Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos:https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos:https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

In Europe, we carry DNA from Neanderthals, while the Bantu, Pygmies and Khoisan of Africa have inherited up to a fifth of their DNA from an earlier and les advanced human species. Evans, Patrick D. et al (2005) Microcephalin, a Gene Regulating Brain Size, Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans, Science, Volume 309 9/11/2005, pp1717-20. Taylor, Jeremy (2009) Not a Chimp: The Hunt to Find the Genes that Make us Human, Oxford: Oxford University Press. UTL COMMENT:- I have always had a strong interest in human evolution and always KNEW that sub-saharan Africans must have interbred with leftover populations of Homo-Eerectus!! Really good to see that evidence actually come out!! So.....why again are we importing millions of these into our countries? Ummm---OK yes rhetorical question we all know why..... :-(... https://www.reuters.com/article/world/ghost-ancestors-african-dna-study-detects-mysterious-human-species-idUSKBN2072X9/

LIBERAL WOMEN STERILISING THEMSELVES BECAUSE TRUMP GOT ELECTED???!! UTL COMMENT:- I saw a Psychiatrist on YouTube who said if you're filming yourself during a traumatic crisis, then you're not traumatized - you're just a rank and file narcissist ? Tiege Hanley: Get your first box 40% off (+ FREE gift), and 20% off for life, at https://tiege.com/pjwgone NEW WEBSITE! https://modernity.news DONATE: https://www.subscribestar.com/paul-jo... LOCALS (Exclusive content! Ad free): https://pauljosephwatson.locals.com/s... ROKFIN: https://rokfin.com/creator/prisonplanet NEW MERCH: https://www.pjwshop.com/ BITCOIN WALLET: 3EMQG9EhPkoFbX5F19RTGZs8rPqGYm2mp9 BITCOIN CASH WALLET: qrxhqz9ka423v68qwc7nyqc88q3mx9ea5gcpz88a0l LITECOIN WALLET: MSs2rWgM571WM3zUnL255gccoQAdz9L6CG ETHEREUM WALLET: 0x21221F5da5e70F46Bbfa755f89e312daDa51f115 Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/PJW Odysee: https://odysee.com/@PaulJosephWatson:5 Anything Goes: / anythinggoeschannel Parler: https://parler.com/profile/PJW/posts Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/pauljosephwa... Telegram: https://t.me/pjwnews Twitter: / prisonplanet Minds: https://www.minds.com/PaulJosephWatson Gab: https://gab.com/PrisonPlanet Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/realpjw Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@RealPJW

A heartbreaking tragedy. The post What caused The Who concert disaster? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

A week after Israel announced its acceptance of the U.S.-brokered ceasefire with Hezbollah, the fragile peace was put to the test. On Monday, Dec. 2, Hezbollah launched mortars into northern Israeli territory, forcing the Israel Air Force (IAF) to carry out strikes in southern Lebanon. The following day, Israel Defense Minister Israel Katz warned that if Hezbollah continues to breach the ceasefire agreement and the Lebanese Army (LAF) fails to enforce it, Israel will not distinguish between Hezbollah militants and their Lebanese hosts in future attacks. “We will work with all our might to enforce all the understandings of the ceasefire agreement, and we show maximum response and zero tolerance,” Katz reiterated during a recent visit to the north of Israel. “Yesterday was the first test,” he continued, referring to the mortar fire, “[and] we reacted strongly, and this is exactly what we will do, and we will not allow Hezbollah to return to the old methods they had.” The U.S.-brokered ceasefire deal arrived in the Middle East two weeks ago when Special Envoy Amos Hochstein negotiated between Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri — speaking on behalf of Hezbollah — and officials in Jerusalem. On the night of Nov. 26, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the cabinet accepted the deal, and a ceasefire went into effect the following morning. The stipulations require that within 60 days Hezbollah withdraw north of the Litani River and for Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon behind the “Blue Line” Israel-Lebanese border. The LAF, with support from U.N. peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL), will stand in as the sole armed force between the river and the border to ensure the withdrawal of both parties. An international committee of European and Arab delegates, commanded by the U.S. and France, will oversee the peace process and support the LAF and UNIFIL mission. The deal is a mirror image of the failed U.N. Resolution 1701 drafted at the end of the last Israel-Hezbollah conflict in 2006. Israel was the only party that complied and withdrew behind the Blue Line days after the U.N. resolution was passed. Hezbollah remained in place while the LAF and UNIFIL turned a blind eye to the terrorist organization’s rapid armament and military occupation of southern Lebanon. The historic failure of international actors to enforce the U.N. resolution over the next two decades resulted in the situation we have today: an emboldened Hezbollah with an impressive arsenal and military infrastructure capable of carrying out a year-long war against Israel. The current ceasefire arrangement is merely the failed U.N. Resolution 1701 repackaged as a U.S.