This Philosopher Helped Ensure There Was No Nobel for Relativity

It amazes me that this debate never came across my desk considering how deep i was into this subject.  Relativity has stood the test of time because it instructs us how to handle time in terms of the induced geometry.  That is good enough.  

however, my work understands the the pure act of creation by consciousness produces the 3D manifold and time itself.  space time geometry is a consequence of that act of creation .

At this point i think consciousness is an essential element of the expanding content of space without time.

This Philosopher Helped Ensure There Was No Nobel for Relativity

Henri Bergson’s debate with Albert Einstein reached and swayed the 1921 Nobel committee.

BY JIMENA CANALES

April 18, 2016

On April 6, 1922, Einstein met a man he would never forget. He was one of the most celebrated philosophers of the century, widely known for espousing a theory of time that explained what clocks did not: memories, premonitions, expectations, and anticipations. Thanks to him, we now know that to act on the future one needs to start by changing the past. Why does one thing not always lead to the next? The meeting had been planned as a cordial and scholarly event. It was anything but that. The physicist and the philosopher clashed, each defending opposing, even irreconcilable, ways of understanding time. At the Société française de philosophie—one of the most venerable institutions in France—they confronted each other under the eyes of a select group of intellectuals. The “dialogue between the greatest philosopher and the greatest physicist of the 20th century” was dutifully written down.1 It was a script fit for the theater. The meeting, and the words they uttered, would be discussed for the rest of the century.

The philosopher’s name was Henri Bergson. In the early decades of the century, his fame, prestige, and influence surpassed that of the physicist—who, in contrast, is so well known today. Bergson was compared to Socrates, Copernicus, Kant, Simón Bolívar, and even Don Juan. The philosopher John Dewey claimed that “no philosophic problem will ever exhibit just the same face and aspect that it presented before Professor Bergson.” William James, the Harvard professor and famed psychologist, described Bergson’s Creative Evolution (1907) as “a true miracle,” marking the “beginning of a new era.” For James, Matter and Memory (1896) created “a sort of Copernican revolution as much as Berkeley’s Principles or Kant’s Critique did.” The philosopher Jean Wahl once said that “if one had to name the four great philosophers one could say: Socrates, Plato—taking them together—Descartes, Kant, and Bergson.” The philosopher and historian of philosophy Étienne Gilson categorically claimed that the first third of the 20th century was “the age of Bergson.” He was simultaneously considered “the greatest thinker in the world” and “the most dangerous man in the world.” Many of his followers embarked on “mystical pilgrimages” to his summer home in Saint-Cergue, Switzerland.

Albert EinsteinFred Stein Archive / Getty

Bergson’s reputation was at risk after he confronted the younger man. But so was Einstein’s. The criticisms leveled against the physicist were immediately damaging. When the Nobel Prize was awarded to Einstein a few months later, it was not given for the theory that had made the physicist famous: relativity. Instead, it was given “for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”—an area of science that hardly jolted the public’s imagination to the degree that relativity did. The reasons behind the decision to focus on work other than relativity were directly traced to what Bergson said that day in Paris.

The chairman for the Nobel Committee for Physics explained that although “most discussion centers on his theory of relativity,” it did not merit the prize. Why not? The reasons were surely varied and complex, but the culprit mentioned that evening was clear: “It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory.” Bergson had shown that relativity “pertains to epistemology” rather than to physics—and so it “has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles.”2

Einstein laid down the gauntlet by considering as valid only two ways of understanding time: physical and psychological.

The explanation that day surely reminded Einstein of the previous spring’s events in Paris. Clearly, he had provoked a controversy. These were the consequences. He had been unable to convince many thinkers of the value of his definition of time, especially when his theory was compared against that of the eminent philosopher. In his acceptance speech, Einstein remained stubborn. He delivered a lecture that was not about the photoelectric effect, for which he had been officially granted the prize, but about relativity—the work that had made him a star worldwide but which was now in question.

The invocation of Bergson’s name by the presenter of the Nobel Prize was a spectacular triumph for the philosopher who had lived his life and made an illustrious career by showing how time should not be understood exclusively through the lens of science. It had to be understood, he persistently and consistently insisted, philosophically. Why did two of the greatest minds of modern times disagree so starkly, dividing intellectual communities for years to come?

On that “truly historic” day when the two met, Bergson was unwillingly dragged into a discussion he had explicitly intended to avoid.3 The philosopher was by then much more senior than Einstein. He spoke for about half an hour. He had been prodded by an impertinent colleague, who had been in turn pressured to speak by the event organizer. “We are more Einsteinian than you, Monsieur Einstein,” he said. His objections would be heard far and wide. “Bergson was supposed by all of us to be dead,” explained the writer and artist Wyndham Lewis, “but Relativity, oddly enough at first sight, has resuscitated him.”4

The physicist responded in less than a minute—including in his answer one damning and frequently cited sentence: “Il n’y a donc pas un temps des philosophes.” Einstein’s reply—stating that the time of the philosophers did not exist—was incendiary.

What Einstein said next that evening was even more controversial: “There remains only a psychological time that differs from the physicist’s.” At that very moment, Einstein laid down the gauntlet by considering as valid only two ways of understanding time: physical and psychological. These two ways of examining time, although scandalous in the particular context that Einstein uttered them, had a long history. With Einstein, they would have an even longer one—becoming two dominant prisms inflecting most investigations into the nature of time during the 20th century.

The simple, dualistic perspective on time advocated by Einstein appalled Bergson. The philosopher responded by writing a whole book dedicated to confronting Einstein. His theory is “a metaphysics grafted upon science, it is not science,” he wrote. Einstein’s and Bergson’s contributions appeared to their contemporaries forcefully at odds, representing two competing strands of modern times. Bergson was associated with metaphysics, antirationalism, and vitalism, the idea that life permeates everything. Einstein with their opposites: with physics, rationality, and the idea that the universe (and our knowledge of it) could stand just as well without us. Einstein has since been crowned as the man whose work took “sensorial perception and analytical principles as sources of knowledge,” nothing more and nothing less.

Einstein’s theory of time, argued the philosopher, prevented us from realizing that “the future is in reality open, unpredictable, and indeterminate.”

The theory of relativity broke with classical physics in three main respects: first, it redefined concepts of time and space by claiming that they were no longer universal; second, it showed that time and space were completely related; and third, the theory did away with the concept of the ether, a substance that allegedly filled empty space and that scientists hoped would provide a stable background to both the universe and their theories of classical mechanics.

