Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.
This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.
So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.
This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.
For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression. The Substack is a different project in a sense. It is older videos that in the light of subsequent events, look different or of increased importance, Check it out now and again if you like.
Military summary update:
The catering company in Kazan better count the spoons, given this guest register. What innocent Dima calls “the most important leaders in the world”.
English-language BRICS publicity agents are bred in China-Russia stables.[*] Triumphal and shrill, the most anti-West, Western losers have been celebrating our downfall for decades. (c.f.AsAJew phenomenon)
………….
[*]Though Korybko lives in Moscow, his patrons are Indian. He’s not one of the disbarred felons in the “alt-media” brigade, just a featherweight who exults in terms like “alt-media”.
India is a relaxed posting. Bezmenov describes his experience as a KGB agent based in India.
Foreign Policy published an excellent, meaty intro in March/April 2011: BRICS and the World Order: A Beginner’s Guide.
(The link’s gone 404.)
The paper concludes with a highly positive prognosis, though the “perception of a lack of solidarity” in global affairs is a “challenge”.
Dima’s steaming! Big moves!
20.25 His thoughts on BRICS.
Harvest Time: Selydove On The Brink, Izmailivka And Serebrianka Have Fallen
Blade Runner 2049’ Studio Sues Elon Musk, Wants Nothing to Do with Tech Mogul
thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/blade-runner-2049-studio-sues-elon-musk-wants/
Oct. 23, 2024 8:30 am
Photo of author
A big Hollywood outfit with a futuristic blockbuster on its ledger is going to war with tech mogul Elon Musk.
Alcon Entertainment, perhaps best known for futuristic thriller “Blade Runner 2049,” is suing Musk over what it perceives to be various forms of infringement stemming from the latter’s recent Tesla event.
(Musk owns electric vehicle company Tesla, as well as spaceship manufacturer SpaceX and social media platform X.)
According to Variety, the lawsuit — filed Monday — is seeking an injunction and “unspecified monetary damages.”
The lawsuit accused Musk, Tesla and Warner Bros. Studios of “direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement, and false endorsement.”
Alcon took particular issue with an Oct. 10 event in which Musk unveiled his latest tech innovation, the autonomously-driving taxi, Cybercab.
During said event, Musk used imagery during the unveiling presentation that Alcon is claiming to have hewed far too close to its “Blade Runner 2049” brand.
Furthermore, the complaint — filed in Los Angeles federal court per Fox Business — took a number personal shots at Musk.
While distancing itself from any relationship with Tesla, Alcon argued that any future potential relationship would have to take “Musk’s massively amplified, highly politicized, capricious and arbitrary behavior, which sometimes veers into hate speech, into account.”
The suit further alleged that any “potential brand affiliation with Tesla is even more issuefraught” if a company does not share “Musk’s extreme political and social views[.]”
The studio argued that any erroneous association could have major financial implications.
“The financial magnitude of the misappropriation here was substantial,” the suit alleged.
It added: “Alcon has spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars building the BR2049 brand into the famous mark that it now is.”
The suit then claims that “for all of these reasons,” Alcon wants it to be clear that there is absolutely no relationship between itself and Musk.
This lawsuit came after a report emerged in September that claimed Hollywood at large was planning on ditching Musk and his associated brands due to the tech mogul’s newfound alliance with former President Donald Trump — the Republican presidential nominee — and Musk’s more conservative-leaning thinking.
Speaking of Musk’s friendship with Trump, coincidentally, this lawsuit comes around the same time as Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro complained about Musk’s financial donations to Trump.
Regardless of how this lawsuit turns out, Musk will have a vested interest in the forthcoming Nov. 5 general election. Former President Donald Trump has openly discussed adding Musk to his potential administration.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/blade-runner-2049-studio-sues-elon-musk-wants/
Bill Gates Ordered to Stand Trial in Netherlands in November Over COVID Vaccine Injury Claims — Ordered to Pay Legal Costs as Dutch Court Dismisses Jurisdiction Claim
thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/bill-gates-ordered-stand-trial-netherlands-november-covid/
Oct. 23, 2024 8:15 am
Screenshot: Bill Gates/Youtube
A Dutch court has ruled that billionaire and global vaccine proponent Bill Gates will face trial in the Netherlands over his involvement in misleading the public about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
The case, brought forward by seven plaintiffs who claim to have suffered vaccine injuries, marks a significant blow to Gates, who has been a key figure in pushing COVID-19 vaccination efforts worldwide.
