison Government just voted to support One Nation's disgusting, bigoted Senate motion trying to deny the identity of trans & non binary people. So the motion passed. What happened to governing for all Australians? Scumbags!#auspolpic.twitter.com/eWOUPBAgfU— Janet Rice (@janet_rice) March 16, 2021"I expect this sh*t from One Nation," she wrote."But the Morrison Government just voted to support One Nation's disgusting, bigoted Senate motion trying to deny the identity of trans and non binary people. So the motion passed. What happened to governing for all Australians? Scumbags!"It comes after staff at the Australian National University were asked to use "parent-inclusive language" such as "chestfeeding" instead of "breastfeeding" and "human milk" rather than "mother's milk".The Gender-Inclusive Handbook, published last year by the university's Gender Institute, likewise said the terms "mother" and "father" should be replaced with "gestational" and "nongestational" parent.Meanwhile, a UK hospital last month issued similar "gender-inclusive" language guidelines, telling staff to use terms like "birthing parents" and "human milk" to avoid offending transgender people.frank.chung@news.com.au(5) Feminist push for 'Believing the Victim' reverses onus of proof, jeopardises Porter Defamation caseYou reap what you sow: why Christian Porter may lose his defamation caseAugusto Zimmermann29 March 2021 4:00 AMYou may recall the Attorney-General's appearance on Q&A in 2015.?There   Christian Porter metaphorically threw all male victims of domestic violence under a bus by arguing passionately that women are always innocent, never lie, and can never themselves be violent. ?As the principal legal officer who represents the Crown in legal proceedings and gives legal advice to the government, those comments amounted to an endorsement of a radical feminist ideology that is directly responsible for the problems currently facing our legal system.James Allan, one of our leading legal academics, contends that 'there is a clear element of this Coalition government being hoist with its own petard about not having insisted on proper procedural justice for others in the past and now reaping what they sowed'. In a recent article for The Spectator Australia, he gives the example of the unsatisfactory procedures used to make determinations against Dyson Heydon AC QC, a former High Court judge.Of course, those allegations of sexual harassment laid against Justice Heydon did not amount to criminal allegations and were not nearly as serious as those presently levelled against the Attorney-General. Although there was no procedural fairness for that former High Court judge, Professor Allan complains that 'Mr Porter as Attorney General, and the whole of the Morrison government, spoke not a word about the need for procedural fairness protection'.Curiously, Porter is now seeking aggravated damages over a story by ABC journalist Louise Milligan, which was published on 26 February and headlined: 'Scott Morrison, senators and AFP told of historical rape allegation against Cabinet Minister'. The story referred to what might have happened as an allegation only. It did not affirm that it definitely happened and it did not name Porter.However, the Attorney-General came forward in a press conference held on 3rd March as the cabinet minister accused of rape. He categorically affirmed that 'the things that are being claimed did not happen'. His press conference came after New South Wales Police announced that there was "insufficient admissible evidence" to investigate the case. Porter then explained that he had been silent until that point due to needing to let the police conclude the case.Porter is now funding a powerhouse legal team: barristers Bret Walker SC and Sue Chrysanthou SC, and solicitor Rebekah Giles. Their statement of claim lodged in the Federal Court in Sydney contends that Porter's character and reputation have been gravely injured as a result of the story published on the ABC website.The statement of claim is designed to force the defendants (Ms Milligan and the ABC) to give up and settle, or take on the challenge of running an expensive rape case on the balance of probabilities. He is seeking aggravated damages, costs and removal of the article and related material from the web.Although his name was not mentioned in the story, Porter's team argues that it was defamatory because apparently he could be 'easily identifiable to many Australians as the subject of the allegations.' This defamation case will rest primarily on whether a casual reader rather than a highly politicised individual would know beyond any doubt that the unnamed cabinet minister was actually the Attorney-General.To establish identification, his lawyers will have to demonstrate that he was easily identifiable to many Australians as the subject of the allegations. The bar is fairly high for the plaintiff to establish the fact that where they weren't named they were clearly identifiable to the audience.This article is not a berarer of good news for the