In combination, these three insights were related to a startlingly new effect, time dilation, which profoundly shocked scientists and the general public. In colloquial terms, scientists often described it by saying that time slowed down at fast velocities and, even more dramatically, that it completely stopped at the speed of light. If two clocks were set at the same time with respect to each other, and if one of them separated from the other traveling at a constant speed, they would mark different times, depending on their respective velocities. Although observers traveling with the clocks would be unable to notice any changes in their own system, one of them was slow in comparison to the other. Researchers calculated a striking difference between “time1” as measured by a stationary clock when compared to “time2” as measured by a clock in motion. Which of these referred to time? According to Einstein, both—that is, all frames of references should be treated as equal. Both quantities referred equally to time. Had Einstein found a way to stop time?

It’s all relative: The 1921 Nobel committee awarded Einstein the Prize for “his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.” Relativity was mentioned as a theory that had been challenged by Bergson.Albert Einstein Archives / Princeton University Press

Relativity scientists argued that our common conception of “simultaneity” needed to be upgraded: Two events that seemed to occur simultaneously according to one observer were not necessarily simultaneous for another one. This effect was connected to other aspects of the theory: that the speed of light (in vacuo and in the absence of a gravitational field) was constant. The velocity of most physical objects could successively be increased by piggy-backing on other fast-moving objects.

For example, a train traveling at a certain speed could be made to travel faster if placed on top of another fast train. While the first train could be traveling at, say, 50 mph, the one on top would go at 100 mph, the next one at 150 mph, and so on. Not so with light waves. The speed of light, in Einstein’s account of special relativity, was not only constant; it was an unsurpassable velocity. This simple fact led scientists not only to abandon the concept of absolute simultaneity, it also led them to a host of additional paradoxical effects, including time dilation.

Bergson found Einstein’s definition of time in terms of clocks completely aberrant. The philosopher did not understand why one would opt to describe the timing of a significant event, such as the arrival of a train, in terms of how that event matched against a watch. He did not understand why Einstein tried to establish this particular procedure as a privileged way to determine simultaneity. Bergson searched for a more basic definition of simultaneity, one that would not stop at the watch but that would explain why clocks were used in the first place. If this, much more basic, conception of simultaneity did not exist, then “clocks would not serve any purpose.” “Nobody would fabricate them, or at least nobody would buy them,” he argued. Yes, clocks were bought “to know what time it is,” admitted Bergson. But “knowing what time it is” presupposed that the correspondence between the clock and an “event that is happening” was meaningful for the person involved so that it commanded their attention. That certain correspondences between events could be significant for us, while most others were not, explained our basic sense of simultaneity and the widespread use of clocks. Clocks, by themselves, could not explain either simultaneity or time, he argued.

If a sense of simultaneity more basic than that revealed by matching an event against a clock hand did not exist, clocks would serve no meaningful purpose:

They would be bits of machinery with which we would amuse ourselves by comparing them with one another; they would not be employed in classifying events; in short, they would exist for their own sake and not serve us. They would lose their raison d’être for the theoretician of relativity as for everybody else, for he too calls them in only to designate the time of an event.

The entire force of Einstein’s work, argued Bergson, was due to how it functioned as a “sign” that appealed to a natural and intuitive concept of simultaneity. “It is only because” Einstein’s conception “helps us recognize this natural simultaneity, because it is its sign, and because it can be converted into intuitive simultaneity, that you call it simultaneity,” he explained.5 Einstein’s work was so revolutionary and so shocking only because our natural, intuitive notion of simultaneity remained strong. By negating it, it could not help but refer back to it, just like a sign referred to its object.

Bergson had been thinking about clocks for years. He agreed that clocks helped note simultaneities, but he did not think that our understanding of time could be based solely on them. He had already thought about this option, back in 1889, and had quickly discounted it: “When our eyes follow on the face of a clock, the movement of the needle that corresponds to the oscillations of the pendulum, I do not measure duration, as one would think; I simply count simultaneities, which is quite different.”6 Something different, something novel, something important, something outside of the watch itself needed to be included in our understanding of time. Only that could explain why we attributed to clocks such power: Why we bought them, why we used them, and why we invented them in the first place.

Psychological conceptions of time, Einstein insisted, were not only simply in error, they just did not correspond to anything concrete.

Our perception of the world was not, as commonly thought of, merely contemplative and disinterested, rather it was already shaped by our memories. Both were defined by our sense of what we could act on. Bergson warned his readers that unless they acknowledged the active role played by memories, they would inevitably come back to haunt them: “But if the difference between perception and memory is abolished … we become unable to really distinguish the past from the present, that is, from that which is acting.” The distinction between the past, the present, and the future was determined physically, physiologically, and psychologically.

Einstein’s theory of time, argued the philosopher, was particularly dangerous because of how it treated “duration as a deficiency.” It prevented us from realizing that “the future is in reality open, unpredictable, and indeterminate.” It eliminated real time; that is, “what is most positive in the world.”

During the debate, Einstein explicitly stated what he held to be the purpose of philosophy and why it should not play a role at all with respect to time. In the face of his contradictor, he gave to philosophy a very limited role. He proceeded to explain himself. He mentioned two common ways of thinking about time, psychological and physical. Psychological time was the time perceived by a person, while physical time was time as measured by a scientific instrument, such as a clock. Time as measured by an instrument was often different from time perceived by a person. Factors such as boredom, impatience, or simple psychological changes affected psychological perceptions of time. With the spread of timekeeping devices, the difference between time felt and time measured became increasingly noted. We know, for example by reading the diary of Franz Kafka, that in intimate accounts of that period, an “inner clock” often seemed to disagree from an “outer one.”

But in most cases, physical and psychological conceptions of time did not have to differ too much. Most people could estimate time in a manner that accorded pretty well with that of a clock, determining very precisely the time for breakfast, lunch, and dinnertime. Most people could also judge if two events were simultaneous in a way that accorded pretty well with simultaneity as measured by instruments. But the opposite was true when dealing with very fast events. In these cases (such as during the finish of a horse race), the deficiency of perceptions of simultaneity when compared to simultaneity as determined by an instrument was clear; these determinations differed significantly from those determined with instrumental aides. In a universe marked by events occurring close to the speed of light, the difference between the two was extreme.

According to Einstein, philosophy had been used to explain the relation between psychology and physics. “The time of the philosopher, I believe, is a psychological and physical time at the same time,” he explained in Paris. But relativity, by focusing on very fast phenomena, had shown just how off-the-mark psychological perceptions of time really were.

