Watch: Rocker Morrissey Kisses Rosary, Sings Song Questioning Whether Arsonists Burned Down Notre Dame

Paul Bois4 Jul 2023

English rock star Morrissey sang about the potential origins of the infamous Notre Dame fire while kissing a rosary at a recent concert.

Video of the moment began circulating on social media Monday, which showed the former frontman for The Smiths passionately singing about the fire, questioning if it could have been an act of terrorism:

Notre Dame, we know who tried to kill you / Notre Dame, we will not be silent / Before investigation they said: this is not terrorism / They said there is nothing to see here.

Experts have said the Notre Dame fire, which ignited at the beginning of Holy Week in 2019,likely sparked from either a cigarette or a shortage in the electrical system. Projections say it will be rebuilt in 2024 in time for the Paris Olympics.

The concert reportedly featured 1,500 people at the Zappa Shuni Amphitheater in Israel — Morrissey’s first show in the country since 2016.

“I’m very happy to be here in God’s country, the center of the world,” said Morrissey, an avid supporter of Israel.

Per the Jerusalem Post:

He displayed the energy that most 64-year-olds would only wish they had. Fiddling with the cross pendant on his necklace, kneeling down heroically to take breathers, comically hiding a whiff from a nasal spray, doing his classic chainsmoker schtick when a fan threw a cigarette to the stage on command as he sang “Give me a cigarette” on the song “Our Frank”, Moz’s flamboyant antics and interactions with the crowd keep things fresh.

Besides the few comments on Israel, Morrissey also started off some of his songs with cryptic videos and animations, and remarks on the Paris Riots (leading into “I’m Throwing My Arms Around Paris” and “Notre Dame”), rhetorically asking “Who will save Paris? Who will save France? Who do you think?”

He also mentioned his violent distaste for media and journalism, often being on the receiving end of portrayals of an iconoclastic artist in decline from the so called “Loony Left.” He said “Today your local newspaper called me annoying, which means that tomorrow I’m gonna have to burn it down, which will really annoy them.”

While Morrissey has been harshly critical of former President Trump, he also has been equally sharp in his rebukes of former President Barack Obama, media bias, political correctness, and wokeness.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2023/07/04/watch-rocker-morrissey-kisses-rosary-sings-song-questioning-whether-arsonists-burned-down-notre-dame/

Requiem for Independence

Welcome to Global Resistance

July 4, 2023.1/2(must read)

Growing up through the 1980’s one became accustomed to the Hollywood tactical employment of laser beams in movies and television to signal that a character was under the gun – a long gun, to be specific. This red dot would be noticed by the afflicted actor, and the behavior would change accordingly to signify defeat, often with a melodramatic flare.

These days the operators of cinematic gunplay have transitioned to the hyper-realistic use of infrared lasers and Night Observation Device Systems (NODS). The action is fast paced – the violence of action is palpable. The laser, however, is invisible to those so afflicted. There is no change of behavior with the presence of the green dot. Just a dampened 120 decibels, suppressed flash, impact thud, and a confirmed “tango down.”

This transition through cinematic history provides an adept analogy for where we find ourselves today in America. Look downward to your center chest. See the dot? No? That’s because you’re not looking through the correct lens.

The dot is there, but too many people in America deny the dot is there because they expect it to glow red, and there is obviously no red dot present on their chests. That’s normalcy bias, and the expectation that the current war will be fought in the same manner as the last.

Some of you expect Red Dawn: the paratroopers with an incomprehensible, but devilish sounding language shooting at civilians randomly. Some of you expect Normandy, and others Iraq.

The fact is that you should expect exactly what you currently see happening, because the next war is here right now, and you’re already under the gun.This war is the first truly global war – there is nowhere information, and its effects, will not touch.

In an age plus-or-minus months to AI singularity, andalready extremely advanced algorithmic systems running more of our lives than we can even understand, you carry the most advanced espionage spy device in human history in your pocket without a second thought. You use the internet with unique signifiers connected to your real name. You drive a car with both visual unique identifier (license plate) and electronic (GPS, RFID, cellular) tracking built in.

Perhaps in a more perfect world with benevolent overlords we might escape the penalty for our addiction to convenience. But here, in this world, you are already on lists of enemies, or of friends, and of criminals, or of those above the law, and of those to reward incrementally, or of those to crush opportunistically. The dot is already there.