Attorney-General. Indeed, I regret to inform that there is a good chance that he might lose his defamation case.Porter is suing the defendants for defamation and so the matter is not criminal. Curiously, the matters involving his case are quite similar to those involving the defamation case of John Fleming, a Catholic priest living in retirement in South Australia. A prominent media commentator in his home state of South Australia, he was the inaugural President of Campion College, Australia's highly regarded liberal arts institution located in Western Sydney.Fleming's career, reputation and financial security were all but destroyed when, in 2008, the Adelaide Sunday Mail ran a series of uncorroborated allegations made by the journalist Nigel Hunt against him, related to the historic sexual abuse of a minor. These allegations had been previously examined and dismissed by the police in South Australia, casting extreme doubt on their veracity.Fleming subsequently sued the Sunday Mail for defamation, and the case was heard in 2014. The newspaper fought the action on the grounds that the uncorroborated allegations it had published were true.  When Judge Gray's judgement finally appeared in early 2016, after an inordinate and unexplained delay, Fleming's defamation case was dismissed, the judge having accepted as truthful the stories published by The Sunday Mail against Fleming.Fleming then appealed, unsuccessfully, to the full South Australia Supreme Court and, finally, to the High Court of Australia where his leave to appeal was rejected on the grounds that no issue of general importance was involved. Apparently, judges of the nation's highest court believe that removing the presumption of innocence and the onus of the proof in defamation cases are no longer matters of great relevance for the court to consider.The defendants in the Fleming case sought to use their publication of the allegations made by two individuals as "contextual truth" to assist their defence in circumstances where a defamation action had been taken over the imputations contained by their publication of allegations made by an unrelated person.  Here was a case where it wasn't simply a case of "he said she said".There emerged no reason whatsoever during the trial for finding the accusations either reliable or compelling.  The police hadn't believed it, at least to the extent that they didn't think the complaint could become the basis of a criminal prosecution. The accusers' contradictory and uncorroborated testimony was anything but compelling, as the trial transcript demonstrates.Where does this ruling leave a possible outcome in Christian Porter's defamation lawsuit?Given the confusion caused by the SA Supreme Court and the High Court's refusal to hear John Fleming's appeal, this case sets a precedent that could have bearing on Porter's defamation case. In other words, the outstanding legal issues surrounding the Fleming case may constitute a persuasive precedent that might compromise any prospect of a successful outcome for Porter in his defamation case.Ironically, on 23 December 2020 an email was sent by me to Christian Porter concerning the Fleming case. In this email I attempted to call his attention to the very serious problem involving the Fleming case, including the fatal shortcomings in that trial and subsequent appeals.I was merely attempting to inform him on the fact that the matter required an urgent re-examination. Otherwise, the Fleming case could set a dangerous precedent that would have quite detrimental effects for future defamation cases.Unfortunately, I did not even receive a reply from the Attorney General or his Department. My request was completely ignored, although in 2013 I had been appointed by Porter to serve for four years as a Law Reform Commissioner in Western Australia back in 2013 he was the Western Australian Attorney General.That is a case concerning the overturning of the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof in civil cases. The judge chose to believe the uncorroborated narrative offered by the accuser in the face of evidence that powerfully contradicted her version of events. Even though it was Fleming initiating the civil action here, it turned out that he was the one really in the dock.While some measures could be enacted to eradicate at least some of the problems revealed by the Fleming case, the Attorney-General has been for quite a long time empowering the feminist lobby and assisting them to build a sexist narrative of tragic consequences for the preservation of the rule of law.It is quite ironic that Porter's performance as Attorney-General has now assisted to trigger a "cultural reckoning" where the prominent feminists he fawned over are now taking delight in destroying his reputation. Even more ironic is the fact that he completely ignored appeals from concerned citizens complaining about the defamation case of John Fleming, who is the innocent victim of unsubstantiated allegations made by a woman in the face of evidence that powerfully contradicted her