Psychological conceptions of time, Einstein insisted, were not only simply in error, they just did not correspond to anything concrete. “These are nothing more than mental constructs, logical entities.” Because of the enormous speed of light, humans had “instinctively” generalized their conception of simultaneity and mistakenly applied it to the rest of the universe. Einstein’s theory corrected this mistaken generalization. Instead of believing in an overlapping area between psychological and physical conceptions of time (where both were important although one was admittedly less accurate than the other), he argued that they were really two distinct concepts: a mental assessment (the psychological one) that was wholly inadequate when compared to the “objective” concept: physical time.

Bergson and Einstein accepted that an essential difference existed between psychological and physical conceptions of time, yet they made different deductions from this. For Einstein, this led him to conclude that “the time of the philosophers does not exist, there remains only a psychological time that differs from the physicist’s.”7 For Bergson this lesson—that psychological and physical assessments of time were different—made, on the contrary, the philosopher’s task even more interesting, especially because no one, not even physicists, could avoid the problem of relating time back to human affairs.

Henri Bergsonullstein bild / Getty

In the years that followed, Bergson was largely perceived to have lost the debate against the younger physicist. The scientist’s views on time came to dominate most learned discussions on the topic, keeping in abeyance not only Bergson’s but many other artistic and literary approaches, by relegating them to a position of secondary, auxiliary importance. For many, Bergson’s defeat represented a victory of “rationality” against “intuition.” It marked a moment when intellectuals were no longer able to keep up with revolutions in science due to its increasing complexity. Thus began “the story of the setback, after a period of unprecedented success, of Bergson’s philosophy of absolute time—unquestionably under the impact of relativity.” Most important, then began the period when the relevance of philosophy declined in the face of the rising influence of science.

Biographers who write about Einstein’s life and work rarely mention Bergson. One exception, a book written by a colleague, paints a picture of eventual rapprochement between the two men.8 But other evidence shows just how divisive their encounter was. A few years before their deaths, Bergson wrote about Einstein, and Einstein mentioned Bergson one last time. They underlined—once again—just how wrong the perspective of the other remained. While the debate was for the most part removed from Einstein’s legacy, it was periodically brought up by many of Bergson’s followers. The simple act of reviving the discussion that took place that day in April 1922 was not a matter that could be taken lightly. Not only is the incident itself divisive—its relevance for history is still contested.

Jimena Canales is a professor of history at the University of Illinois at Urbana who writes about the history of science and technology.

References

1. Cariou, M. “Dialogue” Bergson et Bachelard Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (1995).

2. Arrhenius, S. “Presentation Speech,” 10 December 1922 in Nobel Lectures in Physics (1901-1921) World Scientific, Singapore (1998).

3. Benrubi, I. Souvenirs sur Henri Bergson Neuchâtel: Delchaux & Niestlé, Paris (1942).

4. Lewis, W. Time and Western Man Gingko Press, Berkeley, CA (1993).

5. Bergson, H. Durée et Simultanéité Clinamen Press Ltd., Manchester, United Kingdom (1922).

6. Bergson, H. Essai sur les Données Immédiates de la Conscience George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London (1889).

7. Ushenko, P.A. Einstein’s influence on contemporary philosophy. In Schilpp, P.A. (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist Open Court, Chicago (1949).

8. Pais, A. Subtle is the Lord…”: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein Oxford University Press, New York, NY (1982).

Excerpted from The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time by Jimena Canales © 2015 by Princeton University Press. Reprinted by permission.

WEF Whistleblower Has Q Freakout On-Air

The magic of the Q posts is that they inform using specific dates in the future in such a way that mere coincidence becomes implausible. and you have to study them to work this out.

If Q is correctly recalling the future through which we are living, then we are well informed.  

otherwise this chap has access to confirmation sources we do not and is certainly up on it.  however jfk cannot be alive due to time and also because the Q operation was formed as a response to his assasination.  And jfk jr could plausibly be alive.  

Interesting.

WEF Whistleblower Has Q Freakout On-Air

Pascal Najadi, whose father co-founded the World Economic Forum with Klaus Schwab was on The Alex Jones Show last week and he shocked his host by going "Full Q".

FORBIDDEN.NEWS

MAY 5

Last week, Pascal Najadi claimed to Alex Jones that Klaus Schwab had been executed by US Delta Forces in coordination with the Swiss military and that, "The Swiss Territory is under full control of the US military right now, as we speak."

Najadi went on to claim that Elon Musk and Emmanuel Macron are "Gone, because the US Military and over 30 military forces – without their leaders – are under the control and command of the United States and the US Space Force is the coordinating hub –"

This is where Alex Jones cut him off. Alex despises the entire Q PSYOP and he bristles whenever anything vaguely topical is raised, especially because the Biden Regime has mercilessly targeted Americans who innocently followed the Q posts.

Nonetheless, Najadi blew past Alex' denials, saying that he had pictures of Hillary Clinton's execution at GITMO, which he said will be published in a video that he was releasing the next day; he also said that he has execution photos of Obama and others and that Bill Gates and Pope Francis and members of the British Royal Family have also been executed and that the Vatican and the WHO are now closed.

Najadi continued, "We are, since the 20th of December of 2019 – anybody can look it up, now, OK please – Congressional website, House.gov. Title 50 Chapter 33 War Powers Resolution Section 1550. Put in, 'Declared: Global Worldwide Defense War, US-Led, with Irregular – I'm Irregular, just to be clear – and Regular military and Partner Force in Special Operations.'

"So, since then, we are in a global defense war. It's covert. Yes it is. And I'm not going to compromise anybody – you cannot ask anybody who is in the military and they cannot talk. And it's good that way. Nobody will confirm it that way – but you can read it.

Najadi then triumphantly claims that both JFK and JFK Jr are alive. To announce something like that without providing absolute proof has is a cruel insult to the ears of many, including my own, as someone who was friends with JFK Jr and Carolyn and who has mourned their deaths of since 1999.

We are a planet of 5th Generation Warfare-weary people, desperately trying to cling to sanity. If you’re heaping more chaos onto the mix and you’re not providing any clarity on anything; you’re not helping, you’re hurting!

Alex Jones does not agree with his guest and he pronounces Pascal Najadi "absolutely mad". He considers, for a moment, that Najadi might be a paid influencer but then he thinks the better of it and believes that Najadi is cracked; a wounded warrior.

