The vote passed earlier today by a huge margin of 157-1.
“The law was included in a larger bill cracking down on pedophilia by creating a register of child sex offenders, implementing stricter punishments for child pornography, and barring pedophile offenders from jobs where they would encounter children. It also singled out the promotion of LGBT affairs in schools,” reports RT.
According to a statement by ruling party Fidesz, the law ensures that sex education in schools “must not be aimed” at “promoting homosexuality” or “changing gender.”
Television shows, movies and advertisement are all also banned from showing any content deemed to be promoting homosexuality or transgenderism.
After left-wing lobby groups opposed the law, protesters took to the streets of Budapest to demonstrate against the law.
Demonstration in Budapest against the Hungarian government's new law banning #LGBT "propaganda". pic.twitter.com/cD67sOicm3
— Andras Juhasz (@andras_juhasz) June 14, 2021
However, their sentiments are not shared by the population, which voted overwhelmingly for right-wing Fidesz when the party was re-elected in 2018.
Hungary is one of few European countries that actively tries to protect its family-oriented and Christian heritage by moving to stop children being exposed to harmful information and lifestyles.
The country’s populist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has cultivated support for his efforts to defend the sanctity of the family in the face of rampant progressivism in other European countries.
Last December, Hungary passed a constitutional amendment affirming the right of children to identify with their birth gender and defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Asserting that Europe’s native population decline represented a “sickness,” Orbán also oversaw a program to offer significant financial incentives for the country’s own native citizens to have children, handing out €30,600 loans to married couples who have three or more children which are completely forgiven after the birth of the third child.
While major institutions in the United Kingdom and U.S. embassies all over the world now fly the LGBT flag above their buildings, a rainbow-colored statue erected in Budapest by leftist activists in honor of Black Lives Matter was demolished within 24 hours.
Last week, Orbán also defended Hungarian football fans who booed Irish players ‘taking a knee’ for BLM, asserting that the gesture was a “provocation” based on white guilt over slavery and that Hungary would not be partaking in the virtue signalling act.
Beijing has accused Washington of exhibiting “paranoid delusion” and “Cold War mentality,” after the US Senate passed a new bill aimed at bolstering the position of American tech in competing with China.
The foreign affairs committee of the National People’s Congress, China’s parliament, blasted the new US legislation on Wednesday, accusing Washington of seeking to undermine the country’s “legitimate right to development through technology and economic decoupling.”
The legislation is “full of Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice,” and the Chinese parliament is voicing “strong indignation and resolute opposition” to it, the committee said in a statement carried by China’s state media.
The bill shows that the paranoid delusion of egoism has distorted the original intention of innovation and competition.
The new legislation, officially known as the US Innovation and Competition Act, was passed by the Senate on Tuesday. The bill, which has become one of the largest industrial bills in the US history, received broad bipartisan support, getting passed 68-31. After scoring the Senate’s approval, the bill is now heading into the House of Representatives.
The bill authorizes around $190 billion to strengthen US technology and research, as well as some $54 billion to increase production and research into semiconductors and other telecommunications equipment.
“If we do nothing, our days as the dominant superpower may be ending. We don’t mean to let those days end on our watch. We don’t mean to see America become a middling nation in this century,” one of the co-sponsors of the legislation, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, stated.
Apart from giving a big boost to American research and development, the legislation also contains a wide range of explicit anti-China provisions. Namely, it bans the downloading of Chinese social media app TikTok on government-issued devices, as well as blocking the procurement of drones manufactured by companies linked to the Chinese government.
The legislation also delves into matters rather remotely related to big tech, such as enabling Taiwanese diplomats and military to display the island’s flags and wear uniforms while conducting official business in the US. Taiwan is regarded by Beijing as an integral part of the country, and China has repeatedly accused Washington of meddling in its internal affairs and violating the so-called ‘one China’ policy.
I have my doubts whether the Putin-Biden summit in Geneva will take place later this month, but even if somehow it is pulled off, recent Biden Administration blunders mean the chance anything of substance will be achieved is virtually nil.