version of events.There is little doubt that the Fleming case might have a bearing on Porter's case. The legal flaws in Fleming's matter create a dangerous precedent in lowering the standard of proof required in defamation cases where criminal allegations are involved. Regardless of the outcome of Porter's defamation lawsuit, a shadow will continue forever to be cast on Christian Porter's life and reputation.The harm done never goes away, and there will be no final vindication, no reversal of the calumnies nor of the pain.A fully footnoted copy of this piece is available by contacting Professor Zimmerman directly.Dr Augusto Zimmermann PhD, LLM, LLB is Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education in Perth/WA, and Professor of Law (Adjunct) at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Syd(6) AE911Truth<bulletin@ae911truth.org>	3 April 2021 at 04:34Apr 02, 2021(6) Newly discovered eyewitness account puts NIST in a corner on WTC 7 explosionsMajor UK paper covers British family’s campaign for new 9/11 inquestFamily aims to submit petition this monthThe Daily Mail, with a readership in the millions, published a lengthy and respectful piece yesterday on the family of Geoff Campbell and their soon-to-be-submitted petition for a new inquest into his murder on September 11, 2001.Campbell was on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center’s North Tower when the building — 29 minutes after the South Tower before it — was explosively demolished in one of the most horrific acts of mass murder ever committed, as more than a billion people around the world watched live on television.With the help of AE911Truth and its supporters, the Campbell family is now seeking to quash the findings of the first inquest and obtain a new inquest where the overwhelming evidence of the North Tower’s explosive demolition, not presented at the first inquest, will be considered.While the Daily Mail is a tabloid that has favorably covered the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the past, the unprecedented depth and human angle of this article offer hope that the Campbell family will continue to receive fair treatment in the media as they forge ahead.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9428743/The-conspiracy-theory-wont-rest-peace.htmlThe conspiracy theory that still won't rest in peace: Think it's only cranks who believe the Twin Towers attack was a U.S. government plot? Twenty years on, the family of one British victim is demanding a fresh inquest in the hope of proving just thatBy SUE REID FOR THE DAILY MAILPUBLISHED: 08:36 AEDT, 2 April 2021 | UPDATED: 20:34 AEDT, 2 April 2021ney campus. He is a former Law Reform Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, from 2012-2017.(8) Economist (Rothschild): To unblock Israeli politics, get rid of Binyamin Netanyahuhttps://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/04/03/to-unblock-israeli-politics-get-rid-of-binyamin-netanyahuBreaking the stalemateTo unblock Israeli politics, get rid of Binyamin NetanyahuHis rivals have the seats, but do they have the will?LeadersApr 3rd 2021 editionApr 3rd 2021Binyamin netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. He dominates political life. His loyal supporters praise his statesmanship, strength and skill. His critics condemn him for being divisive, domineering and dirty—he is currently on trial for corruption. Politics in Israel comes down to whether you are for or against the man known as Bibi.Voters, alas, cannot agree on someone to take his place, so gridlock has prevailed. Three elections in 2019 and 2020 failed to produce a stable government. A fourth, on March 23rd, seems to have ended in yet another stalemate. Several formidable rivals are trying to push Mr Netanyahu out. Although his party, Likud, won 30 seats in the 120-member Knesset, Israel’s parliament, fully 13 more than any other party, his desired coalition is nine seats short of a majority. But you should never rule out Bibi. He is stubborn and resourceful and there are still several ways he might hang on to power.It would be a shame if he did. Most Israelis want to see Mr Netanyahu go. A majority in the Knesset at least say they do, too. They range from doves to hawks, Arab Israelis to Jewish nationalists. At the moment they refuse to work together. Party leaders such as Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz, Gideon Sa’ar and Naftali Bennett all feel they should be the next prime minister. Each has flaws, but any would be better than Mr Netanyahu in the short term. It is time they set aside their egos, formed a new government and brought some fresh air into the stale fug that is Israeli politics.Give Mr Netanyahu credit: he has led a successful vaccination drive and forged closer ties with Arab states with the Abraham accords. Before the pandemic, he oversaw a flourishing economy. He is a remarkable politician and a deft diplomat. But in his determination to hold onto power come what may, he is damaging the democracy that makes Israel stand out in a