According to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit last year, naming Gates, along with former Dutch Prime Minister and current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, members of the Dutch government’s COVID-19 Outbreak Management Team, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and the Dutch state itself.
Gates is one of the “experts” who made several claims about the COVID experimental vaccines:
They said the vaccine would stop transmission.
They said the vaccinated could quit wearing a mask.
They said the vaccinated would not get sick.
They said the vaccinated were not going to die.
The plaintiffs argue that Gates, through his involvement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum (WEF), was involved in a far-reaching agenda—referred to as “The Great Reset Project”—which sought to exploit the global crisis in order to implement sweeping societal changes, all under the guise of combating the pandemic.
According to the lawsuit, this agenda included pushing vaccines that were known to be unsafe.
The plaintiffs claim they were deceived into taking these dangerous injections, and the consequences have been devastating. Physical and mental injuries have allegedly plagued them since receiving the vaccine.
One of the seven plaintiffs has reportedly died since the initial filing, leaving six others to carry on the fight against Gates and his cohorts. These ordinary Dutch citizens, whose identities have been redacted from the court documents, say they trusted the vaccine narrative and are now paying the price.
The plaintiffs referenced various public statements made by Gates, including a widely viewed YouTube video from April 2020 titled “The Race for a COVID-19 Vaccine, Explained,” as part of their evidence.
https://youtu.be/u1AQ5EXcJYc
Despite Gates’ attempts to evade the Dutch court’s jurisdiction by claiming that, as an American citizen, he should not be subject to legal proceedings in the Netherlands, the court rejected this argument, according to independent researcher and reporter Penny Marie.
On October 16, 2024, the Leeuwarden District Court announced that it does indeed have jurisdiction to hear the case against Gates.
The billionaire was represented in court by a lawyer from PelsRijcken but did not attend the September 18 hearing in person. His legal team’s defense crumbled when the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
According to the judgment:
Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that if the Dutch court has jurisdiction over one of the defendants, it also has jurisdiction over other defendants involved in the same proceedings, provided that there is such a connection between the claims against the various defendants that reasons of expediency justify joint proceedings.
[…]
As the court understands, [redacted] et al. argue that Hofstra et al., and therefore Gates, are part of a worldwide group of individuals, legal entities and other entities that, in the context of the implementation of a project called Covid 19: The Great Reset, have misled people into taking Covid-19 injections, while they knew or should have known that these injections were not safe and effective. The court infers from Gates’ plea that Gates also understood [redacted] et al.’s position in this way. The court understands that [redacted] et al. further argue in this context that Gates committed this deception internationally through two videos that were published on YouTube in April and December 2020, in which Gates allegedly gave a false representation of the necessity of the Covid-19 injections and the safety of those injections respectively. To the extent that [redacted] et al. intended to state that any actions by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should also be regarded as unlawful acts by Gates in this group context, the court disregards this in the context of this incident, as they have not substantiated this.
[…]
Based on the foregoing, this court has international jurisdiction to hear the claims against Gates on the basis of Article 7 paragraph l Rv.
The court ruled that Gates, who attempted to have the case dismissed or contest the court’s jurisdiction, was in the wrong. His legal challenge was dismissed, and as a result, he has been ordered to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs.
According to court documents, Gates is required to cover the plaintiffs’ legal costs, which amount to €1,406.00 ($1,518.44). This includes:
€1,228.00 ($1,326.17) for the plaintiffs’ lawyer’s fees.
€178.00 ($192.23) in additional legal expenses.
Gates must pay these costs within 14 days, or face further penalties. Should Gates fail to comply within the designated timeframe, an additional €92.00, plus service costs, will be added to the total.
Trending: Senior Pentagon Employee Suspected as Leaker of Israeli Retaliatory Strike Plans to Iran – Was Previously Outed as Iran Spy But Was Kept on Anyway
Gates will now have to respond to the allegations in Dutch court, with a new hearing set for November 27, 2024.