The Biden Administration was supposed to signal a return of the “adults” to the room. No more bully Trump telling NATO it’s useless, ripping up international climate treaties, and threatening to remove troops from the Middle East and beyond. US foreign policy would again flourish under the steady, practiced hands of the experts.
Colonel General Aleksandr Fomin spoke to the network ahead of the 9th Moscow Conference on International Security, scheduled to take place on June 22-24 in the Russian capital. The event brings together military officials and security experts from different countries, with some 49 nations having already confirmed their participation.
The upcoming conference is an explicitly non-partisan event, and the countries are invited to partake regardless of their current relationship with Russia, Fomin stated.
“At the forum, we give the floor not only to partners who share our approaches to solving major world problems, but also to opponents, countries with which cooperation today is at bare minimum or equal to zero,” Fomin said.
Discussions like those at the Moscow forum are particularly important during challenging times, the official added, as the world’s political and security landscape is currently experiencing historic shifts, with the ‘old’ world order crumbling apart.
"Today we are witnessing the formation of a new world order. We see a tendency for countries to be drawn into a new Cold War, the states being divided into ‘us’ and ‘them’, with ‘them’ unambiguously defined in doctrinal documents as adversaries."
“The existing system of international relations and the security framework is being systematically destroyed. The role of international organizations as instruments of collective decision-making in the field of security is being diminished,” Frolov said, without specifying examples.
Over the past few years, particularly under former US president Donald Trump, multiple international agreements ceased to exist. Effectively, only one major accord between Washington and Moscow – the New START treaty – remains, after President Joe Biden agreed to extend it for another five years.
The emergence of new weapons systems, as well as the efforts of some nations to bring warfare into areas that have never seen it before, further accelerates the emergence of a “new world order,” Frolov noted.
“Fundamentally new types of weapons that radically change the balance of power in the modern world are emerging, with warfare getting into new areas – into space and cyberspace. This, of course, leads to a change in the principles and methods of war,” he added.
Source: https://www.rt.com/russia/525561-new-world-order-emerges/
Low-orbit space planes have been named as a possible carrier of American nuclear warheads. While theoretically possible, at current technology levels such weapons would be significantly more trouble than they are worth.
According to the director-general of Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey, Yan Novikov, the US has orbital bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Variants of the Boeing X-37 orbital test vehicle, launched in 2010 and officially used for scientific purposes, can theoretically carry up to six warheads, Novikov claimed during a virtual educational forum in Russia in May.
In the words of Kyle Mizokami, who wrote an article on this for Popular Mechanics, “this isn’t even a good idea”. While Mizokami’s take is titled “Don’t believe Russia”, and its main thrust is apparently that Mr. Novikov is hyping up the US orbital nukes threat to boost the sales of Almaz-Antey’s surface-to-space missiles, he does have some good points that explain why the dangers of orbital bombing are more than a little exaggerated.
First off, putting nukes on an X-37 to then launch them from orbit will require extensive modification to the weapons, which will only allow two or, at best, three, to be taken on board – not nearly enough for an effective surprise attack. And to carry an element of surprise, it would have to approach Russia from a very specific direction to avoid the radars of early-warning systems – and even so, it won’t be able to hide from visual detection.
Aside from the lack of surprise, there is a long list of problems associated with space planes carrying nuclear payloads.
“The idea of placing strategic nuclear weapons in low Earth orbit isn't new. It emerged with the first successful launches of the Earth's artificial satellites,” ex-chief of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces, Honored Military Pilot, Colonel-General of Aviation Igor Maltsev says.
According to him, for a number of reasons, space projects like this never went beyond concept or, at best, preliminary design. Why was that the case?
Technically, the goal of putting these weapons in space is achievable, says Igor Maltsev. Anything can be launched to space. But when the idea is to create a strategic weapons system in orbit, there are a number of challenges that have, so far, prevented any significant progress along these lines.