-brokered deal. The timing, however, is significant. The Biden White House and signatories of Resolution 1701 saw little urgency to push a ceasefire during the 12 months that Hezbollah rained over 20,000 rockets, missiles, and drones on Israeli cities, exposing its full measure of violations and disregard for international laws and human rights. The need for cessation only emerged after Israeli ground forces entered southern Lebanon at the end of September in a mission to push Hezbollah further north and dismantle its armaments. In other words, Israel’s campaign to enforce Resolution 1701 in southern Lebanon demanded an urgent ceasefire agreement and a withdrawal of forces so that a repackaged 1701 could be implemented by the same actors who abandoned it in the first place. (RELATED: The UN’s Failure in Lebanon)  The deal also comes in the twilight hours of President Joe Biden’s tenure when his legacy and the legacy of the Democratic Party are on the line. Biden seems to be following the precedent written by past administrations (Carter and Clinton come to mind) to rush a slapdash Israel–Arab peace deal to the table to cement a positive legacy at the last minute. The differences between the current ceasefire arrangement and its 2006 prototype leave large enough loopholes that almost guarantee failure. The current deal requires Hezbollah to retreat but does not demand disarmament. Nor is there any language about severing Hezbollah’s supply lines and communication with Syria, Iraq, or Iran. Essentially, the ceasefire acknowledges Hezbollah’s hegemonic military presence in the region, respects its raison d’etre, and only mandates Lebanese and U.N. peacekeepers to politely ask them to step away from the Israeli border. Having felt the brunt of past failed resolutions, Israel secured concessions this time to pre-emptively act on Lebanese soil if Hezbollah shows signs of infraction or aggression. “If Hezbollah tries to re-arm, we will attack. If it launches a rocket, digs a tunnel, brings in a truck of missiles, we will attack,” Netanyahu affirmed in his ceasefire announcement early last week. With the exact language of the agreement still surfacing, it’s unclear if Israel’s military freedom is part of the official deal or a side arrangement guaranteed by the U.S. When details of the initial agreement leaked before Hochstein reached Beirut three weeks ago, the vague language only permitted Israel to file a complaint with the international oversight committee if an infraction was suspected from Hezbollah. Only after a review of the complaint would the committee decide if Israeli intervention on sovereign Lebanese soil was necessary. From the start, the objective of the deal appeared more bent on handicapping Israel than Hezbollah. Last week, while U.S. and French officials were pressuring Beirut and Jerusalem to play by the rules, Israeli jets carried out airstrikes on the top Hezbollah leader near the Damascus International Airport. Maintaining a fragile facade of peace between the Litani River and Blue Line has perhaps motivated belligerents to continue the fight elsewhere. Hezbollah can easily be subsumed into the other ranks of Iran’s axis — such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades, and Houthi — and Israel has made it clear they will respond to any threat in or beyond Lebanon. The scuffles earlier this week show that both sides are testing how well the ceasefire deal holds water and how committed the international mediators are to enforcing peace. READ MORE from Bennet Tucker: The UN’s Failure in Lebanon Israelis Choose to Limit Attack on Iran … For Now Israel Eliminates the ‘Butcher of Khan Younis’ Israel Fends Off Massive Iranian Missile Barrage The post Will the Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire Last? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In a tumultuous turn of events, France’s government is suddenly facing significant political upheaval. On Dec. 4, French Prime Minister Michel Barnier was ousted after a historic vote of no-confidence. The timing of this vote comes as France currently faces substantial political and economic instability in the wake of major political infighting among the nation’s leadership. The sources of this infighting include battles over France’s controversial budget along with the country’s changing ideological demographics. The vote of no-confidence was initiated by a coalition of right-wing and left-wing lawmakers in the National Assembly. The motion of no-confidence was approved in a landslide with 331 members of parliament out of 577 approving a motion that needed only 288 votes to pass. Barnier’s administration is now the shortest-lived government since the founding of France’s Fifth Republic and marks the first time in over 60 years (since 1962) that France’s government has collapsed through a no-confidence vote. The Right and Left Criticize Barnier  The no-confidence motion against Barnier follows after tensions came to a head over elements of France’s 2025 budget. The issue that drew major criticism against Barnier from both the left and right was his controversial move to pass France’s social