Read the ruling below obtained by Penny Marie and Zebra Inspiratie:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/bill-gates-ordered-stand-trial-netherlands-november-covid/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/vonnis-in-incident-16-10-2024_engels_geredigeerd.pdf&attachment_id=1232293&dButton=true&pButton=true&oButton=false&sButton=true&pagemode=none&_wpnonce=ffd5af42a7
Watchdog Group Releases Names of Leftist Bureaucrats Serving in Federal Government Who’ve Betrayed America by Sabotaging Border Security
thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/watchdog-group-releases-names-leftist-bureaucrats-serving-federal/
Oct. 23, 2024 11:40 am
Texas National Guard members are seen being overrun by illegal immigrants trying to force their way across the southern border at El Paso, Texas.
Texas National Guard members are seen being overrun by illegal immigrants trying to force their way across the southern border at El Paso, Texas. (@JennieSTaer / X screen shot)
The American Accountability Foundation released names of leftist bureaucrats serving in federal government who have betrayed America by sabotaging border security.
More than 15 million illegal aliens – mainly military-age males – have poured over the border since Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were installed in January 2021.
DHS Chief Alejandro Mayorkas is just one government goon who has overseen one of the worst invasions in US history.
There is a team of bureaucrats betraying the country and the American Accountability Foundation put together a list on DHSWatchlist.com.
“The DHS Bureaucrat Watch List is dedicated to exposing the career staff who have outsized influence on efforts to secure the southern border. While everyone knows who Alejandro Mayorkas and Merrick Garland are, few Americans know who the career bureaucrats are that implement their orders,” the American Accountability Foundation said.
“By uncovering hidden agendas and failures, we aim to restore integrity to our immigration system and border protection by showing America who can be counted on to reform America’s broken immigration system and who is in league with left-wing open border groups. Join us in defending our borders and reclaiming America’s sovereignty,” the watchdog group said.
“For too long, these leftist bureaucrats have operated in the shadows, shaping government policy according to their own extreme agenda. Instead of trying to persuade Americans to support them in elections, these radicals take up little-known, yet powerful, positions in the Federal government, where they can dictate government policy with zero accountability,” they said.
The first tranche of names was released on Wednesday (click here for their photos):
Connie Nolan
Salary: $192,253
Grade: SES
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Associate Director – Service Center Operations Directorate; USCIS
Jennifer Higgins
Salary: $203,700
Grade: SES
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Deputy Director – USCIS
Royce Bernstein Murray
Salary: $183,500
Grade: SES
DHS Headquarters
Assistant Secretary, Border and Immigration Policy, Department of Homeland Security
Daniel Delgado
Salary: $160,889
Grade: GS-15
DHS Headquarters
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Immigration Policy, DHS
Andrea Saenz
Department of Justice Immigration Judges
Immigration Judge, Department of Justice
Wilson Osorio
Salary: $171,268
Grade: GS-15
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Associate Counsel, USCIS
Kursten Phelps
Salary: $141,192
Grade: GS-14
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Policy Analyst, Office of Policy and Strategy, Humanitarian Affairs Division – USCIS
Kathryn E. Anderson
Salary: $185,500
Grade: SES
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Deputy Chief, Office of Policy & Strategy, USCIS
Rebecca Swaintek-Green
Salary: $112,015
Grade: GS-13
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Associate Counsel, USCIS
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/watchdog-group-releases-names-leftist-bureaucrats-serving-federal/
https://www.dhswatchlist.com/
Public Housing’s Predicament, 2A Rights Do Not Stop at Front Door
Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 23, 2024 by Dave Workman
A string of court victories over public housing gun bans removes any doubt the Second Amendment does not stop at the front door.
The defeat of a public housing gun ban in Cortland, N.Y.—as reported earlier by Ammoland News—was not the proverbial “first rodeo” for the Second Amendment Foundation on this subject, and the group’s track record by now should have been a warning flare to every such facility in the country they cannot stop the Bill of Rights at the front door.
Such battles have been erupting since at least 1995, when the National Rifle Association successfully challenged a public housing gun ban in Portland, Maine. The state’s highest court struck down that ban, which had existed for the previous two decades, according to the Roanoke Times, but at the time, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court “instead ruled 6-0 that the Portland Housing Authority has no authority under state law to regulate possession of guns.” Nowadays, there is firmer legal ground on which challenges can tread.