region full of autocrats. The prime minister smears institutions, such as the police and the courts, in order to discredit the corruption case against him. Desperate to gain an electoral advantage, he has stooped to making common cause with Jewish supremacists.An anti-Bibi government would have plenty of drawbacks. It is unlikely, for example, to make progress with the Palestinians, who are due to hold their own elections this year. With many rival egos and philosophies, it would be unstable and probably short-lived. That has led some lawmakers to propose an alternative which does not require forming a government: to shut out Mr Netanyahu by closing the loophole that allows a person under indictment to become prime minister.In its favour, however, an anti-Bibi government can help kick-start the economy as the pandemic recedes by passing a new budget. The country has gone without one for over two years because of the gridlock, and only a government can get this done. What is more, an anti-Bibi coalition has many paths to power. Mr Bennett, for example, has been trying to steal the support of Mr Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox allies. The best solution would involve the Arab parties, which have never been invited into a coalition, nor shown much inclination to join one. Breaking that taboo—even if only by gaining their support from outside the government—would make it easier to form coalitions in the future and give Arab-Israelis, who make up a fifth of the population, a greater say in the country’s affairs.Even Mr Netanyahu, who once portrayed Arab parties as fifth columnists, has flirted with one of them, but his far-right allies object. Mr Sa’ar and Mr Bennett are equally reluctant, so forming an anti-Bibi government will be tricky. But talks have only just begun. There is time yet for Israeli politics to break the mould. ?This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Breaking the stalemate"(9) Tyranny Will Be Richer Than Freedom, UK Foreign Secretary WarnsBut he could have added that this is because Globalist companies transferred their hi-technology to China - Peter M.https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/tyranny-will-be-richer-than-freedom-uk-foreign-secretary-warns_3737831.htmlTyranny Will Be Richer Than Freedom, UK Foreign Secretary WarnsBY ALEXANDER ZHANG March 17, 2021 Updated: March 24, 2021Democracy is in retreat in the world as tyrannical regimes accumulate more economic prowess than free countries, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab warned on Wednesday.In a speech at the Aspen Security Conference, Raab said that the combined GDP of autocratic regimes is expected to exceed that of the world’s democracies within this decade."Just take a second to think about what that means," he said."Tyranny is richer than freedom. And that matters to us here at home because we know stable, freedom-respecting, democracies are much less likely to go to war, to house terrorists, or to trigger large-scale flows of immigration."Raab hailed the UK’s Integrated Foreign Policy Review, unveiled by Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Tuesday, as the country’s "international strategy for this decade and beyond."Though the Review still sees Russia as the top security threat, China is now seen as the primary threat to economic security and as a long-term "systemic competitor."The review says that the UK will invest in enhanced "China-facing capabilities," and improve its response to "the systemic challenge that it poses to our security, prosperity and values—and those of our allies and partners."Raab said that Britain "will adapt our defence posture to the new shift in the balance of world power towards the Indo-Pacific region.""You’ll begin to see that this year," he said, citing the upcoming deployment of the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth to the Pacific later this year.He said Britain identifies "with those countries lining the South China Sea whose legitimate claims have come under recent threat from China."Raab also said Britain "took the bold step to issue an invitation to this country to the people of Hong Kong, oppressed by Beijing."He said the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic had exposed the weaknesses of the UK’s supply chain model, as "every country around the world queued up for PPE and other vital goods from China and a small number of other mass-producing countries.""Of course, we embrace the power of the market and we value our trade with China. But we will also develop new partnerships with existing allies, and other High Trust Vendors," Raab said in apparent reference to the UK’s past reliance on Chinese telecom giant Huawei.The British government initially planned to use Huawei equipment in its 5G network, but made an abrupt U-turn in July 2020 and banned Huawei kit under U.S. pressure."We will work with the likes of Estonia and Norway, India and Israel, Singapore and South Korea, and many others, to diversify our supply chains from manufacturing to tech, to shore up our economic resilience," said Raab.Simon Veazey and Mary Clark contributed to this report.