Pestilence: Africa at risk of continent-wide Ebola crisis, health chief warns

Africa at risk of continent-wide Ebola crisis, health chief warns

Ruben Nyanguila

The Ebola outbreak that began in DR Congo is becoming a continental crisis after authorities initially underestimated its spread, the head of Africa's public health agency told Semafor as new cases were reported as far afield as Nigeria.

More than 4,600 people have died in the outbreak of the Bundibugyo strain which was first detected in DR Congo in May, though health experts believe it had been circulating undetected for weeks. It has now spread further across Africa than any previous Ebola outbreak, with cases in the continent's central, eastern and western regions. Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, confirmedits first case of the Bundibugyo strain, for which there is no proven vaccine, despite being absent from the agency's initial list of 15 countries at risk, he said. Kenya has reported nine cases while Uganda, which recorded 20 cases, was declared free of Ebola in August.

"We could see every region of Africa affected, and that is beginning to happen," Jean Kaseya, director-general of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an exclusive interview. He said the outbreak had initially been viewed as less dangerous and easier to contain, with little expectation that it would spread to other African regions, which had proved to be wrong.

Ebola is changing how African governments organize their response, Kaseya said, with Nigeria's case prompting stronger solidarity across the continent. Health, finance and transport ministers will meet next week with regional organizations invited, to discuss national and cross-border measures.

Kaseya said he expects a response plan dividing responsibilities among regional organizations and other partners to be ready by then, ahead of a summit of African leaders where he hopes to secure funding commitments.

As Ebola spreads across Africa, Kaseya warned against closing borders to contain it. "We do not recommend border closures," he said, arguing that the measure had already proved ineffective. "People will start using informal, unofficial routes, and they will still cross."

The patient diagnosed in Nigeria, a woman who had traveled from Uganda, went roughly 10 days undiagnosed. "The patient was in one private facility, then another, without being tested," Kaseya said. That delay posed a greater risk of further spread than in Kenya, he said. Kenya isolated its first patient soon after arrival.

More..

"Mobilization Will Be Massive": French Govt Plans To Send Soldiers To The Streets After Admitting Failures

"Mobilization Will Be Massive": French Govt Plans To Send Soldiers To The Streets After Admitting Failures

Tyler Durden

French soldiers will take over guard duty so that police and gendarmes can be moved onto the streets for Saturday’s expected protests, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez told parliament on Tuesday.

Nuñez said troops from Operation Sentinelle, the anti-terror deployment, would replace internal security forces mainly on static guarding duties. Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said the same day that Saturday’s mobilization of forces “will be massive,” Remix News reported, ahead of a major protest planned for October 24.

Sentinelle was launched in January 2015 and keeps about 10,000 soldiers across France to guard against terrorist attacks, usually at places of worship, schools, tourist sites, railway stations and airports. It also covered the Paris 2024 Olympics and Paralympics. Nuñez described a post-holding role for the troops in this case, not a crowd-control one.

The government now admits it failed to contain last Saturday’s riots. Lecornu acknowledged lapses in intelligence gathering, said police had been positioned too rigidly and said authorities chose not to cancel planned police leave, Reuters reported. He blamed far-left groups and framed the crisis as a choice “between violence and the Republic”; those groups say the government underestimated anger over living costs and declining public services. Nuñez told parliament: “I deeply regret what happened. I accept my share of responsibility.” He offered his resignation, and Macron rejected it.

About 60,000 police and gendarmes were on duty nationwide on Saturday, October 17, when roughly 500,000 people marched against the cost of living (authorities told Remix 550,000; organizers claimed over 800,000). Nuñez called that too few for the large crowds of rioters and looters on the edges of the marches. He said police had “lost control” in some cities and admitted a “lack of anticipation.” Riots and looting hit Paris, Marseille, Lyon and other cities, and in Limoges an arson attack brought down the roof and tower of the historic town hall.

More...

