All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Some analysts have opined that Lula 3.0 will be a very different Lula, and we should expect a more pro-American and “Atlanticist” turn. They argue the green agenda focused on the Amazon would be the trigger for “reboosting” American-Brazilian bilateral relations – with Western aid becoming a kind of “quid pro quo” for a Brazilian support of Ukraine.

Too much was made of Lula’s recent “condemnation” of Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine. In fact, in the same statement, Lula quoted Pope Francis’ remarks about NATO “barking” at Russia’s door having provoked Moscow into acting. Moreover, the Brazilian leader has rejected sending tank ammunition to Germany over fears it would be transferred to Ukraine.

It is true that Brasilia and Washington seem to share a concern for the rainforest. In November 2022, US special envoy for climate, John Kerry, showed interest in working with Lula “to save the Amazon”. And right now, Lula’s government is actively pursuing partners to help finance a number of projects to save the rainforest.

Germany, for instance, has outlined more than $200 million in contributions for Brazilian environmental programs. The Amazon Fund, which had been frozen since 2019, was reactivated by Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva. It is a billion-dollar initiative funded by Norway and Germany to fight deforestation.

During his visit to Brasilia on January 30, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz talked about the need to help “the lungs of the world”. Scholz was also interested in boosting cooperation with Latin American countries regarding renewable energies, and green hydrogen, as Europe goes through its own (largely self-inflicted) energy crisis.

Lula is visiting the US on February 10, to meet Biden. They will discuss climate change and food security among other issues. It remains yet to be seen what Washington, under Biden’s presidency, can offer, having a Republican Senate.

The US and European powers both weaponize the green agenda against emerging and developing nations. Though it is true that for decades the Brazilian state has been turning a blind eye to illegal deforestation and cattle ranching in the Amazon. This also involves powerful private interests, corruption and even some popular support, as those illegal operations have become a part of local economies.

The situation got even worse under Bolsonaro and he openly supported the aforementioned interests but this, ironically, backfired. The European Union, US and China have been increasingly demanding full traceability of cattle, wood and other items and through different legislations being proposed to obstruct and even ban Brazilian products associated with illegal deforestation and invasion of indigenous lands.

By finally putting the house in order and bringing law and order to the Amazon, Brasilia would “save face” before the international community. This would also empower the country to legitimate and reassert its sovereignty in a region which is so important for the globe. Western powers can help with aid, although often with a veiled agenda.

The Amazon issue does open a window of opportunity for Biden-Lula’s dialogue, but it remains to be seen how much actual cooperation Washington can really offer, beyond the rhetoric and the diplomatic nods, as Biden himself faces a divided country. In any case, Biden will increasingly “court” Lula now, especially after Beijing has done the same, and there are talks about Brazil joining the Chinese  Belt and Road Initiative. China remains Brazil’s main trade partner, followed by the US.

For South American emerging powers, maintaining a good relationship with their northern neighbor is strategic. Even in the early 2000’s, a more left-wing Lula managed to maintain a good relationship with then US President George W. Bush, Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez – at the same time.

Lula now faces a political crisis, in a polarized country, with the specter of domestic terrorism and a new “military question”. The military particularly, due to nationalist ideology, are very suspicious of any international cooperation on the Amazon resulting in a loss of sovereignty. Lula, in turn, does not trust the military over suspicions and an increasingly large body of evidence that point to some military cooperation with the recent Bolsonaro supporters’ attempt at a coup.

No one knows if Lula will achieve “zero deforestation”, but there certainly is much he can do to try and improve the situation. So far concrete international help in that regard came from Europeans, not the US. And it would be too soon to talk about a Lula-Biden alliance of any kind over the rainforest.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

German Prosecutor Found No Russian Involvement in Gas Pipeline Sabotage

February 6th, 2023 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the West’s unsubstantiated narrative that Russia sabotaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines. Now, even some German officials are beginning to admit that there is no evidence to blame Moscow for the crime. Indeed, as the question about the real culprit remains, at some point Berlin will have to investigate the possibility of sabotage by countries it considers as “allies”.

German Prosecutor General Peter Frank during an interview with Die Welt newspaper on February 4 stated that there is no evidence to blame Russia for the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September last year. According to him, the investigation is still ongoing, but so far nothing has been found to blame Russia.