I disagree with Alex. I think Najadi is part of the same PSYOP as Derek Johnson, SGAnon and Dr Jan Halper-Hayes: They all refer to Donald Trump as the "Commander-in-Chief" and all refer to a secret international military operation currently underway, prosecuting and executing members of the Cabal. I have no idea if there is any coordination between the above-referenced individuals but their general message is similar.

The real question is how did a prominent Swiss banker morph into this super thirsty Q influencer?

Some people love this brand of hopium. Najadi may gain a slew of new followers who will eat this up – but I am not one of them.

This is not to say that I don't believe that operations to counter some of the atrocities of our Satanic overlords are underway. I do. I believe Tore Maras and Steve Pieczenik when they say that a lot of the insanity that we are witnessing is, indeed part of a global "sting operation".

It's like we're trapped in the Celebrity Death Match of PSYOPs and it’s not easy to understand what’s going on.

As Alex Jones says, "If I was the FBI or if I were the CIA: You better stop this psychological warfare right now! It has turned in on itself! You are the enemy! Everyone hates you! And now, it's taking on cartoon-level hatred! Give up! Stop! Quit!"

We have endured the past 8 years of being relentlessly strafed by psychological operations deployed by bureaucrats in our government – whose salaries we pay and who bribe their agents in the State Media with our tax money.

These are the same people who have expertly executed Color Revolutions and overthrown governments worldwide and now, they're doing it here, to us, to you, with the tax they take from the sweat of your brow – and they're not stopping. Their primary weapons are informational, cyber, algorithmic and psychological, produced by actors from General Stanley McChrystal's PeopleFirst.

We need to fully comprehend that the military-grade orchestrated gaslighting and psychological operations to which we are being subjected by our demonic bureaucrats at SES, the DoD, FBI, HHS, CDC, FDA, DOJ, FBI, DHS and CISA and behind the January 6th Committee, in concert with the Fake News media are a scaled-up version of a torture technique developed for interrogations described in a manual published by the National Defense Intelligence College in 2006, entitled, 'EDUCING INFORMATION – Interrogation: Science and Art', in a chapter called "Alice in Wonderland: The Power of Applied Confusion".

"Alice in Wonderland: The Power of Applied Confusion The aim of the Alice in Wonderland or confusion technique is to confound the expectations and conditioned reactions of the interrogatee. He is accustomed to a world that makes sense, at least to him: a world of continuity and logic, a predictable world. He clings to this world to reinforce his identity and powers of resistance. The confusion technique is designed not only to obliterate the familiar, but to replace it with the weird…[and] as the process continues, day after day, as necessary, the subject begins to try to make sense of the situation, which becomes mentally intolerable…[and] he is likely to make significant admissions, or even to pour out his story."

This manual cites an earlier 1963 torture manual entitled, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual", which was based on CIA research, much of it conducted through the MK ULTRA program but some of it going all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition of the 1300s.

In other words, what we're being put through is literally torture. The purpose of this technique is not just to obliterate the normal but to replace that which is normal with the mindbogglingly bizarre, so that the person goes into a state of trauma that is so awful, they would rather give up their secrets and return to a reality that makes sense, than to continue with more of this insanity.

The unrelenting Fake News, the fake Trump Prosecutions and fake impeachments, E Jean Carroll, Christine Blasey Ford, Jussie Smollett, Fani Willis and the media crucifixion of Kyle Rittenhouse, hundreds of billions for Ukraine, the transgender putsch, all of it is designed to badger everyone into agreement with the "New Thing", in order to make the badgering go away for just a little while.

Identifying the manipulations as they're happening will help you assert your cognitive boundaries and will help you to protect yourself from these incessant 5th Generation Warfare attacks, because it’s not going to stop. We may be living like this for the rest of our lives, so we need to learn how to survive the jive and to power through.

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Well, that is a company of soldiers and a press release from your most enthusiastic supporter.  then we are told that France cannot reach deployable division strength for two years.  exactly what is this supposed to do?

This is absurd.  I thought that Canada was the great shirker and missed the actual line up.

Peace is wonderful unless you need to get ready for war..  That means all sixteen year old boys learn to march and then go through basic training at 18.  four months of that and you have trainable manpower.  Then you need several additional months at least if not twice that to do it properly.

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Will the deployment of a Foreign Legion unit commanded by French officers trigger a wider European war?

By STEPHEN BRYEN

MAY 4, 2024

An honor guard from the French army's 6th Battalion stands at attention as they await the arrival of Lt. Gen. Khalid Bin Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz, commander of Joint Forces in Saudi Arabia, during Operation Desert Shield. The soldier in front is holding a 5.56mm FA MAS rifle, equipped with a bayonet.

France has sent its first troops officially to Ukraine. They have been deployed in support of the Ukrainian 54th Independent Mechanized Brigade in Slavyansk. The French soldiers are drawn from France’s 3rd Infantry Regiment, which is one of the main elements of France’s Foreign Legion (Légion étrangère).

In 2022 France had a number of Ukrainians and Russians in the Foreign Legion. They were allowed to leave the Legion and, in the case of the Ukrainians, return to Ukraine to join Ukrainian forces. It isn’t clear if the Russians returned home.

The Legion today is run by French officers but the rank and file are all foreigners. Under the curren anonymat (being anonymous) a volunteer who joins the Legion can decide whether to keep his given name or adopt a new one. Legionnaires serve for three year terms, after which they can ask for French citizenship. If a legionnaire is wounded, he is entitled to gain French citizenship without any waiting period. There are no women in the Foreign Legion

.

Troops of Third Infantry Regiment French Foreign Legion in Africa

The initial group of French troops numbers around 100. This is just the first tranche of around 1,500 French Foreign Legion soldiers scheduled to arrive in Ukraine.

These troops are being posted directly in a hot combat area and are intended to help the Ukrainians resist Russian advances in Donbas. The first 100 are artillery and surveillance specialists.

For months French President Emanuel Macron has been threatening to send French troops to Ukraine. He has found little or no support from NATO countries outside of support from Poland and the Baltic States. Allegedly the US opposes sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine (other than as advisors).

One of the questions to immediately arise from France’s decision to send soldiers from its 3rd Infantry Regiment is whether this crosses the Russian red line on NATO involvement in Ukraine? Will the Russians see this as initiating a wider war beyond Ukraine’s borders?

France itself does not have many troops to put on Ukraine’s battlelines, should the French government want to do so. According to reports, today France cannot support an overseas deployment of a full division and won’t have this capability until 2027 at the earliest.