Iranian Lawmaker Calls for Nuclear Strike if America Attacks as Tehran Threatens to Drive Israelis “Into the Sinai”

Iranian Lawmaker Calls for Nuclear Strike if America Attacks as Tehran Threatens to Drive Israelis “Into the Sinai

Sarah Katz

A senior Iranian lawmaker called on Thursday for the Islamic Republic to authorize the use of nuclear weapons if the United States attacks Iran again, the latest and most explicit in a growing chorus of nuclear talk from inside the regime. Mohammad-Saleh Jokar, chairman of the Iranian parliament’s Internal Affairs Committee, made the demand as Washington and Jerusalem weigh a renewed military campaign against Tehran after the US midterm elections.

“I ask the Islamic Republic’s authorities, in defense of the country and for the purpose of deterrence, to permit the use of deterrent weapons, including nuclear weapons, in the event of a US attack on Iran,” Jokar said, according to Iran International. He also urged Tehran to suspend its cooperation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if American forces strike, and warned that any country allowing US forces to use its territory or airspace for an attack would face a harsh response and pay a heavy price.

Iran officially denies seeking nuclear weapons, and Jokar did not claim the regime possesses one. His call to “permit the use” of such weapons nonetheless marks a sharp escalation in the public rhetoric of Iran’s leadership.

Jokar’s statement caps a week of threats from Tehran. On Sunday, after President Donald Trump endorsed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and declared that “we will soon finish the job” in Iran, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi taunted Trump on social media, warning that Iran has unfinished jobs of its own. He accused the Israeli prime minister of manipulating Washington. “Netanyahu is driving America into another war to stay out of jail,” Araghchi wrote.

Later that day, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) spokesman Hossein Mohabbi threatened that any attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure would turn Israel into scorched earth forever and drive its Jewish population into the Sinai Desert. X removed the post for violating its rules. Iran’s new defense minister, Mehrdad Ahlaghki, warned that if Trump drops a single bomb on Iran, American troops in the region would be carried out on stretchers.

The threats come as the United States and Israel reportedly prepare to resume strikes. The New York Times reported this week that the two countries have drafted plans for a short, intensive round of attacks after the November 3 midterm elections that could hit Iranian energy sites, nuclear facilities, and missile and drone arsenals.

Jokar is far from alone. The Financial Times reported on October 19 that calls to quit the NPT and build a bomb are growing among Iran’s hardliners. One regime official told the paper that since Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the opening strikes of the war in February, support inside the regime for acquiring nuclear weapons has soared from near zero to more than 50 percent. A spokesman for parliament’s national security committee said last month that a new supreme leader could issue a new ruling on Khamenei’s 2003 religious edict prohibiting nuclear weapons.

Iran’s leaders are now openly discussing nuclear weapons while their missiles keep landing on American bases and Arab cities, and the IRGC is threatening to send the Jewish people back into the desert. What does the Bible say about Persia’s role in the final war against Israel?

The prophet Ezekiel describes a war at the end of days in which a coalition led by Gog, of the land of Magog, invades the restored nation of Israel. Among the first nations Ezekiel names in Gog’s alliance is Persia, the ancient name for Iran:

“Persia, Cush, and Put with them; all of them with shield and helmet.” (Ezekiel 38:5)

The prophecy specifies the timing. Gog comes against a people “that is brought back from the sword, that is gathered out of many peoples, upon the mountains of Israel” (Ezekiel 38:8), a Jewish nation returned from exile to its land. For most of history, that description fit no reality. Today, Persia’s leaders speak openly of nuclear fire and threaten to drive the Jews out of the land.