“It currently has not been proven (…) The investigation is ongoing (…) We are currently evaluating all this forensically. [The suspicion] that there had been a foreign sabotage act [in this case], has so far not been substantiated”, he said during the interview.

As we can see, the prosecutor seems to be skeptical about the very possibility of foreign sabotage, which seems irrational, since several experts indicate that the explosions in the two gas pipelines did not occur spontaneously or due to a mere malfunction, but by deliberate interference. This has been confirmed even by Western authorities, such as the Swedish government, which conducted unilateral investigations in November and concluded that sabotage had taken place, although it has not said anything about which country would be the saboteur.

A few days before Frank’s interview, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had refused to comment on the investigation, claiming that he would wait for concrete evidence to be obtained before making any public statements. At the time, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticized Scholz’s omission, stating that his lack of transparency on the matter made it appear that “Berlin has something to hide”.

Zakharova’s words indicate a suspicion on the part of the Russians that the Germans could be somehow wanting to forge evidence against Russia to please their NATO partners. Another possibility is that they are preparing a narrative to claim that there was not any sabotage, as the prosecutor seems to have suggested when he said that no evidence of a foreign operation was found so far.

These maneuvers on the part of the German government would be happening because of the absolute impossibility of blaming the Russians for the attack. On the 1st of February, The Times published a report stating that the German investigators are “open to theories that a Western state carried out the bombing with the aim of blaming it on Russia”. Obviously, no Berlin official has confirmed this, but it is possible that this information has leaked and that now the Germans are trying to justify themselves to the West through this statement by Peter Frank, alleging the lack of evidence of foreign attack (Western or Russian).

In fact, this constant repetition of mistakes only undermines the credibility of the German government. Rather than denying that sabotage took place, the best thing to do would be to simply admit that it did happen, and the responsibility was not Russia’s, but some other country’s. If concrete evidence is found that a Western state destroyed the pipelines, Berlin should admit this and publicly condemn the aggressor country, reacting by imposing coercive measures, sanctions and breaking diplomatic relations – just as it certainly would do if Russia were responsible.

It must be remembered that experienced military experts, such as Donald Trump’s ex advisor Colonel Douglas Macgregor, suggested that the US and UK were responsible for the attack. According to Macgregor, only these two countries have naval forces capable of carrying out this type of sabotage. He categorically states that the Russians were not involved in the case, considering the way the operation was carried out.

“You have to look at who are the state actors that have the capability to do this. And that means the [UK’s] Royal Navy and the United States’ Navy (…) I think that’s pretty clear (…) The Russians did not do this”, Douglas Macgregor said in early October.

Admitting that Russia is not involved is an important step, but it is still insufficient. The German government, if it really wants to defend its sovereignty, must continue the investigations, and admit what already seems clear to all specialists: Berlin was the target of sabotage planned by its own “allies”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on German Prosecutor Found No Russian Involvement in Gas Pipeline Sabotage
  • Tags:

Paranoid Politics and Weather Balloons

February 6th, 2023 by Kurt Nimmo

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First, it appears I was wrong about the ability of the USG to shoot down China’s weather balloon. However, there is a persistent caveat here—never take at face value what the government and its propaganda media “report,” especially in regard to manufactured enemies.

The above video is very interesting. Notice how the missile apparently hits the payload. Now that the payload was blown to smithereens, there will be no way to verify exactly what the purpose of this balloon was. Anything that remained went into the drink.

Even if the USG navy manages to raise this wreckage from the ocean floor, I would not believe what they’d say about it, considering the long USG history of pathological lies.

I don’t think this thing was a surveillance balloon.

The question is, why would China use a slow-moving and easily detectable balloon for surveillance when it has three Yaogan-31 “observation” satellites in addition to the Jianbing-8 constellation of surveillance satellites? In short, China has the technical capability to put surveillance satellites in orbit. This includes its top-secret, geostationary orbiting Tongxin Jishu Shiyan-1.

In fact, China has a large number of military satellites in orbit. According to Business Standard, “China’s 2015 Defense White Paper described space as a military domain, and China currently has 75+ military satellites operated by the Strategic Support Force of the People’s Liberation Army.”