(10) China 'Copied Its Way' to Economic Success, Chinese Professor Boastshttps://www.theepochtimes.com/china-copied-its-way-to-economic-success-chinese-professor-boasts_3754084.htmlBY NICOLE HAO AND CATHY HEMarch 30, 2021 Updated: March 30, 2021https://wentworthreport.com/2021/04/01/china-copied-its-way-to-economic-success-chinese-professor-boasts/China 'Copied Its Way' to Economic Success, Chinese Professor Boasts. By Nicole Hao.A Chinese professor recently bragged in front of a mainland Chinese audience that China had successfully "copied its way to the world's front row," which has emboldened the regime to take a more aggressive line towards the United States.For the past 40 years, the Chinese regime only did one thing: plagiarize, Zang Qichao, a prominent marketing expert and visiting professor of Beijing's Tsinghua University, told a group of Chinese entrepreneurs recently."We plagiarized wildly, copied wildly," Zang said."What intellectual property rights? What patented technology? We'll get it first and deal with it later."Through this approach, China has skyrocketed to become one of the world's leading economies, and now finds that there's nothing left to replicate, Zang said. …Four decades of cheating:Since the Chinese regime's economic reforms of the late 1970s, it has depended heavily on foreigners bringing in their investments, technology, and know-how to spur the country's economic development, Zang said.Specifically, Zang said the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forced foreign businesses to enter into partnerships with domestic firms, so the locals could learn from the foreigners and eventually replace them by running the businesses themselves.Known as forced technology transfer, the CCP has forced foreign companies to enter into joint ventures with local firms and handover their intellectual property (IP) as a condition of entry to the Chinese market.After four decades, "we've learned everything, and can do everything ourselves," he said."When we look back, the factories are ours, the equipment is ours, the technology is ours, the patents are ours," Zang said. "The foreigners have all gone."The CCP's rampant theft of foreign IP has sparked rising push back in recent years, particularly during the Trump administration. U.S. officials have described Beijing's strategy to overtake the United States as the lone superpower as centered on the actions: "rob, replicate, replace." …In his speech, Zang said the United States had finally found out about Beijing's plans."They don't let us copy anymore," he said.Joanne Nova:And so the mask comes off. After forty years of cheating in a "forced technology transfer" the game is up. Trump called China for the theft of intellectual property, then launched a trade war, but the CCP already had stolen much of the information it needed.This is not just an economic war, this is a big wet blanket on some kinds of scientific research. With one big bad player in the game breaking the rules, there is less incentive for people to announce and share discoveries. Royalties can't be enforced, and a competitor might copy and compete against you. Are we entering a new era cold war of secrecy? …Imagine a Westerner anywhere proudly saying "the foreigners have all gone?"Feel the hostility — the complete lack of respect or shred of any gratitude.Where are the squad of progressive Sino activists lecturing Zang for his racist hate?(11) Economist defends Global supply chains: 'Globalisation is the work of decades. Do not let it run aground'https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/31/message-in-a-bottleneckGlobal supply chainsMessage in a bottleneckSupply chains make the world saferLeadersApr 3rd 2021 editionMar 31st 2021For the best part of a week, the Suez canal was blocked by a 200,000-tonne metaphor. The Ever Given is not just one of the world’s biggest container ships, it is also the emblem of a backlash that accuses globalisation of going too far. Since the early 1990s supply chains have been run to maximise efficiency. Firms have sought to specialise and to concentrate particular tasks in places that offer economies of scale. Now, however, there are growing worries that, like a ship which is too big to steer, supply chains have become a source of vulnerability.A semiconductor shortage is forcing car firms to idle plants all over the world. China has imposed a digital boycott of h&m, a Western retailer that appears unwilling to source cotton from Xinjiang, where the Communist Party is locking up Uyghurs and pressing them into forced labour. The European Union and India have clamped down on vaccine exports, disrupting the world’s efforts to get jabs into arms. As they battle the pandemic and face up to rising geopolitical tensions, governments everywhere are switching from the pursuit of efficiency to a new mantra of resilience and self-reliance.It makes sense for supply chains to be more robust. When national