Ezekiel also describes how the war ends. God answers the invaders Himself: “And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many peoples that are with him, an overflowing shower, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.” (Ezekiel 38:22) The purpose of the war, Ezekiel says, is to reveal God’s sovereignty to the world: “And I will magnify Myself, and sanctify Myself, and I will make Myself known in the eyes of many nations; and they shall know that I am the Lord.” (Ezekiel 38:23)

The IRGC’s threat carries an irony its authors likely missed. The Sinai Desert is where the Jewish people received the Bible and from where they marched into the Land of Israel. The road from Sinai runs one way. The prophet Amos recorded God’s final word on the matter:

“And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.” (Amos 9:15)

Persia has threatened the Jewish people before. In the days of Queen Esther, a Persian official named Haman obtained a royal decree to destroy every Jew in the empire, and the Jews celebrate his downfall every year on Purim. The ayatollahs now speak of nuclear weapons and a forced march into the desert. Ezekiel saw them coming, named them among Gog’s allies, and recorded how the story ends, with fire and brimstone falling on the invaders and the people of Israel planted in their land forever.

The Battle For Israel Is Now Being Fought Inside The Church

The Battle For Israel Is Now Being Fought Inside The Church

PNW STAFF

For decades, the battle over Israel has been fought in the halls of the United Nations, across university campuses, and in the streets of major cities. But an increasingly bitter confrontation is now unfolding in a place many Christians might never have expected: inside the Church itself.

At the heart of the dispute is a question that reaches far beyond Middle Eastern politics. Does the Jewish people's return to their ancient homeland represent the fulfillment of biblical promises, or has the coming of Jesus Christ changed how those promises should be understood?

The answer is dividing denominations, challenging longstanding theological traditions, and raising fundamental questions about God's covenant with Israel.

Some church leaders are now openly condemning Christian Zionism as a dangerous ideology. Others insist that abandoning the biblical promises to Israel risks undermining the very foundation of God's faithfulness.

And the stakes go far beyond whether Christians support the modern State of Israel. The deeper issue is whether God's ancient promises to the Jewish people still stand.

The controversy intensified when the Patriarchs and Heads of the Churches in Jerusalem issued a statement condemning what they called "damaging ideologies, such as Christian Zionism."

The declaration, supported by prominent Orthodox and Catholic church leaders in Jerusalem, warned against outside interference in the affairs of local Christian communities.

Their position reflects a longstanding tension between Christian Zionists, who view Jewish restoration to Israel as biblically significant, and many historic churches in the Middle East, whose members include Palestinian Christians living amid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But the opposition extends far beyond Jerusalem.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has taken an increasingly confrontational position toward Christian Zionism, including a General Assembly resolution rejecting it and an August conference titled "Christianity Without Christian Zionism."

Other mainline Protestant denominations, including elements of the Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, and United Church of Christ traditions, have similarly challenged theological arguments used to support Israeli territorial claims.

The Catholic Church takes a different approach. While recognizing Israel's right to exist in security and affirming the enduring significance of the Jewish people, the Vatican does not teach that modern Israeli sovereignty or territorial boundaries are automatically guaranteed by biblical prophecy. It also advocates Palestinian national rights and a negotiated peace.

Eastern Orthodox churches generally interpret Israel's biblical promises through Christ and the Church rather than through the establishment of a modern nation-state.

These traditions do not all share identical positions. Opposition to Christian Zionism does not necessarily mean opposition to Jewish people or even to Israel's existence. Nevertheless, their disagreements with evangelical Christian Zionists reveal a profound theological divide.

On the other side are millions of evangelical Christians, particularly within Baptist, Pentecostal, independent Bible church, and dispensational traditions, who believe the restoration of Israel is deeply connected to biblical prophecy.

For these believers, support for Israel is not simply a political preference or an expression of sympathy for Jewish suffering throughout history.

It is rooted in their understanding of Scripture.

They believe God made specific promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants concerning the land of Israel. Those promises, they argue, were never canceled, transferred entirely to the Church, or rendered meaningless by the coming of Christ.

The modern restoration of Jewish sovereignty in 1948, followed by Israel's dramatic territorial changes in 1967, is therefore viewed by many as prophetically significant.