According to the BBC,

the experts point out that balloons can be fitted with modern technology like spy cameras and radar sensors, and there are some advantages to using balloons for surveillance—chief of which is that it is less expensive and easier to deploy than drones or satellites.

Indeed, and easier to detect and shoot down.

The USG insists—as usual, void of evidence—the balloon was surveilling nuke silos in Montana. This is a load of propagandistic hogwash.

The fact is, we don’t know for sure what the purpose of the balloon was, and we never will. The logical assumption is this was a weather or meteorological research balloon that had blown over USG territory due to prevailing westerlies.

According to the “Sage from South Central,” blue-checker and talk radio host Larry Elder, the balloon had something to do with nukes.

The Washington Examiner, owned by “conservative” billionaire Philip Anschutz (associated with the neocon-infested American Enterprise Institute), is pushing this scary story on largely ill-informed and easily frightened Americans.

High-altitude balloons, such as the one China has floated over mountain state military bases this week, are considered a key “delivery platform” for secret nuclear strikes on America’s electric grid, according to intelligence officials.

Ah, yes, intelligence officials, the same folks who lied America into the Iraq war, claiming Saddam had WMDs and fallaciously warning we were all going to die if we didn’t invade and kill 1.5 million Iraqis.

Of course, when that bogus science fiction story was exposed, it was explained away as an “intelligence failure,” when in fact it was a series of lies told to a compliant stenographic media by pathological neocon liars in the Bush regime.

The EMP “threat” is pushed by the American Leadership & Policy Foundation. Additionally, Congress has established an EMP commission “pursuant to title XIV of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.”

“China’s recent balloon flyover of the United States is clearly a provocative and aggressive act. It was most likely a type of dry run meant to send a strategic message to the USA. We must not take this for granted,” warned Air Force Maj. David Stuckenberg in a 2015 foundation report.

“Not since WWII has North America faced a threat of this nature. Project FuGo in Japan used balloons to float bombs on the trade-winds across the Pacific to the U.S. and Canada.”

Blue checker and former Speaker of the House, the “honorable” Newt Gingrich, also apparently believes the commies want to take down our civilization.

Newt fails to mention the obvious fact China would not attempt this because it would result in USG thermonukes reducing China to a radioactive wasteland. Neocons and their neolib buddies think you’re stupid—and, unfortunately, far too many Americans are.

Others are also repeating this paranoiac stupidity to drum up viewers, subscribers, and customers because fear sells:

The Hill division of war propaganda incorporated is more subtle. Note here that, despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, the balloon is described as a surveillance device.

Bill Clinton’s former Defense Secretary and former Republican senator William Cohen has thrown his weight behind the cynical EMP farce to stir up paranoia and fear. Or maybe, now well into his dotage, he believes this nonsense.

“I think we would have because the first thing we need to do is, number one, is the balloon a military or security threat, but number two, can we get information out of it before we destroy it? We didn’t know, for example, if it could have contained something within the balloon other than helium that could have posed a threat to us. Do we know if it has any kind of biological component to it? So you want to ask those questions.”

Too late, Bill. The remains are on the ocean floor. The payload was targeted and blown up. All that is left is speculation, fear-mongering, and scary stories of lights out and cannibalism.

In other words, political manipulation as usual.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

“360° Cooperation with Libya.” But Which Libya?

February 6th, 2023 by Manlio Dinucci

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

 

On an official visit to Tripoli, President Meloni committed Italy to “360°all-round cooperation with Libya”. But which Libya? The Libyan “Government of National Unity”, “internationally recognized”, and chaired by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah. It was “elected” in 2021 in Geneva by a Forum of 73 “Libyan representatives” chosen and directed by the UN representative Stephanie Williams, a US State Department official.

Meloni’s meeting with Dbeibah was sealed by an 8 billion dollar agreement between ENI and the Libyan National Oil Corporation for the exploitation of an offshore gas field off the coast of Tripoli. However, this agreement was immediately disavowed by the Minister of Gas and Oil of the Dbeibah government, who declared it “illegal“. At the same time, in Tripolitania protesters occupied the control room of the Greenstream gas pipeline demanding to stop pumping gas to Italy.