Why do you think they keep reinterpreting ATF rules to make more and more things illegal, and more and more decent Americans potential felons? They’re not going to go door to door. Don’t be silly. Think.

They will keep their actions below the threshold of provoking a counter-reaction for as long as possible. It’s for the same reason that they’re gradually making certain speech, or lack thereof, criminal – the same reason that they’re criminalizing money transfers over a few hundred dollars without reporting, and so much more.Why do you think they’re indicting Trump more than a cartel kingpin? They want a thousand and one options from which to choose to “justify” the system swallowing whole anyone deemed a threat.Take another look at your chest….

https://apaththrough.substack.com/p/requiem-for-independence

>>19128093

2/2

The crimes of our ruling family are rubbed in our faces daily. They want us to feel maximum anger so that their next blow, the slow rollout of anti-justice in which nobody is held to account and the innocent are sentenced to rot, results in maximum demoralization.But when you put your NODS on, you look down and see that glowing dot on your chest, you can also look up and glimpse the long gun, and beyond it to the man on the gun, and the movements of the enemy forces. You can begin to discern that getting caught up in the news cycle of “indictment!,” and “hearing!,” and “impeachment!” is a fools errand that makes you little more than the actor cast by your enemy to play that role for their enjoyment. They want you to play that role. That role results in your total nullification: you are rendered a noncombatant.

So, what don’t they want? They certainly don’t want you using discernment. They want you listening to their words instead of knowing them by their actions. They want you to acknowledge the labels nicely placed on everyone around you to help them control you, and they certainly don’t want you applying labels that conform to an objective reality in contravention of their own curated fiction.

When millions of illegals flow over the border they want you to believe they are inept overlords, not purposely importing a fighting force of military aged males from leftist nations to wield as a future paramilitary. When the GOP loses over and over they want you to believe they’re your allies putting up the good fight, not the controlled opposition intent on defeating their own base as treacherous traitors. When the President keeps doing things that appear to hurt the USA and help China after credible allegations of millions of dollars in bribes flowing,they want you to believe it's coincidence, not elite capture.

The lesson is simple: put on the NODS, and through that lens see that the things that are happening are happening on purpose, because the players intend for those things to happen, and that the movements of the enemy are choreographed and purposed. Then, take those things you know are happening, and ask, “why would they do these things on purpose?”

You won’t like the answers, but it’s only then that you’ll truly begin to perceive the nature of this war that we are already in. Your duty then is to begin asking the next series of questions:“what else don’t they want me to know?” “What else don’t they want me to do?”

See through the lens. Become a combatant of information warfare moving the ball forward for team liberty, instead of the potato slowly sprouting in the wizard’s circle. Turn off the television andquit consuming information operations ad nauseum.

Watch them once if you like and analyze them to determine their target and effect, then inform people to break the spell. And maybe consider ditching that espionage device in your pocket from time to time. After all, the dot is already there.Don’t make it easier for the bastards.

https://apaththrough.substack.com/p/requiem-for-independence

Right-wing journalist has very interesting reason for supporting Trump over DeSantis…

July 3, 2023 (2d ago)

As the 2024 primary campaign heats up, many conservatives find themselves grappling over the two most prominent contenders in the race: President Trump and Governor DeSantis. While it’s true that DeSantis is struggling in the polls and is finding it difficult to connect with voters on a national level, this contest is just starting to ramp up, so anything can happen.

Prominent conservative journalist Rogan O’Handley has joined the escalating “Trump or DeSantis” debate, and his rationale for siding with Trump for the 2024 run is getting a lot of attention. It’s pretty simple: according to O’Handley, while he’s a big fan of DeSantis,he wants the guy who’s got the most impeachments, indictments, and investigations under his belt for 2024.

It’s an interesting response, and it might ring a bell. Darren Beattie offered a similar sentiment when he appeared on Glenn Greenwald’s podcast. Darren stated that every 2024 candidate should be asked the same question: what will you do to earn your indictments?

Many conservatives have no interest in returning to the status quo and would rather rally behind someone who conjures up enough ire from the bad guys to face lifelong imprisonment. It’s one thing to get unfavorable press, but it’s quite another to bein the crosshairs of the entire Deep State apparatus as President Trump has been for almost 10 years now.

https://www.revolver.news/2023/07/right-wing-journalist-has-very-interesting-reason-for-supporting-trump-over-desantis/

>>19128122

They are failures at war, but their expertise is disinformation and psyops to make it almost impossible to get to the truth.