The decision to send Foreign Legionnaires is, itself, a peculiar French compromise. France is not deploying its home army and, besides the small number of officers, the men sent are not French citizens.

France’s decision has two meanings, beyond the obvious one of potentially triggering a pan-European war.

First of all, it allows Macron to send troops to Ukraine and act like a tough guy without encountering much home opposition. That’s because no French army soldiers are being sent and there is no consequent conscription or other measures in the offing. This clearly reduces the potential fury of Macron’s political opponents.

F\rench Foreign Legionnaires in the desert. Photo: Vanity Fair

The second reason is Macron’s anger at seeing French troops, almost all from the Legion, getting kicked out of Sahelian Africa and replaced by Russians. Control of Francophone Africa, and the riches it provides to French politicians, has been broken by the revolt and revolution in Africa and a decisive tilt to Russia – either directly or through PMC Wagner (the Wagner Group). now clearly under Vladimir Putin’s direct control.

This “humiliation” is felt in the Élysée Palace and particularly by Macron who, his opponents say, has lost France’s influence and harmed France’s overseas mining and business interests.

A particular blow is in Niger, an important supplier of uranium to France. France gets 70 percent of its electrical power from nuclear power generators. Global uranium supplies are tightening and prices rising. With Russia and Kazakhstan, along with Niger, on the top of the heap in terms of supplying uranium for nuclear reactors, France has a home economic security problem. The US decision to ban Russian uranium (but probably not realistically, in the next few years) the Russians could deal a serious blow to France and the United States by cutting off supplies.

French Troops Departing Niger

Given the risk of losing access to uranium, or at least enough of it to supply France’s reactors, Macron has to hope that his troop deployments to Ukraine won’t trigger a Russian embargo on sales to France.

It isn’t clear how the Legionnaires can help the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians know how to operate artillery, and they have sophisticated intelligence support, some of it generated by their own FPV drones and spies and some of it thanks to US and other NATO intelligence and surveillance assets supporting Ukraine.

Anyway, the Ukrainian issue is not about how to use artillery but where the ammunition is supposed to come from. Ukraine continues to complain it lacks adequate supplies for 155mm howitzers.

The decision to put the Legion soldiers in Slavyansk is extremely provocative and goes against statements from the French side, including Macron, to the effect that if France sent troops they would replace Ukrainian army units in western Ukraine who could, therefore, be moved eastward to fight the Russians. As Slavyansk is on the front line, this French image of a soft deployment is turning into a war with Russia directly.

A key question is how NATO will react to the French decision to deploy. As France is acting on its own without NATO’s backing, the French cannot claim support from NATO under its famous Article 5, the collective security component of the NATO Treaty.

Should the Russians attack French troops outside of Ukraine it would be justified because France has decided to be a combatant, and forcing an Article 5 vote would seem to be difficult if not impossible.

Of course, NATO members individually could support the French, either by sending their own forces or by backstopping the French logistically and in communications. For example, there is no way Foreign Legion soldiers can go to Ukraine without passing through Poland. Will the Russians see this as evidence they are at war both with France and Poland?

Right now no one can answer any of these questions with any degree of certainty. It is unlikely the Russians will long tolerate a buildup of French army troops, even if they are Foreign Legion soldiers. What Russia will do in response is not certain.

Why Does Science Still Ignore Vitamin C?

Yee!!  Here we are almost a century after good science strongly supported the use of vitimin C and here we are still suppressing the truth.

No vitimin C for three months will give you scurvy.  Not fun.  It is my contention that aging is often worsened by low level scurvy.  Just not enough.  Understand every cell maintains C in order to react with viruses as the first level of defense.  so yes, you want to be C saturated and never C depleted which is often true for the elderly.

I personally have a heaping tespoon of ascorbic acid daily as did Linus Pauling.  All tge reccommende levels are low balls not good enough.

Recall only a short list of mammals do not just make their own.  It is actually a genetic mutation from our ancestral jungle lifeway that depended on ample fruits.

It used to be our government also had us consuming cod liver oil to get winter vitimin D  why not no more?  Do you rallythink the science has changed?  Traditional diets included plenty of saurkraut or kimchee and no one had a problem.  that was our superfood.

understand that Koreans survived hte Korean War with a handful of rice along with kimchee. good enough


Why Does Science Still Ignore Vitamin C?

Posted on: Friday, May 3rd 2024 at 3:00 am

Posted By: Orthomolecular News Service

Originally published on www.orthomolecular.org by Pim Christiaans

For more than 20 years, Dr. Harri Hemilä, biochemist, physician and epidemiologist, has been analyzing research conducted with vitamin C. In 2017, ORTHO magazine had an interview with him. [1] At that time, the interest in vitamin C was mainly about the common cold. Now it also concerns another virus infection, Covid-19. Has anything changed since then? The near-total lack of interest within medical science for vitamin C still exists. And apparently, medical professors don't give a damn about the vitamin, as if it were a career killer.

Since 2002, Hemilä has considered it his professional duty to analyze studies conducted on vitamin C and to publish the analyses. What is the common thread after more than a hundred scientific publications, of which twelve were published in the years 2020 and 2021, and three in 2022? Well, one of these three reveals that common thread. In a review article of 27 pages in the open access magazine Life, [2] Hemilä unfolds his experiences and explains them in a long telephone conversation with ORTHO. The title of the article speaks volumes: "Bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine: Examples from Trials of Vitamin C for Infections." Remarkable. It turns out that prejudices ("bias") are a major common thread in the medical scientific world.

Thousand versus half a million

In the article, Hemilä shows, among other things, that the authors of the COVID-A to Z Study wrongly conclude that vitamin C is ineffective against Covid-19, because the data they rely on incorrectly show otherwise. [3] This will be discussed in more detail below.

Hemilä is pleased that Life has published his extensive article on the prejudice against vitamin C for everyone to read. [2] However, he is under no illusions about its impact: "According to the counter on Life's website, more than a thousand people have read my article. The COVID-A to Z Study on JAMA's website also has a counter. And it was at half a million the last time I looked."

In the Life article, Hemilä refers to articles by scientists who note that since the beginning of the last century, doctors and medical scientists have been writing about and discussing nutritional supplements with disdain. According to these researchers, over-the-counter vitamin pills undermined the authority of doctors, because they allowed the patient to self-treat. Moreover, it was not possible to patent nutrients, so there was little to gain for the pharmaceutical industry. And in the second half of the twentieth century, the discovery of patentable antibiotics overshadowed the promising effects of vitamin C against infectious diseases.