This is the result of the fact that Italy does not recognize the real Libyan government: Prime Minister Fathi Bashagha, appointed by the duly elected Parliament, which provisionally operates from the cities of Sirte and Benghazi because the “Dbeibah government” militias prevent him from entering Tripoli. The Bashagha Government, which controls most of Libya’s territory and energy resources, offers Italy oil and gas at very low cost: as Michelangelo Severgnini showed in his reportage on Byoblu, in Benghazi petrol costs 3 cents of euro at the pump per litre. In compliance with NATO and EU directives, Italy refuses this possibility. Italian imports of Libyan gas have dropped from about 8 billion cubic metres per year before the 2011 NATO war to about 2.5 billion in 2022. Even if the agreement concluded in Tripoli becomes operational, Libyan gas imports could not recover to previous levels. Italy thus remains in the pincers of the “energy crisis”, deliberately provoked by the USA and the EU with the blockade of Russian gas supplies to Europe, paid for increasingly heavily by Italian and European citizens.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on byoblu.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: Abdul Hamid al-Dbeibeh (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “360° Cooperation with Libya.” But Which Libya?
  • Tags: ,

Pfizer’s Business Model Is Actual Fascism. “The Merger of Corporate Power and State Power”

By Ben Bartee, February 04, 2023

The corporate media and their Antifa footsoldiers bandy about the term “fascism” quite freely. Somehow, through magnificent logic-pretzel contortions, they claim that resistance to government mandates to inject yourself with experimental drugs is not resistance to fascism, but fascism itself.

EU Bureaucrat at Davos Predicted Censorship Is Coming to America

By Kurt Nimmo, February 04, 2023

Last month, at the billionaire confab in Davos, “a European Union official predicted to a U.S. congressman that the U.S. would ‘soon’ enact laws on ‘illegal hate speech’ similar to those in the EU,” according to American Military News.

The Ukraine Conflict. Two Uncommon Perspectives on the Great Tragedy

By Michael Welch and Ajamu Baraka, February 04, 2023

How should you and I and several citizens throughout the Western world react to a war waged because of the coup our own leaders orchestrated? As well, what about individual Ukrainians who don’t quite fit the standard “thank you for helping save us from the Russians!” stereotype? We have taken the time to sample these voices on this week’s show if the legacy media will not!

Propping up the Wobbly Dollar

By Emanuel Pastreich, February 04, 2023

The Federal government gave up all pretensions that money is backed by the gold held at the Federal Reserve, or backed by anything concrete, in 1972. The dollar became a fiat currency, money that is not tied to anything but reputation. Since that fatal day, the powers behind the curtains have maintained the value of the dollar in various ways.

The 239 Year Timeline of America’s Involvement in Military Conflict

By Isaac Davis, February 04, 2023

The American public and the world have long since been warned of the dangers of allowing the military industrial complex to become such an integral part of our economic survival. The United States is the self-proclaimed angel of democracy in the world, but just as George Orwell warned, war is the health of the state, and in the language of newspeak, democracy is the term we use to hide the reality of the nature of our warfare state.

How the U.S. Obtains New NATO Members by Subversion, Followed by Coup, Followed by Ethnic Cleansing

By Eric Zuesse, February 04, 2023

This is the pattern that has been used ever since the Soviet Union ended in 1991 when the ‘anti-communist’ excuse for America’s post-WW-II global imperialism has no longer been available to use (such as had earlier been the case in Korea, and in Vietnam, and in Guatemala, and in Iran, and in Chile and so many other lands), prior to 1991.

Commemorating January 29, 2022: Democracy, Authoritarianism and Canada’s Truckers Movement

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, February 04, 2023

The US Ambassador to Canada, David Cohen, has characterized the members and supporters of the Canadian Truckers’ Freedom Convoy as “extremists” who are “subverting democratic processes and voices to further the cause of authoritarianism.”

War Fever: After Ukraine, Taiwan?

By Marc Vandepitte, February 03, 2023

In late January, a top US general declared that a war over Taiwan could break out in as soon as two years. Are we shortly to find ourselves confronted with a second flashpoint in Asia after Ukraine? We put the question to China expert Dirk Nimmegeers.