The issues include, primarily, the effectiveness of this weapon and its control efficiency. A surface-to-air intercontinental missile can be launched at any time and can hit any pre-selected target. All you have to do is press a button and the missile is off on its way to hit the target, in accordance with the preset flight mission. However, a space missile system is dynamic, it’s always in motion.
You can’t set it on target in advance, Igor Maltsev explains. Since the system is dynamic, it needs to be constantly adjusted to hit the right target, as it moves. If there’s no adjustment, the space bomber can still launch its warhead to hit a pre-selected target, but only from a particular point in space.
“The need for such a dynamic control system is the main obstacle to placing nuclear weapons in orbit,” says Col. Gen. Maltsev.
Say a satellite was designed to hit Moscow. The operator pushes the launch button, but the space vehicle is still very far away, as it’s constantly moving at a speed of 28,000kmh.
The second problem is the target accuracy of a nuclear warhead. It will no doubt be inferior to that of ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. There are plenty of examples when returning space crews landed in Siberia instead of Kazakhstan, Col. Gen. Maltsev points out.
To sum it up, there are problems related to orbital nuclear weapon control systems that are hindering progress and preventing space militarization. “I don’t see how these problems can be addressed in the foreseeable future. Dynamic systems are very sophisticated and expensive. They are going to be a dozen, a hundred or even a thousand times more expensive than similar weapons currently used by Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces,” explains Col. Gen. Maltsev.
Another important consideration is the sustainability and safety of nuclear weapons deployed in space. While the warhead of an intercontinental ballistic missile is stored in a special well-protected missile silo, a space vehicle can easily be approached and tampered with. It can be brought out of operation by a number of means, including an EMP, or electromagnetic pulse.
“As for maneuverable reentry vehicles and hypersonic glide vehicles employed by the Russian Armed Forces, they are only used in ground-based missile systems, their flight missions and trajectories set in advance, and their flight progresses strictly according to the mission objective. This accounts for the high target accuracy of these weapons, compared to hypothetical space-based systems,” explains ex-deputy head of the General Staff’s Main Operations Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces Lt. Gen. Valery Zaparenko.
“As for detection and escort of space bombers by Russia’s Space Missile Defense capabilities, I can say that the Don 2N passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar is able to detect a spherical object with a diameter of 5cm from a distance of 1,000km. An object the size of an Х-37В space vehicle will be detected by a Voronezh-type early-warning radar from a distance of several thousand kilometers. All previous flight missions of this vehicle have been registered by the Russian Space Forces’ equipment. So there is no chance that this so-called space bomber can succeed in approaching any defended Russian target unobserved,” adds Lt. Gen. Zaparenko.
And Russia will retaliate with a nuclear strike of its own anyway.
It will be carried out both by the aerospace defense system and the so-called Dead Hand. The Perimeter system (or rather, its modern iteration) will accomplish a full-scale retaliatory nuclear strike even if the Russian government and the military are crippled or completely paralyzed.
At this point, we can only speculate about how Russia’s Dead Hand operates, since there is no factual data on it. There is reason to believe that it consists of command posts, command ballistic missiles, receivers and an autonomous command and control system. All these terms are largely provisional.
After the system approves the use of strategic nuclear weapons (this process is fully automatic), it sends out a command rocket or rockets with a special warhead that transmits a launch command to all the nuclear delivery vehicles with corresponding receivers. ICBMs and SLBMs are then launched automatically.
The Perimeter system makes its decision based on data from numerous sensors installed across the country that monitor seismic and radiological activity, as well as atmospheric pressure, for signs of nuclear blasts. Even in times of peace, this system can determine where in the world a nuclear device went off with an almost 100% accuracy.
Still, the description above is very general and not that close to how the Dead Hand operates in reality.
So in the end, it doesn’t really matter whether or not the US is going to have nuclear space bombers, because a devastating retaliatory strike will be carried out no matter what.