Judgement is coming for them, because the UN knows who tried before. Kiev and their cowardly games.

>>19128091

We have the most incompetent and corrupt government of all time.They knew who he was when they let him in

>>19128063

Interesting she has the freedom to spew lies and degradation but she believes it won’t effect her speech! That’s what she is so afraid of, “they will” be held to account for their lies!

I want this cycle to speed up! It’s time, we have been overly patient. Let the karma return to the liars and haters of America!

>>19128045

All the countries of the EU thought Ukraine could defeat Russia and the EU would split up Russia and steal all their natural resources. That has been their plan from the beginning.

Now they are realizing Ukraine are losers, they will always be money launderers and blackmailers, so they are trying to make nice.

They have NO idea what they have unleashed in Russia and the Russian people!

>>19128281

You should retard

>>19128273

5 Jul, 2023 14:54

Ivan Timofeev: Why Russia and the US will never go back to the pre-2022 state of affairs 1/3

The US-led bloc has pushed Moscow too far

There is an increasingly widespread view in Russia that the goal of the US – and the "collective West" it leads – is to achieve a “final solution” to the "Russian question." The goals are believed to be defeating Russia,wrecking its militarypotential,restructuring its statehood,reshaping its identityand possibly eliminating it as a state, in its current form.

For a long time, this view remained on the periphery of foreign policy thinking. However, much has changed in the past year and a half. Today, this perception of the West's goals has gone mainstream. Indeed, it seems quite rational, when placed into the proper context.

Meanwhile, Russia itself is pursuing a similar sort of policy towards the Ukrainian state, the existence of which in its previous form is perceived in Moscow as a key security challenge.

The historical experience of the last century shows that inflicting total defeat on an enemy and then rebuilding its statehood is the rule rather than the exception in foreign policy practice. There is an important difference to the conflicts of the 18th and 19th centuries, when military defeat of the enemy was seen as a way of extracting concessions from it, but not of rebuilding its very foundations.

The experiences of the 20th and 21st centuries are not always linear, but their repetition is obvious. Germany's defeat in the First World War led to a palpable reshaping of its statehood, determined more by internal contradictions, which grew from the military loss.

Germany’s surrender after the Second World War had far more radical consequences. The country was divided, stripped of its foreign policy autonomy and almost completely rebuilt. Military defeat and subsequent occupation also led to the reformatting of the other large powers, Japan and Italy. The Soviet Union, as a victorious country, was a key player in resolving the "German question." The USSR was also active in establishing socialist regimes in countries liberated from the Nazi occupation.

The subsequent Cold War made this redrawing more difficult. Every attempt was met with resistance from the West. Sometimes the battle ended in a draw, as in Korea. Sometimes the Soviet Union got the upper hand – it helped to inflict a painful defeat on the US in Vietnam, for example. In other situations, the US was successful, for example in supporting anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

The collapse of the Soviet Union gave Washington a free hand. Despite Moscow’s rhetoric that the Cold War had ended in victory for both sides, the reality was different.

Many of the former socialist countries were quickly integrated into Euro-Atlantic structures with the active help of new local elites and broad public support. Russia itself loudly proclaimed a desire to return to the 'civilized world.' The US-led collective West was given carte blanche to reshape a vast area, which they not unreasonably saw as a result of their bloodless victory over the Soviet Union.

In the absence of a counterweight, the US carried out several military interventions, which also resulted in a complete restructuring of the target states. Yugoslavia fell apart. Iraq was occupied, its leader executed and its system of government transformed. There were also failures. In Afghanistan, a quick victory turned into a stubborn guerrilla war and subsequent humiliating withdrawal.A military intervention in Iran did not take place, although it was planned. North Korea became a nuclear power, dramatically reducing the likelihood of external invasion. Successful US interventions provoked Moscow's displeasure, but this did not translate into real action until a certain point. Domestically, large-scale Western investment, close humanitarian cooperation and Russian society's interest in the West were encouraged, or at least not condemned, until the late 2010s.

At the same time, two trends led to sustained and growing irritation from the Russian authorities. The first was the increasingly visible attempts by Western countries to bypass the state and engage in direct dialogue with the Russian public. This paradigm pitted a "good" civil society against a "bad" government.Moscow's growing and understandable annoyance was triggered by the notion that Russia had a "regime."It hinted, or even directly stated, that the West somehow contrasted civil society with the government and did not see them as part of the same political community. The more conscious and demonstrative this approach was on the part of Western states, the more it was resisted in Moscow. …

https://www.rt.com/russia/579246-russians-believe-west-wants-destroy-them/

>>19128448

2/3

In the West, such an approach was attributed to the perceived shortcomings of democracy in Russia, which only added to the irritation.