Pfizer Vaccine Bonanza Slows — But Bill Gates Sold Early, Made Huge Profits

By Dr. Brenda Baletti, February 03, 2023

Pfizer on Tuesday announced 2022 profits of $31.4 billion on record sales of $100.3 billion. Sales from its COVID-19 vaccine and Paxlovid, used to treat COVID-19, totaled $56 billion — more than half the vaccine maker’s annual revenue.

Video: 55 Performers Collapsing or Dying on Stage or Live Camera in Late 2022 Through 2023

By Brian Shilhavy, February 03, 2023

There are 55 documented cases of performers collapsing, dying, or falling ill in late 2022 through 2023 in this video. And in almost all of these cases, the media will say: “We don’t know what caused this, but it was definitely not the COVID vaccine.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Pfizer’s Business Model Is Actual Fascism. “The Merger of Corporate Power and State Power”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked an EU patent held by Impossible Foods, maker of the Impossible Burger. In the US, Impossible’s fake meat products are manufactured with GMO yeast-derived soy leghemoglobin, a controversial ingredient that makes the fake meat look as if it’s bleeding, like undercooked real meat, and that we have argued may not be safe to eat.

Following the EPO’s decision, another fake meat company, Motif FoodWorks, has filed a suite of new petitions with the US Patent and Trademark Office challenging US patents held by Impossible Foods over the use of heme proteins (such as that present in soy leghemoglobin) in meat alternatives, as it defends itself against Impossible’s accusations of patent infringement, according to Food Navigator USA.

Fake meat industry “a flop”

The news about Impossible’s patent fights comes in the wake of an article by Bloomberg describing the rapid decline in the fake meat industry, which it branded “a flop”. The article is titled, “Fake meat was supposed to save the world. It became just another fad”.

Impossible shares, the article said, are currently trading at around $12 – about half the price during its last fundraising round. And more recently Bloomberg has reported that Impossible is preparing to lay off about 20% of its staff, following another round of cuts in October when about 6% of its staff got laid off.

The latest patent wars will only add to the industry’s woes.

Impossible patents

Motif FoodWorks said that many of the claimed inventions in Impossible’s patents are obvious and already disclosed in prior art, which means they cannot be patented. Motif added that the EPO’s decision to revoke Impossible’s patent “affirms our belief that Impossible’s patents are invalid and never should have been issued in the first place”.

Impossible Foods told Food Navigator USA that its plans to launch its full range of products in the EU have not changed. Its soy leghemoglobin “fake blood” product is currently being evaluated for EU use by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The EPO-revoked patent is not on soy leghemoglobin itself. It is a broad patent on food products containing iron complexes such as heme-containing proteins, combined with flavour precursor molecules.

Twisted logic

The EPO’s reasoning has not yet been published online, but GMWatch has long argued that GMO developers cannot tell patent offices that their product is novel, non-obvious, and has an inventive step – all requirements for a patented invention – yet tell regulators and the public that the same product is natural, nature-mimicking, or able to arise in nature or from natural breeding. The GMO developers can’t have it both ways; if one of these statements is true, the other must be false. If it’s patented, it can’t be natural, and if it’s natural, it can’t be patented.

The UK government is currently deregulating a subclass of GMOs that it claims could have arisen through “traditional processes“. Earlier drafts used the wording “natural processes”, but government amendments changed “natural” to “traditional”. It is possible that the change of wording is intended to avoid GMO developers running into difficulties with patent offices over whether their products are genuine inventions.

The opposition to the EU patent, filed by the law firm Reiser & Partner Patentwälte mbB in Germany, alleges that Impossible’s claimed invention is not novel, lacks an inventive step, fails to sufficiently describe the invention, and extends beyond the application as originally filed.

However, a spokesman for Impossible Foods told Food Navigator USA that the EPO’s decision was not made on the basis of lack of novelty and that the review compared Impossible’s patent against its own prior invention. The spokesman is not quoted as addressing the alleged lack of inventive step.

Impossible is appealing against the EPO’s decision.