It was not until the end of the 1960s that there was renewed interest in the vitamin when Linus Pauling got involved. This led to a series of relatively large studies that, according to Hemilä, supported the effectiveness of vitamin C. Nevertheless, scientific interest in the vitamin fell again in the late 1970s. Hemilä points to the so-called "Karlowski Study" as the main cause, along with two other articles from 1975.

Start of the problem

In 1975, five years after the publication of Linus Pauling's book Vitamin C and the Common Cold, the scientific journal JAMA published the results of the Karlowski Study, a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of vitamin C. [4] Although colds in the group of subjects who took 6 grams of vitamin C were 17% shorter, the authors attribute this outcome entirely to a placebo effect. Hemilä did not agree with this, and in 1996 subjected the data to a thorough re-analysis. [5] Astonished, he concluded that the data in fact do show a real, physiological effect of vitamin C and that the placebo explanation is incorrect. He caught the authors making all kinds of mistakes. For example, 42% of the recorded colds were apparently omitted from the subgroup analysis without further explanation - an unforgiveable sin within the statistics. The data indicate a dose-response effect: the tested dose of 6 grams per day is twice as effective as the tested dose of 3 grams per day. Hemilä calculates that if you draw the line, a study with 12 grams of vitamin C would have been the obvious choice. Such a study, however, never materialized, partly due to the discouraging placebo explanation of the Karlowski Study.

He compares the Karlowski-Study to a zombie: "Although liquidated long ago, it refuses to disappear into the grave and continues to leave a trail of destruction through scientific literature." Hemilä's skilful disassembly of the Karlowski Study has never been disproved, but nevertheless has had little impact. According to him, this study has remained by far the most influential study on vitamin C and the common cold. The vitamin C skeptics couldn't have it any better. There is a good chance that if a skeptical scientist mentions evidence on vitamin C, he will refer to this study.

Recent studies ignore evidence

Even now, according to Hemilä, studies are published with negative conclusions in their summaries, while the data on which they are based imply a very different conclusion. A good example of this is the 'CITRIS-ALI study' that was published in JAMA in 2019. [6]

In that study, participants were 167 patients in the ICU with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). They received intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg body weight every 6 hours) or a placebo for four days. The researchers conclude: "A 96-hour infusion of vitamin C showed no significant improvement in organ dysfunction scores, nor did it alter markers of inflammation and vascular damage, compared to placebo." but did not mention a major result: a strong decrease in mortality. Hemilä checked this and explained that during the first four days (when the vitamin C was administered) the mortality in the vitamin C group decreased by 81%. "The main clinically relevant result of the CITRIS-ALI trial was mortality and the measurement of a dozen biomarkers should not distract from that," said Hemilä.

A second study

As a second example, Hemilä provided the previously mentioned COVID-A to Z-Study, which was published in JAMA Network Open in 2021. [3] The aim of that study was to evaluate the effect of 8 grams per day of vitamin C in 520 ambulatory Covid-19 patients. However, the study was terminated prematurely due to the slow influx of patients. This slowness led, as the researchers had mentioned, to a state of "futility." [3] Therefore, in this aborted study, the number of patients remained at 214.

But Hemilä explained that this premature stopping was unjustified, because the effects of vitamin C were actually greater than the researchers had anticipated. [2] The researchers had expected a 1.0 day reduction in the duration of Covid-19, but they found a reduction of 1.2 days. Hemilä calculated that the recovery percentage in the vitamin C group was 70% greater than in the control group. None of this was reflected in the abstract of the article. The researchers, in turn, concluded that vitamin C did not significantly reduce the duration of symptoms.

How can this difference between the facts found and the conclusions of the research be explained? Hemilä does not need to look far: one of the authors of the COVID-A to Z-Study declared in the "Conflict of Interest" statement that she has carried out paid consultancy work for Gilead Sciences." [3] This pharmaceutical company is the producer of Remdesivir, the first virus-inhibiting drug that was approved by the FDA for the treatment of Covid-19. Hemilä writes in his Life article: "What motivation does such a researcher have to find out whether a very cheap nutrient is actually effective against Covid-19 when an expensive drug available is available from a company for which she is a consultant?"

Timing purely coincidental

In February 2020, a team led by Harri Hemilä published a meta-analysis in the Journal of Intensive Care on the effect of vitamin C on the duration of artificial respiration given to ICU patients. [7] The timing was purely coincidental, but could not be better: the SARS-CoV-2 virus had only just started to spread from Wuhan and would cause death and destruction in the rest of the world in the months that followed. Hospitals' intensive care units everywhere were overloaded by Covid-19 victims, some of whom had to be on artificial ventilation for an unusually long time. The article's analysis seemed to imply a benefit from treatment with vitamin C. Hemilä and colleagues had collected data from eight studies involving a total of 685 patients who had ended up in ICU for a variety of reasons. Their calculations indicated that vitamin C had shortened the duration of artificial respiration by an average of 14%. In the most critically ill patients who had been on the ventilator the longest, vitamin C had actually reduced the duration by 25%.

More about vitamin C and Covid-19

The big question now is whether lives would have been saved if the vitamin had been given as standard to all Covid-19 patients in the ICU from the start of the pandemic as a precaution? Very likely, but we'll never know. In any case, Hemilä's hopeful article received little attention. The field has not rushed to start the bigger and better research studies called for in the last paragraphs.

In a telephone interview, Hemilä reacted resignedly to this finding: "It is a very big step to add vitamin C to the treatment protocol for Covid patients in ICUs. Based on our publication, it is too early for that. The studies we had to rely on were small and therefore of poor quality. However, there is very strong evidence for a biological effect of vitamin C, which justifies better and larger studies. In the meantime, you could assuredly give it to patients -- because vitamin C is cheap, and safe even in doses of tens of grams administered orally or intravenously. This is again confirmed by a 2010 review of vitamin C researchers, including the first and last authors of researchers from the most respected institute in the US, the National Institutes of Health (NIH). [8]

Two quotes from Harri Hemilä:

Hemilä is not an uncritical apologist for Linus Pauling's views:

"Pauling had a point, but he was too optimistic about vitamin C," he says. "Unlike Pauling, I don't think that an ordinary, healthy person would benefit from taking more than 500 mg of vitamin C per day. For the elderly, he recommended something like 10 grams of vitamin C per day, and I see no justification for that. But if people are sick, the dose can be increased considerably. That should be better investigated."