Source: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/525493-us-space-nukes-boeing/
Russian President Vladimir Putin has elaborated on progress in the country’s military’s modernisation efforts in an address televised on Russia’s Rossiya 24 channel. The most widely re-reported part of his statement covered one of Russia’s most highly anticipated new defence products, the S-500 long range air defence system, regarding which Putin announced: "In the Aerospace Forces, about 70 percent of anti-aircraft missile regiments are re-equipped with modern S-400 systems, the next step is the supply of S-500 complexes to the troops, tests of which are already being successfully completed.” Putin further noted regarding other areas of modernisation: “All types and sorts of troops should develop in a balanced and systematic manner, fully taking into account modern trends in the military strategy and tactics of the world's leading military powers… The army and the navy are receiving the latest weapons and military equipment with high dynamics, thus, the potential of the nuclear triad has been seriously strengthened, the combat capabilities of the navy have been expanded, including through the ships with Kalibr cruise missiles, the Zircon shipborne hypersonic missile system is at the final stage of state testing.”
The S-500 has seen its entry into frontline service delayed by many years, with widespread speculation among analysts that this was a result of a change in required specifications during development on request of the Russian military due to the growing perceived threat posed by enemy space, stealth and hypersonic assets. The air defence system is not expected to replace the S-400, which is currently in serial production for both domestic use and for export, and was developed primarily to engage high value targets at extreme ranges such as satellites, space aircraft, hypersonic missiles, intercontinental range bombers and support aircraft such as E-3 Sentry AWACS jets.
This contrasts to the S-400, which although capable of engaging many kinds of high end target, is better suited than the S-500 to combating large numbers of lower end targets such as cruise missiles. The S-500 has a reported engagement range of 600km - approximately triple that of the longest range Western air defence systems such as the American THAAD and the U.S.-Israeli David’s Sling - and is expected to retain very high mobility through use of mobile launch vehicles, radars and command centres as the S-400 has. The air defence system is expected to enter service before the second half of 2022, and will provide an effective means of responding to emerging U.S. armaments currently under development such as the B-21 stealth bomber and the SR-72 hypersonic space plane - as well as other American space planes under development.
The response to No10’s review into racial disparities in the UK has been truly disturbing. Labour, the radical left, the broadsheet press and the BBC — some of whose talking heads have spent the entire day looking and sounding bewildered — have reacted with horror to the suggestion that the UK is not actually a racist country. ‘What do you mean Brits aren’t a disgusting, hateful throng?’, the great and good have essentially cried. This could prove to be one of the most revealing moments in the contemporary culture wars.
The review is a brave one. It doesn’t so much cut against the grain of received wisdom as drive a juggernaut straight through it. It says that of course there is still racism in the UK, especially on social media. But institutional racism? Structural blocks to ethnic-minority engagement in education, work and public life? Nope. That just isn’t there. This shibboleth of chattering-class thought — that Britain is a structurally foul country, holding back its ethnic minorities — has collapsed under scrutiny. The semi-religious conviction that has gripped the elites since at least the 1999 Macpherson report into the police’s handling of the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence — the idea that Britain, from top to bottom, is stained with the original sin of racism — just isn’t reflected in the facts.
The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, headed by Tony Sewell, does something that feels almost revolutionary in the midst of today’s misanthropic conviction that Britain is a racist hellhole. It tells the truth. The truth that children from ethnic-minority backgrounds are doing just as well as, or are outperforming, white kids in compulsory education. Children with Black Carribean heritage are the only ones doing worse than white kids. The success of minority groups in the education system has ‘transformed British society over the last 50 years into one offering far greater opportunities for all’, the review says. It is testament to the extent to which the fact-lite fatalism of depressive identitarians has colonised public life that it feels shocking to read a positive assessment of life for ethnic minorities in the UK.