But it is SAF that has emerged as the powerhouse in such cases over the past several years, raising a question about whether housing authorities exist in a vacuum. After all, such court rulings can hardly be a mystery to people who manage public housing projects in any U.S. community.
East St. Louis, Illinois—In 2019, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s (ESLHA) ban on firearms possession by residents of government subsidized public housing in a case brought by SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association in 2018. SAF and ISRA also teamed up in the landmark Supreme Court case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, decided in June 2010, which nullified the Chicago handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. SAF’s Alan Gottlieb has frequently observed that it was the McDonald ruling which opened the floodgates for litigation against onerous and unconstitutional gun control laws.
Warren County, Illinois—Back in 2012, SAF filed suit against the Warren County Housing Authority with Ronald G. Winbigler, a resident of Costello Terrace in Monmouth. He was a physically disabled former police officer who felt it necessary to keep a handgun in his residence for personal protection. In that case, SAF won a permanent injunction against the housing authority. This was seven years prior to the East St. Louis challenge, so perhaps it was a case of short memory span. The case was known as Winbigler v. Warren Co. Housing Authority.
Columbia, Tennessee—In 2022, SAF supported a case involving a man named Kinsley Braden. He had violated a gun ban at the Columbia Housing Authority, in which Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr. wrote, “(I)n light of the Supreme Court’s most recent decision in Bruen and keeping in mind the presumptively unconstitutional status of Columbia Housing’s policy based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, we conclude that a total ban on the ability of law-abiding residents—like Mr. Braden—to possess a handgun within their public housing unit for the purpose of self-defense is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”
Aside from the fact that SAF was involved in the three preceding cases, another name pops up: Attorney David Sigale, who has exhibited a talent for winning such cases.
Gun prohibitions in public housing should be considered a matter of settled law. Perhaps the mystifying element in all of these cases is how such gun bans keep showing up. As SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut observed in the latest victory over the Cortland Housing Authority, “At some point, it should become abundantly clear to various public housing authorities that gun bans are not allowed. Residents do not leave their constitutional rights at the entrance, as each of our victories over the years have affirmed.”
After winning the case in Warren County, Gottlieb issued a statement: “We brought this case because it was unconscionable, in the wake of our victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, that a public entity in Illinois would engage in this kind of discrimination against a citizen. The WCHA has removed the lease provisions, and agreed that they were unconstitutional.”
“Unconscionable” is an interesting term. According to the Cornell Law School, “Unconscionable is an adjective that means without a conscience; unscrupulous; so unfair or unjust that it shocks the conscience. The adjective is frequently used in the context of contract law for contracts that have grossly oppressive and unfair terms. When a court finds a contract unconscionable, it is unenforceable.”
The courts so far evidently agree with Gottlieb’s assessment that gun bans in public housing amount to discrimination. As the cases mentioned here clarify, low income public housing residents have constitutional rights just like everyone else.
https://www.ammoland.com/2024/10/public-housings-predicament-2a-rights-do-not-stop-at-front-door/
Even Democrats Approve of Supreme Court’s 2nd Amendment Bruen Decision ~ VIDEO
Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 23, 2024 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief
YouTube video player
The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which affirmed the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense, is seeing an unprecedented rise in popularity.
Two years after the ruling, a recent Marquette Law School poll indicates a 70% approval rating for the decision—a notable achievement given the controversial nature of gun-related policies. But the Bruen decision isn’t just about public opinion. It’s playing a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of gun rights in America, and the Supreme Court’s latest actions reflect its ongoing influence.
The Surging Popularity of Bruen
Polling data shows that support for Bruen has increased over time, reaching 70% approval, with strong support among 40% of respondents. Even more interesting, 51% of Democrats also approve of the decision—a surprising finding given the typically polarized nature of gun rights issues. This shows a shift in cultural attitudes, particularly among younger people who have grown up in an era where concealed carry has become more common.
Despite ongoing efforts by gun control groups to counter this ruling, Bruen‘s popularity continues to grow, largely because it taps into a broader cultural shift toward self-defense. The rise in support comes at a time when the Supreme Court itself is experiencing a dip in approval ratings due to other controversial decisions. Nevertheless, Bruen stands as a stronghold of support across nearly all demographics, from race and gender to income level.