About twenty years ago, he considered setting up a clinical trial with vitamin C himself, but he quickly abandoned that plan:

"You need a lot of doctors for such a project and the doctors I approached were not interested. People who matter in science just don't care. I then decided that it makes more sense to continue to focus on analyzing existing data"

Reviews and meta-analysis

In his most recent meta-analysis, Hemilä showed that vitamin C increases left ventricular ejection fraction in cardiac patients. [9] He is also the lead author of a number of authoritative meta-analyses on vitamin C for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: within the medical science field the conclusions of 'Cochrane reviews' are often taken as the most reliable evidence.

He became best known for his Cochrane review on vitamin C and the common cold. [10] The conclusion is that vitamin C can reduce the severity and duration of a cold, albeit to a modest degree: with a daily intake of at least 1 gram of vitamin C per day an infection with a respiratory virus lasts on average 8% shorter in adults and 18% shorter in children. In 2017 he told ORTHO that you can see these results as a "proof of concept" of the effectiveness of vitamin C against respiratory infections. [1] The small but significant effect proves that vitamin C has an influence on viral infections, and there are indications that the effect is greater at higher doses. Hemilä also published meta-analyses on the effects of vitamin C on pneumonia ("therapeutic supplementation with vitamin C is reasonable") [11] and vitamin C on the length of stay in IC patients: [12] this appears to be on average 8% shorter under the influence of moderate doses of vitamin C.

Against viral and bacterial infections

Hemilä has gradually become very well established in reference to his knowledge about vitamin C, especially with regard to infectious diseases. We should take the opinion of such a person seriously during a disruptive pandemic caused by a virus. For example, the article "Vitamin C and COVID-19," published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine in early 2021. [13] In that article, he reviewed the evidence from about a hundred animal studies that have shown that vitamin C can alleviate a wide range of viral and bacterial infections. In mice with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), high-dose vitamin C administration decreased pro-inflammatory genes, improved epithelial barrier function and improved alveolar fluid clearance. According to Hemilä, vitamin C has a number of biological properties that are important in light of Covid-19 and a weakened immune system: the vitamin stimulates the proliferation and function of T lymphocytes and Natural Killer lymphocytes and increases the production of interferon, which are important functions of the immune system.

Low blood levels

An important indication of the usefulness of vitamin C in the treatment of Covid-19 is the fact that patients in critical condition who end up in intensive care often have greatly reduced blood levels of vitamin C. [13] And a vitamin C deficiency is often associated with pneumonia: "While 0.1 grams of vitamin C per day can maintain a normal plasma level in a healthy person, much higher doses (1-4 grams per day) are needed for critically ill patients to raise plasma vitamin C levels to the normal range. Therefore, high vitamin C doses may be needed to compensate for the increased metabolism to reach normal plasma levels."

Sepsis and ARDS patients

Hemilä acknowledges in the article that there are currently no large double-blind random-controlled trials that provide direct evidence for an effect of vitamin C against Covid-19. [13] Weighing his words on a gold platter, however, he states that pending more and larger studies, high-dose vitamin C administration is already known to be helpful for Covid patients. After all, the vitamin is cheap and safe. He makes a suggestion based on his own review from 2017: "In patients suffering from a viral respiratory infection, 6 to 8 grams of oral vitamin C was significantly more effective than 3 to 4 grams per day. In recent studies of sepsis and ARDS patients, the dose of intravenous vitamin C was 7 to 14 grams over 3 to 4 days." [14]

Currently Hemilä finds that his call to utilize vitamin C has been little heeded. The fact that doctors have not started to give vitamin C to Covid-19 victims en masse can be explained by the appalling lack of good and large-scale studies. But why have they not been implemented? When asked about the state of affairs regarding the science of vitamin C and Covid-19 during the interview, he answered: "I can't say exactly because there is so much published that I can't keep up with it. Most of it is of low quality."

The Chinese Vitamin C Trial (2020)

As early as mid-2020, Hemilä was asked as a reviewer to comment on the protocol of a Chinese double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. [15] The intention of the study was that 308 Covid-19 patients in the ICU would receive 24 grams daily of vitamin C or a placebo by infusion for a week. However, the execution of the experiment largely failed because of the draconian lockdown measures of the Chinese government, and too few patients ended up in the ICU. It eventually became a 'pilot study' with 56 patients: the duration of artificial respiration did not decrease in the vitamin C group. [16] According to Hemilä, however, the number of test subjects was too low to draw clear conclusions. After the interview, he sent in an e-mail: "You asked about the state of affairs about vitamin C and Covid. See what you find when you type [vitamin C] and [Covid-19] on pubmed." The scientific search engine turns out to cough up sixteen reviews and four clinical studies. Hemilä, disappointed wrote: "That says enough. And most of it is junk."

How it started

How can the half-baked treatment of vitamin C be explained? Harri Hemilä explains it based on his own experiences over the years. His fascination for the vitamin started in the 1970s when he saw Linus Pauling on television. The two-time Nobel laureate has just published his book Vitamin C and the Common cold. In it, he argued, based on the studies available at the time, that the common cold can be treated with high doses of C. A few weeks later, a Swedish professor appeared on Finnish television. "A very arrogant man," Hemilä recalls. "He had a bottle of vitamin C tablets with him and said, "This is junk without any effect." But he had no factual arguments or study results to support his negative statements."

Hemilä was studying biochemistry at the time and he asked himself who is right: Pauling or the skeptical professor? "I started collecting all the articles about vitamin C and infections. I didn't understand how it was possible that the important reviews judged the vitamin so negatively, while you could conclude from the results of studies that C is actually effective."

(Pim Christiaans is journalist, magazine maker and author of health books in the Dutch language. He writes about scientific developments in the field of healthy aging at his website www.lifeunlimited.nl . Christiaans has no financial ties with or interests in companies that manufacture or sell nutritional supplements.)

Translated from Dutch and reprinted in English with permission of the author and Orthomoleculair Magazine, April 2022. Those seeking permission to reprint or translate may contact the magazine's publisher Gert Schuitemaker (ortho@ortho.nl)

References

1. Christiaans P (2017) Vitamine C tegen verkoudheid. Orthomoleculair Magazine. 5:184-189. https://docplayer.nl/154405845-Vitamine-c-tegen-verkoudheid-opnieuw-op-een-rij-gezet-door-finse-wetenschapper.html

2. Hemilä H, Chalker E (2022) Bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine: Examples from Trials of Vitamin C for Infections. Life 12:62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35054455.