The review also points out that the pay gap between ethnic-minority workers and white-majority workers has shrunk dramatically, to just 2.3 per cent. For workers under the age of 30 there is barely any racial pay gap at all. Brilliant. That’s great progress. It also points to the explosion in diversity in law, medicine and other professions. It isn’t all a bed of roses, of course. No one benefits from Panglossianism. There is still overt racism, especially in the cesspit areas of the internet, the review says, and some communities still feel the burden of ‘historic racism’, which could potentially hold them back. But we can work on these problems, now that they’ve been properly identified and named.
The review has told, and illustrated with facts, a good story: the leaps forward made by ethnic-minority groups in the UK. People are celebrating these revelations, surely? Not a bit of it. The liberal commentariat, the left and the vast race-relations industry have responded with fury to the review. It’s a ‘let down’, it’s a ‘disgrace’. Tony Sewell, according to writer and activist Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, is a ‘token black man’. Others have denounced Sewell as a modern-day Uncle Tom. These vile racialised assaults on a black man who simply disagrees with the dominant narrative of ‘institutional racism’ prove the review’s point that racism can still be found on the internet.
Why are the cultural elites so furious with the review? Because they are so heavily invested in the idea that Britain is an institutionally racist country. They need this myth. They benefit from it. It guarantees funding to their organisations, clout for their spokespeople, influence for those who can claim the mantle of racial victimhood. They see the review — rightly — as a direct challenge to the social and political power they have built on the back of the myth of institutional racism. They loathe Sewell because he has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the powerful identitarian lobby. He has pricked their politics of grievance. He threatens to derail the gravy train. Their fury is driven by naked self-interest disguised as concern about racism.
This is why Sewell is being talked about almost as a heretic. His review’s questioning of the idea of institutional racism is being treated as an act of sacrilege, a sinful assault on orthodoxies carefully nurtured and promoted by identitarian sects. In suggesting that social class is more important than race, this Tory government has done something more radical and destabilising than the moronic new left could ever hope to achieve — it has exposed the hollowness, the divisiveness and the pretensions of the identitarian set, and suggested that economic factors such as class deserve more of society’s attention and resources. ‘Class?! How dare you’, the dumb left says.
‘Institutional racism’ is in many ways the founding myth of the new elites. It is the source of their moral authority. In depicting Britain as a racist country, they can position themselves as the wise, enlightened ones who must rescue and re-educate us all. Once, the elites viewed us as an underclass in need of moral correction; now they view us as a racist throng requiring unconscious bias training. No wonder they’re so angry today: this review has weakened the already weak foundations of their elitist claims to moral and social authority over the masses. The Emperor of Identitarianism now stands naked before us. And you know what to do: laugh.
Project Veritas released a new video today provided by a Brave Facebook Insider exposing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s contradictory position when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines.
Here are some of the highlights from the video:
You can watch the video here:
Says global situation is prompting “destruction of traditional values.”
Mikhail Svetlov via Getty Images
During a virtual appearance at the World Economic Forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the world’s failure to resolve its conflicts could lead to a war that would mean “the end of our civilization.”
Putin asserted that the coronavirus pandemic as well as increasing political polarization has exacerbated preexisting global problems and that there is “every reason to believe that the tensions might be aggravated even further.”
Citing experts who have likened the current global environment to the situation in the 1920’s and 30’s, the Kremlin leader cautioned that the world was heading down a potentially disastrous path.
“In the 20th century, the failure and inability to centrally resolve such issues resulted in the catastrophic World War II,” he said. “Of course, nowadays such a heated conflict is not possible, I hope that it’s not possible in principle, because it would mean the end of our civilization.”
Putin said that the “destruction of traditional values” and freedom itself was on the line if the situation is allowed to deteriorate to the point of conflict where it’s “all against all.”
Elsewhere in his talk, Putin addressed Internet censorship, asserting that social media networks were now competing with elected governments over monopoly of power.
“We are now talking about economic giants, aren’t we? In certain areas, they are competing with states and their audience can include millions and millions of users,” said Putin.
“Here is the question, how well does this monopolism correlate with the public interest?” he asked.
Source: https://summit.news/2021/01/27/putin-warns-of-conflict-that-would-mean-end-of-our-civilization/
Liberteon