security budget — using Article 49.3 of France’s Constitution — without a vote. The proposals made by Barnier included $65.6 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts in an effort to reduce the country’s deficit spending from 6.1 percent in 2024 to 5 percent of France’s GDP. Barnier’s efforts to reduce France’s deficit spending were done in order to ensure that France complied with the European Union’s rule that Euro-currency members do not exceed budget deficits of over 3 percent of GDP. The National Rally (RN), France’s major right-wing party, opposed Barnier’s proposals as being too technocratic and harmful to France’s economy. Members of the RN claimed that the proposals harmed the French people and businesses by reducing overall purchasing power and excessively taxing them. RN parliamentary leader Marine Le Pen described the proposals as mere “crumbs” offered to the French people and denounced Barnier for providing only an answer of “taxes, taxes, and more taxes.” From the other side of the aisle, the New Popular Front (NPF), an electoral alliance of France’s left-wing political parties, attacked Barnier’s budget proposals as anti-democratic. “With 49.3, this is one coup too many by an illegitimate government,” said NPF’s Mathilde Panot. “We are filing a motion of censure. Barnier’s fall is a done deal. Macron will be next.” This was an ominous warning, signaling the downfall of not only Prime Minister Barnier but potentially even President Emmanuel Macron. The NPF’s opposition to Barnier can be traced to the very beginning of his appointment as prime minister by President Macron in July. The NPF from the outset opposed Barnier’s appointment after Macron had rejected the NPF’s own candidates for prime minister. France’s current regime has faced major obstacles in the wake of the rise of both the RN and NPF in French politics. The RN and NPF saw considerable gains in the National Assembly following France’s July snap election, with the RN going from 89 to 142 seats, and the NPF from 131 to 180 seats. The electoral success of France’s major right-wing and left-wing parties gave them the necessary leverage to use against both Barnier and Macron. Barnier, who has been known as a negotiator and a Gaullist conservative, attempted to appease both the RN and NFP, though many saw this as an unrealistic strategy. Gaspard Gantzer, a former Élysée advisor under former President François Hollande, put it this way: “In France, [Barnier] blundered in a big way…. I don’t know in what world he thought he would be able to negotiate with the far right, an extremist party.” When Barnier heard about the possibility of a no-confidence motion to oust him, he encouraged lawmakers to reconsider such a move, pleading: “We are at a moment of truth…. The French will not forgive us for putting the interests of individuals before the future of the country.” But despite Barnier’s pleas, both the RN and NFP decided that they had had enough. An Uneasy Future for France Though a parliamentary snap election cannot be held until next June, the downfall of France’s leadership comes at a critical time when the nation’s economy hangs in the balance. France is currently heading towards a major debt crisis as the country’s borrowing costs are now at the same level as Greece. The French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies recently revealed that France’s public debt has reached a staggering 112 percent of its GDP. Strikingly, France’s government has failed to balance its budget since 1974, but the recent spike in debt has investors and France’s government deeply worried about the nation’s continuing economic decline. The political crisis brought on by Barnier’s ousting now forces Macron to address the difficult task of finding and appointing a successor as prime minister. While a caretaker government will be in place — run by cabinet members of Barnier — the current deadlock between France’s right- and left-wing political parties, plus the growing economic crisis, has all of Europe concerned about the impact on financial markets and other affairs across the continent. The fate of France now hangs in the balance as its political leadership faces an uneasy future ahead. READ MORE from Hunter Oswald: The Battle for JD Vance’s Replacement Kim Jong-Un Pushes South Korea, and the World, to the Brink of War Iran Pushes the Middle East Closer to Catastrophe The post France’s Leadership Collapses appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The University of Michigan pioneered diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives long before “DEI” became common parlance. Today, Michigan has the largest DEI bureaucracy of any large public university in the nation. But after spending a quarter of a billion dollars on DEI since 2016, leadership isn’t sure their investment paid off.  The university’s regents and board are considering significant reforms to the school’s DEI initiative that would redirect efforts away from diversity statements in hiring and promotion and instead foster “recruitment programs and tuition guarantees for lower-income students.” As of Dec. 5, the university “will no longer solicit diversity statements as part of faculty hiring, promotions, and tenure.”  