The Russian authorities clearly did not want to depend on external assessments of their state-building. All the more so as the denominator of such assessments was increasinglyset not only by the mature democracies, but also by the Eastern European and Baltic countries with their bouquet of historical grievances and complexes.The experience of 'color revolutions' in the post-Soviet space only reinforced Moscow's fears. In Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine, public protests received full moral, political and even material support from Western countries, while the authorities were often demonized.

Revolutionary changes of power, even for the sake of democratization and development, were legitimately perceived in Moscow as a challenge. There was a strong consensus within the Russian elite thatstate-building should and could only take place through its own efforts. Any form of outside involvement was unacceptable. This consensus began to take shape in the mid-1990s, and by the end of Vladimir Putin's first term it had become a clear policy point.

The second trend that had a significant impact on changing Russian attitudes was related to US and EU policy in the post-Soviet space. Russia has swallowed the integration of Central and Eastern European countries into Western structures, probably seeing them as toxic assets for itself. Contrary to the common stereotype in the West, which ascribes to Moscow a desire to recreate the USSR, the real goals were far from imperial ambitions.

Russia was not interestedin taking on another huge imperial burden, feeding local elites and buying the loyalty of the population. It was quite happy with the neutrality of the former Soviet republics and even with cooperation with the US in the post-Soviet space,provided that such cooperation was on an equal footing. In the early 2000s, Moscow did not object to the American military presence in Central Asia and then helped supply the Western grouping in Afghanistan for a long time. But Moscow was categorically uncomfortable with the prospect of Western projects without Russian participation. Against the background of Vladimir Putin's active diplomacy to build constructive relations with the US and the EU on all fronts, the hope remained that the area of the ex-USSR would remain a neutral field of cooperation.

But it gradually became clear that there would be less and less inclusiveness towards Russia. The aforementioned 'color revolutions' were yet another wake-up call. The growing concerns of the Russian leadership were discussed, but each time they were politely dismissed by Western partners. Apparently, the West simply did not see the need to take Russia's interests into account. After the 1990s collapse of the economy, a massive brain drain, a series of internal conflicts, rampant crime, corruption, capital flight, the transition – which had begun under Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev – to the status of a commodity appendage, a falling birth rate, alcoholism and an excessively high death rate, Russia was hardly perceived as a serious contender.

The local interests of some post-Soviet elites, who gained political capital by selling the "Russian threat" to the West, also played a role.

Underestimating the Russian leadership's will to restore statehood and avoid a zero-sum game in the post-Soviet space was a major miscalculation. With each new crisis, the West failed to take into account the real possibility of worst-case scenarios in which Russia would assert its interests by force, leading to a counteroffensive against attempts to reformat the post-Soviet states.The first serious crisis was the five-day war with Georgia, in which the Russian side not only responded violently to an attack on a peacekeeping contingent, but also recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The West had the foresight to realize the Georgian leadership had made major mistakes and to defuse the crisis with Russia. But the price was the precedent of a de facto revision of borders.

Moscow quickly responded to another Ukrainian revolution in 2013-2014 with the "Crimean Spring," and then with support for the resistance in Donbass. The Minsk agreements left open the possibility of a relatively easy solution to the crisis. However, Russia's tough and decisive line had already caused alarm in the West….

https://www.rt.com/russia/579246-russians-believe-west-wants-destroy-them/

>>19128455

3/3

As a result, the US-led bloc chose a path of containment and opposition to Moscow. Western-Russian relations in the post-Soviet space, and in Ukraine in particular, finally turned into a full-on rivalry, and the Minsk agreements were later openly described by some Western leaders as having been merely a maneuver to prepare for a new fight.Russian support for the Syrian governmenthas shown that Moscow is willing to obstruct 'social engineering' outside the post-Soviet space as well.