3. Thomas S, Patel D, Bittel B, et al. (2021) Effect of high-dose zinc and ascorbic acid supplementation vs usual care on symptom length and reduction among ambulatory patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: The COVID A to Z randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 4:e210369. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33576820

4. Karlowski TR, Chalmers TC, Frenkel LD, et al. (1975) Ascorbic acid for the common cold: A prophylactic and therapeutic trial. JAMA 231:1038-1042. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/163386

5. Hemilä H (1996) Vitamin C, the placebo effect, and the common cold: A case study of how preconceptions influence the analysis of results. J Clin Epidemiol. 49:1079-1084. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8826986

6. Fowler AA, Truwit JD, Hite RD et al. (2019) Effect of vitamin C infusion on organ failure and biomarkers of inflammation and vascular injury in patients with sepsis and severe acute respiratory failure: the CITRIS-ALI randomized clinical trial. JAMA 322:1261-1270. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31573637

7. Hemilä H, Chalker E (2020) Vitamin C may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients: a meta-regression analysis. J Intensive Care 8:15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32047636

8. Padayatty SJ, Sun AY, Chen Q, et al. (2010) Vitamin C: Intravenous Use by Complementary and Alternative Medicine Practitioners and Adverse Effects. PLoS ONE 5(7):e11414. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20628650

9. Hemilä H, Chalker E, de Man AME (2022) Vitamin C May Improve Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 9:789729. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35282368

10. Hemilä H, Chalker E (2013) Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(1):CD000980. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23440782

11. Hemilä H, Louhiala P. Vitamin C for preventing and treating pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 8:CD005532. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23925826

12. Hemilä H, Chalker E (2019) Vitamin C Can Shorten the Length of Stay in the ICU: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2019; 11:708. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30934660

13. Hemilä H, de Man AME (2021) Vitamin C and COVID-19. Front Med. 7:559811. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33537320

14. Hemilä H (2017) Vitamin C and infections. Nutrients 9:339. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28353648

15. Liu F, Zhu Y, Zhang J, et al. (2020) Intravenous high-dose vitamin C for the treatment of severe COVID-19: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 10:e039519. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32641343

16. Zhang J, Rao X, Li Y, et al. (2021) Pilot trial of high-dose vitamin C in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Ann. Intensive Care 11:5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33420963

Police Regain Full Control Of UCLA As Marxist Protesters Pushed Off Campus

this is an obviously inspired protest movement courtesty of so called progressive operators. After all, a hundred dollar bill and a promise of a couple more vwill bring any street beggar out.  It brings out the usual suspects only and is certainly never spontaneous.

It needs to be met by arrest and a $1000 bond just to inconvenience them all,  The free pass has to end.  Pretty hard to call home and explain your act of rebellian means putting up bail.

If any students are even involved.  just how do they recruit another set of dumb kids every yeat?

Faux communism at its worst.

Police Regain Full Control Of UCLA As Marxist Protesters Pushed Off Campus

THURSDAY, MAY 02, 2024 - 08:33 AM

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/all-hell-breaks-out-ucla-marxist-protesters-battle-cops?

Update (1003ET):

Within hours of the Los Angeles Police Department, California Highway Patrol, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office starting to clear an encampment erected by anti-Israel protesters (Marxist) at UCLA, the news is spreading on X that police have gained complete control of the courtyard.

"A few hundred protestors have been pushed out of the last section of the encampment as CHP gains FULL CONTROL of the area," independent journalist Anthony Cabass wrote on X.

He said, "The encampment is being completely disassembled and mass arrests made of those that chose to stay behind. The UCLA Encampment is no more."

Law and order has been restored.

The aftermath.

A Fox News reporter said, "The place is a total mess." He noted classes won't restart until next week.

More of the aftermath... "Planet- and DEI-loving leftists trash and vandalize UCLA in support of antisemitism. Communism is not a point of view. It is an all-out attack on our society," X user Steve Milloy wrote.

Students and probably some professional protesters were arrested and bussed off to jail.

On Wednesday, Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, who has been awfully quiet about the UCLA chaos, finally released a statement:

Brainwashed Marxist kids causing chaos at woke universities and spreading like cancer across the nation is terrible optics for the Biden administration and the Democrat Party.

... and these kids are asking for us, the taxpayers, to bail out their student debts of worthless gender degrees.

With the anti-Israel protesters (or just brainwashed Marxist kids and some paid agitators) disbanded by the New York Police Department in the overnight hours, attention has shifted onto the chaos unfolding at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in Los Angeles, California.

Fox News reports multiple law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, California Highway Patrol, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, have arrived at the university in full-blown riot gear and surrounded the anti-Israel (Marxist) encampment on campus.

Footage on X shows police trying to break through the protester barrier. Notice how the protesters mostly wear the same brand-new white construction helmets; it seems there was organization and funding for the campus takeover.

Brainwashed kids in their white helmets chant, "We're not scared."

Those on the ground describe the situation as "chaotic."

Here's a recap so far (courtesy of Al Jazeera): US police have surrounded an anti-war protest camp at UCL

Police operation began a day after violent attack by pro-Israel mo

Officers entered the camp before leaving shortly after

Witnesses say police could be using 'probe and retreat' tactics

Just chaos.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is awfully silent about the violent Marxist takeover of America's colleges and universities. Maybe it is because it is optically displeasing to voters to watch leftist indoctrination camps (schools) implode in violence ahead of the presidential elections in November.

Bloomberg shows the nationwide Marxist takeover of colleges and universities in one map.

 

Source: Bloomberg

It's highly speculative, but besides dark Soros money funding the chaos, X user Patrick Webb believes the protests were planned months in advance, as early as November.

As a reminder, these protests have very little to do with the poor Palestinians and more to do with a Marxist takeover of the US.

One radical left extremist said the quiet part out loud to hundreds of youngsters this week:

"There's only one solution, intifada revolution. We must have a revolution so we can have a socialist reconstruction of the USA."

And there is hope. As we showed yesterday, the boys at Pi Kappa Phi at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill stood against the purple-haired Marxists to protect Old Glory.

Commenting on the UNC incident, CIO Kyle Bass said: "It's time we fight back against the spineless 'victims' who represent the rot that has infected our universities."

The reason why woke universities are all of a sudden cracking down on protesters in unison - mostly likely has to do with the terrible optics for the Democratic Party.