Though other schools have reformed their DEI practices under pressure from state legislatures, Michigan could be one of the “first selective public universities to rethink D.E.I from the inside,” the New York Times reports.  DEI Failures at the University of Michigan  Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives enjoyed popular support in the social justice surge of 2020. And though conservatives were skeptical from the start, DEI efforts have come under increasing scrutiny by mainstream moderates and liberals alike. Where the Right — and, increasingly, the political center — criticizes DEI for suppressing viewpoint diversity and encouraging racial division, the Left sees DEI as virtue signaling that doesn’t sufficiently disrupt the status quo.  Students, faculty, and staff have criticized Michigan’s DEI programs from both angles. A 2021 survey conducted at the main Ann Arbor campus found that students felt “less of a sense of belonging” and a “less positive campus climate” than before the program’s start in 2016. These findings aren’t surprising given the DEI program’s bureaucratic grievance process pits professors and students against each other.  At the beginning of a semester, one professor acknowledged his intentions to be “sensitive to social justice issues” and encouraged his students to “‘call me on it’ if he failed.” A student filed a Title IX complaint because that professor had “wrongly asked women in the class to educate their professor about sexism and had failed to fully acknowledge his privilege.”  Others are frustrated that the school’s DEI initiatives don’t go far enough. University of Michigan Black Student Union speaker Princess-J’Maria Mboup called the school’s DEI initiatives “superficial.” She told the New York Times that “the students that are most affected by D.E.I. – meaning marginalized communities – are invested in the work, but not in D.E.I. itself.”  In the Michigan Daily student newspaper, Mboup clarified that, though she and her fellow leaders of the Black Student Union have criticized DEI “as it relates to anti-Blackness and the University’s hypocrisy and complicity in the Palestinian genocide,” she does want their critiques to be “flattened and conflated with critics who don’t believe in diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Can Higher Ed Move Away from DEI?  This potential change at the University of Michigan reflects increasing uncertainty about what a second Trump term holds for higher education. Given the vast reliance by universities on federal grant money and federal student loans — and the growing political will to gut taxpayer-funded DEI initiatives — university administrators are right to be concerned.  Corporate America has already started to realize the “Go Woke, Go Broke” reality. Outrage at Dylan Mulvaney’s Bud Light commercial several years ago snowballed into a movement of consumers who don’t want to spend money on products made by corporations that oppose their values. A number of companies have responded by walking back the excesses of their DEI programs. Lowe’s, Harley-Davidson, Ford Motor Company, and, most recently, Walmart have announced the end of these initiatives. (RELATED: The High-Water Mark of Woke Corporate Activism) Now, higher education might be at a similar turning point. Between disruptive anti-Israel protests at elite universities across the nation and high-profile exposés of DEI corruption — like Claudine Gay’s plagiarism — the problems plaguing higher education are obvious.  Some schools are pivoting away from full-throated DEI measures. This past spring, Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology eliminated the requirement for job candidates to submit diversity statements. Now, changes at the University of Michigan could signal to other universities that they, too, should reform their practices.  Although universities that scale back or redirect their DEI programs might receive support from the broader American population, they will face harsh criticism from stakeholders closer to home: faculty, staff, and students. After all, just the potential that the University of Michigan could reshape its DEI initiatives sparked a protest at the Ann Arbor campus. Mary Frances (Myler) Devlin is a contributing editor at The American Spectator. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.  READ MORE by Mary Frances Devlin:  Even The View Hosts Don’t Want You to Skip Holidays With Family Kevin Roberts’s Fiery New Fusionism Dissatisfied Democrats Voice Frustrations With Party Line on Transgender Issues The post University of Michigan Might Walk Back Woke Policies appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

FEMA skipped disaster affected families because they supported Trump. The FBI targeted parents because they wanted a voice in their child's education. CISA worked to censor Americans because they think they know better than you. The FBI targeted Catholics as domestic… — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) December 5, 2024

In this short clip Obama engages in perfect projection. This is a total inversion of the truth. https://t.co/VwwtHnX1gA — Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) December 6, 2024