Despite the expectation of a new crisis, the scenario of a full-scale military operation against Ukraine was considered unlikely by many, including in Russia itself.Moscow was deeply embedded in the Western-oriented global economy. Trade interdependence with the EU remained high. There was no rejection of Western values in Russia, although certain social phenomena and movements were criticized as an affront to traditional values. For Moscow, the key issue remained the security of its western borders. Apparently, the Russian authorities assumed the inevitability of a gradual militarization of both Ukraine and NATO's eastern flank, followed by a military crisis at an inconvenient moment. Neo-Nazism in Ukraine was not widespread and did not enjoy widespread popular support, but the Kiev authorities' tolerance of radical movements was strongly resented in Russia.

The decision to launch a pre-emptive military operation was a turning point that radically raised the stakes of the rivalry. The ensuing military conflict has largely undone the legacy of the post-Soviet period.

There will be no return to the reality of 2021. It is clear that Russia will do everything it can to protect the new territorial status quo and to undermine Ukraine's military potential as much as possible. It is also clear that the West will do everything it can to undermine Russia and, if the circumstances are right, will also use any internal problems to its advantage.

The question remains as to how the current crisis will end.

There is currently no political solution to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in sight. The sustainability of any peace agreement, even if reached, is highly questionable. The West fears an abrupt military escalation and a war with Russia that could quickly turn into a nuclear exchange. However, NATO's gradual direct military involvement in the conflict cannot be ruled out.

The prospect of domestic unrest in Russia is widely discussed in Western mediaand analyzed. So far, such views have clearly not been reflected in official positions. But the transition from musings in the analysts’ community and populist statements by individual politicians to an official position may only be a matter of time. Turmoil in a major nuclear power carries great risks. But in the West they may be perceived as less serious than a direct military confrontation. Meanwhile, an internal political explosion could put Russia out of business for a long time and force it to try to reformat its entire system. In such a development, thepreservation of Russia's statehood and sovereignty will once again become the main stakes of any conflict.

Ukraine's statehood is also at stake. It is very likely toemerge from the current crisis with diminished capacity, truncated borders and total dependence on external forces.

The US is in a better position. It has been able to discipline its allies against the backdrop of the crisis and does have risks to its own status. However, it has already entered into a rivalry with China and finds itself in a situation of double deterrence. A Russian victory in Ukraine, together astrengthening of relations between Moscow and Beijing, would be a major strategic challenge for the US.

https://www.rt.com/russia/579246-russians-believe-west-wants-destroy-them/

5 Jul, 2023 16:17

Russia and Saudi Arabia show unity in oil output cuts – minister

Moscow and Riyadh both announced additional production reductions on Monday

The latest move to extend oil production cuts by the world’s biggest exporters, Saudi Arabia and Russia, is evidence of strong teamwork between Riyadh and Moscow, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said on Wednesday.

Saudi Arabia said on Monday it would extend its voluntary crude output cut of one million barrels per day for another month to include August, while Russia simultaneously announced a 500,000 barrel-per-day decline in exports next month. The cuts will amount to 1.5% of global supply.

“It is quite telling seeing us on Monday coming out with not only our [oil production cut] extension… but also with validation from the Russian side,” he told a meeting of oil industry CEOs with ministers at the OPEC+ International Seminar in Vienna.

Prince Abdulaziz said there wasdeep cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Russiaas part of the OPEC+ alliance, and pledged to do “whatever necessary” to support the oil market.

“In the last move this week, yes, we are all continuing with our voluntary cut, but again, part of what we have had done with our colleagues from Russia wasalso to mitigate the cynical side of spectators about what was going on with Saudi Arabia and Russia,” he said.

The Saudi energy minister hailed Russia’s oil production cut, describing it as meaningful as it affects exports, and noted that the move had been voluntary, not imposed.

“We worked with seven independent entities to review Russia’s numbers, and they stood by the review. It is a voluntary cut; it was not mandatory, which shows their commitment,”the Saudi minister said.

The latest round of crude oil output cuts comes on top of voluntary reductions of 1.66 million barrels per day that some OPEC+ members had first declared in April, and then agreed to extend until the end of 2024.

OPEC+, a group comprising the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies including Russia that pumps around 40% of the world’s crude, has been cutting oil output since November 2022.

(Instead of working well with PDJT on oil and gas, Bidan regime has intentionally fixed the US in a retaliatory nature with the UA, Russia and somewhat China, although China is a head fake. That’s how much enmity and power Obama thinks he has over the world. The only country benefitting from world division is China. Obama and Bidan will turn out as the “useful idiots” in the end; and not by China’s hand!)

https://www.rt.com/business/579245-russia-saudi-oil-cuts-unity/