security is at stake, governments have a role in making supplies more secure. Yet the world must avoid a stampede back from globalisation that would not only cause great harm, but also create unforeseen new vulnerabilities.One complaint against globalisation is that it concentrates production and eliminates buffer stocks. Supply chains encompass some of the most sophisticated forms of human endeavour. The iPhone relies on Apple’s manufacturing network, straddling 49 countries; Pfizer, a vaccine champion, has over 5,000 suppliers. But the relentless pursuit of efficiency has led to low inventories and choke-points. At the start of the pandemic, voters and politicians were horrified by the scramble for foreign-made face masks and testing-kits. Over half of advanced semiconductors are made in a few plants in Taiwan and South Korea. China processes 72% of the world’s cobalt, used in electric-car batteries. McKinsey, a consulting firm, reckons that a single country has monopolised the export of about 180 products.Such dependence is particularly threatening when geopolitics is becoming more confrontational. The decay of international trading rules makes countries more wary of relying on each other. During the pandemic, countries have passed over 140 special trade restrictions and many have quietly tightened their screening of foreign investment. Following the neglect of problems such as how to tax tech giants abroad and whether to impose levies on carbon-intensive imports, countries are tempted to take matters into their own hands. As the contest between America and China intensifies, there is a growing threat of embargoes, or even military conflict. Under Donald Trump, America undermined the global trade regime and President Joe Biden is unlikely to expend much political capital on rebuilding it.Against such a backdrop, governments have a role in securing supplies—but it is a limited one. They can support research and development, including for new energy sources. Beyond this, subsidies and domestic preference are justified only when a vital input relies on a monopoly supplier that is subject to potential interference by a hostile government. Some rare minerals fall into this category, hand-sanitiser does not.The risk is that countries go beyond minimal intervention—that, in the slogan of Narendra Modi, India’s increasingly protectionist prime minister, they get "vocal for local". On February 24th Mr Biden ordered a 100-day security review of America’s supply chains. On March 9th the eu said it would double its share of world chipmaking by 2030, to 20%, which followed a pledge to be self-sufficient in batteries by 2025. Last year Xi Jinping launched "dual circulation", aimed at insulating China’s economy from outside pressure. Such pledges are vague, but the preference for domestic jobs and manufacturing and promise of subsidies could mark a point at which the world shifts away from free trade and open markets.Such a lurch towards autarky would not be justified. One reason is that government-administered, domestic supply chains are even less resilient than global ones. For all its drama, the saga of the Ever Given will be only a blip in the trade statistics. As demand surged in the pandemic, China’s mask output rose by ten times. After the panic buying of beans and pasta, the $8trn global food supply-chain rapidly adapted, keeping most supermarkets stocked. While arguments rage over how to allocate doses, global networks stand to supply 10bn shots of brand new vaccines this year. Self-reliance sounds safe, but politicians and voters must remember that their meals, phones, clothes and jabs are all the product of global supply chains.The call for self-reliance also misconstrues the balance between the costs of interdependence, which are brief and visible, and its benefits, which trickle in month after month unheralded. The lost efficiencies and expense of duplicating shared production chains would be ruinous: firms have $36trn invested abroad. The build-up of costs, as domestic firms were protected from competition by subsidies or tariffs, would be a hidden tax on consumers. And after all that, a policy of self-reliance would end up penalising countries too small or poor to host advanced industries. If manufacturing ends up concentrated at home, even big economies would be exposed to local shocks, lobbying and the shortcomings of their own producers, as America may discover with Intel.Strength in numbersResilience comes not from autarky but from diverse sources of supply and constant private-sector adaptation to shocks. Over time, global firms will adjust to even long-term threats, including tension between America and China and the effects of climate change, by gradually altering where they make fresh investments. This is a perilous moment for trade. Just as globalisation begets openness, so protection and subsidies in one country spread to the next. Globalisation is the work of decades. Do not let it run aground.This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Message in a bottleneck"