SCOTUS Revisits Pro-Gun Ruling: What’s Next?
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
In addition to the polling data, the Supreme Court recently made waves with a decision that impacts gun rights on a more technical level. The Court granted, vacated, and remanded (GVR) a Third Circuit ruling that struck down a Pennsylvania law restricting open carry during states of emergency. This GVR action means the lower court must reconsider its ruling in light of the Court’s recent Rahimi decision, a case involving firearm restrictions and Second Amendment rights.
For many gun rights advocates, this move was unexpected. There was hope that the Supreme Court would fully accept the case, potentially setting up a broader ruling on the rights of young adults (ages 18-20) to carry firearms. However, the Court’s decision to GVR the case signals that it may be waiting for lower courts to fully address these issues under the new framework set by Rahimi.
While this could delay definitive rulings on such cases, it’s clear that the Supreme Court is closely watching how lower courts apply the Bruen standard.
Gun Control Groups’ Response & Growing Tensions
As gun rights advocates celebrate the rise in support for Bruen and look to the future of pro-gun cases in court, gun control groups are ramping up their efforts to push back. Recent reports indicate that these groups are heavily investing in ad campaigns targeting key states and races. The spending blitz has intensified as they seek to counterbalance the growing momentum on the pro-gun side.
At the same time, pro-gun groups, like the NRA, are fighting internal battles, with animal cruelty scandals and infighting hampering their ability to match the spending power of gun control organizations. Despite these challenges, gun rights advocates remain hopeful that the Bruen decision and upcoming cases will continue to protect and expand Second Amendment rights.
What This Means for the Future of Gun Policy
The Bruen decision represents more than just a legal victory; it symbolizes a cultural shift in how Americans view their Second Amendment rights. The ongoing popularity of Bruen, even among some Democrats, highlights the changing landscape of gun rights in the U.S. For pro-gun advocates, this is an encouraging sign, especially as the Supreme Court continues to revisit lower court rulings that could further strengthen Second Amendment protections.
With only weeks left for Election 2024, the big question is how a future presidency, whether under Trump or Harris, could influence gun policy. Both sides have vastly different approaches, but the Bruen ruling has laid a strong foundation for protecting the right to carry firearms for self-defense, no matter who occupies the Oval Office.
Gun rights advocates, staying informed and engaged is key. As more cases come through the courts and public opinion continues to shift, the Bruen decision will remain a cornerstone in the fight for Second Amendment protections.
https://www.ammoland.com/2024/10/even-democrats-approve-supreme-courts-2nd-amendment-bruen-decision/
I’ll be off line for a little while.
This is supposed to be the most joyous celebration of the year, when the cyclical reading of the Bible begins again. “In the beginning…”
Meanwhile…
Niggun Tribute to the IDF Fallen
Just one more.
Another version of “Av Ha-Rahamim” [Merciful Father]
Composed in memory of the martyrs massacred in Germany during the First Crusade. It is first known from a prayer book dated 1290.
Happening now.
‘Show what ABC won’t’: Gaza ‘culture’ shocks Australians amid visa turmoil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgozmt7aGs
One of the comments under this video refers to “Australian children singing the worst propaganda songs of the Ayatollahs’ regime” at the Opera House in Sydney. It provides this link (has english subtitles embedded):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOU53_Uzs9M
Quite disturbing!
A seminal interview with an important guest, Dr Judy Shelton. Her clarity is incredible as she speaks on sound money. If there is a practical answer to the BRICS, it is Shelton.
https://youtu.be/k6DsJFqXl20?si=C4lm8_rQF8YPuYrh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Shelton
American Freedom Alliance
https://www.youtube.com/@AmericanFreedomAlliance/videos
WWIII – Allentown – Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLER2GpHL7yGZ1jInRi9T6vCtTLXdPWF8T
Alex Newman: The Increasing Threat of Globalism
Alex Newman discusses: The Increasing Threat of Globalism, at the American Freedom Alliance’s World War III conference in Allentown, PA.
American Freedom Alliance – Posted October 23, 2024