Christians from several theological traditions affirm the continuing significance of God's covenant with Israel, even while disagreeing over prophetic timelines or the meaning of the modern state.

More...

Riots in the Streets, Repression in the Markets: Europe’s Collapse Enters Its Next Phase

Riots in the Streets, Repression in the Markets: Europe’s Collapse Enters Its Next Phase

Chris MacIntosh

Every empire dies the same way: slowly, then all at once, and always while its institutions insist all is well.

Rome’s senators kept debating procedure while the granaries emptied. The British aristocracy kept dressing for dinner while the Raj slipped away. And today, European finance ministers keep issuing communiqués about “resilience” and “strategic autonomy” while the economies supporting these parasites fail in real time.

The math is simple.

Debt-service costs now compete with defence and healthcare for the marginal euro and pound. Energy costs have made whole industries uncompetitive against Asia and North America… and that was before the chaos now being unleashed across the energy sector, from Russia through the Middle East.

Demographics guarantee the tax base keeps shrinking just as the liabilities keep growing. And the pointy shoes have responded to all three by borrowing more, regulating more and pretending it’s a communication problem.

We’ve written plenty about the West-to-East capital rotation and the sovereign debt spiral in the US, Japan, Germany and France. Europe is further down that road than most, and Britain is running the experiment furthest and fastest of all.

Most of Western Europe runs structural deficits it has no political mechanism to close, which incidentally is why they’re going to war.

France hasn’t balanced a budget in half a century and is now fighting over pension reform its own street can veto. Italy carries debt north of 130% of GDP into a demographic profile that guarantees the ratio gets worse. Germany, the supposed fiscal hawk, has binned its debt brake in all but name to fund rearmament and industrial subsidies it can’t pay for any other way… so war is the answer.

Sure, we told you all this years ago, but now it’s happening, and it’s showing up exactly where you’d expect: the term premium on long-dated Bunds and gilts, the widening spread between core and periphery paper, and foreign central banks increasingly reluctant to hold the stuff at all.

When your marginal buyer becomes your own central bank, you’ve just moved the problem onto a balance sheet that has to print to close the gap.

From here it’s financial repression, same as every over-indebted sovereign since the invention of paper money. Push real yields negative, force domestic institutions (pension funds, insurers, banks via capital rules) to hold the debt whatever it returns, and inflate the liabilities away while telling the public the money illusion is prosperity.

Germany is the big one.

For 70 years the German export machine made the rest of the European project solvent-adjacent. Cheap Russian gas, cheap Chinese demand, and an undervalued currency (courtesy of sharing one with Greece) let German manufacturers run surpluses that financed everyone else’s deficits. All three legs of that stool are gone. Energy costs several multiples of what US or Gulf competitors pay. The Chinese have moved up the value chain and now compete head-on in autos, machine tools and chemicals instead of buying German kit.

You can see it in the closures: chemical plants idled or relocated, automakers cutting shifts and moving capacity to the US and China, energy-intensive industry leaving for good instead of waiting for a cheaper grid that isn’t coming. Europe priced itself out the moment it decided to kill reliable baseload power faster than it could build the replacement. And once the capital, the supply chains, and the skilled workers leave, they don’t come back on a four-year political cycle.

A Germany without its industrial surplus is simply a much bigger version of the fiscal problem the rest of the eurozone already has.

Then there’s the liability side that can’t be voted away, because every European welfare state was built on a population pyramid that no longer exists. EU fertility has sat well below the 2.1 replacement rate for a generation (closer to 1.4 to 1.5 across most of the core, lower still in parts of the south and east). And that only compounds. Fewer workers paying in, more retirees drawing out, and a state that raises the retirement age by increments too small to matter and taxes by increments too large to ignore.

Immigration was the policy answer. It’s partly offset the raw numbers and created a second, harder problem: large-scale, low-integration migration is now one of the defining political fractures on the continent — the Netherlands, Germany, France

More...