GMWatch will update readers on the reasoning of the EPO, once it is published, and its potential relevance to GMOs that are claimed to be natural or nature-mimicking.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from GMWatch

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

 

Turkey‘s interior minister railed against the US ambassador to Ankara on Friday, telling him to take his “dirty hands off of Turkey”. 

Suleyman Soylu, an ardent critic of the United States, whom he blames for the 2016 military coup attempt, has been hitting out at Washington since they issued a travel warning to their citizens of increased risk of attacks in Turkey last week.

The US, along with eight European countries, have either temporarily closed embassies and consulates in Turkey or issued travel warnings after the Quran-burning protests in Europe.

The US consulate in Istanbul, which is located far from the city centre and less vulnerable to attacks, remained open.

Turkish officials say the closures and warnings are an attempt to portray Turkey as an unstable state.

“Every US ambassador who arrives in Turkey is hurrying to find out how to make a coup possible in Turkey,” said Soylu, referring to US Ambassador Jeffry Flake, during an address made at a ministerial event in Antalya on Friday.

“I address the US ambassador from here. I know the journalists you made write articles,” he added.

“Take your dirty hands off of Turkey. I’m being very clear. I very well know how you would like to create strife in Turkey. Take your grinning face off from Turkey.”

Soylu continued by accusing US embassies in Europe of convening together in an attempt to control the continent. He added that US efforts in Turkey were futile thanks to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Diplomatic tensions

The closure of western diplomatic missions has been met with scorn in Turkey.

In response to the initial security alerts issued on Friday, which warned against “possible retaliatory attacks by terrorists against places of worship,” Turkey responded by issuing similar warnings.

Ankara cautioned its citizen against “possible Islamophobic, xenophobic, and racist attacks” in the United States and Europe.

Turkey later summoned the nine ambassadors, including Flake, for talks over the warnings.

On Thursday, Soylu condemned the closures as an attempt to meddle in campaigning for Turkey’s presidential and parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for 14 May.

He and other officials suggested that the western states had issued the security warnings in order to pressure Turkey to tone down its criticism of the Quran protests and resolve the Nato dispute.

“They are waging psychological war against Turkey,” Soylu told NTV television. “They are trying to destabilise Turkey.”

The Turkish interior ministry earlier this week said authorities had arrested a number of suspects after an allied country passed over a security warning.

“No weapons, ammunition, or signs of action were detected during the searches,” the ministry said. “However, the investigation is carried out meticulously in all aspects, including digital material reviews.”

A total of 15 suspects were detained, Soylu said, but only five of them were kept in custody.

Soylu and Washington have a longstanding animosity. In 2018, the Trump administration temporarily sanctioned Soylu and Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gul over the arrest and detention of Pastor Andrew Brunson, a US citizen.

The following year, the US again sanctioned Soylu and other Turkish officials over Turkey’s offensive against US-backed Kurds in northeastern Syria. “There hasn’t been any change in my declaration of property since the last sanction,” he joked at the time. “I don’t have any properties in the US.”

Both designations were short-term and later lifted.

Since Soylu came into office in 2016, he has gradually suspended intelligence sharing between the US and Turkey. He blamed Washington for the deadly Istanbul bombing in November last year.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Süleyman Soylu, Turkish Interior Minister (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Locals and medical personnel from the Syrian city of Douma in the Damascus countryside confirmed on 2 February during a press conference in the country’s Foreign Ministry headquarters that the alleged 2018 chemical attack on the city was, indeed, staged.

This follows the release of a new report by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on 27 January, which once again renewed the accusation that Damascus was behind a 2018 chlorine gas attack on civilians in Douma.

“I live 400 meters from the place of the alleged incident, and I only learned of its occurrence the next day through social media,” Syrian lawyer Muhammad al-Naasan said during the press conference.

Another testimony is that of Dr. Hassan Oyoun, an ambulance worker at Douma Hospital, who claimed that “information was published a day before the alleged incident that it was necessary to prepare for an event that would result in a large number of injuries.”

This confirms that “prior preparations” were underway for the staging of the attack, Oyoun said, referring to the incident as a “fabricated play that was filmed.”

“What the terrorists announced about 800 injuries from chemical substances is incorrect, and the number of people who visited the hospital that day did not exceed 35,” he added.

According to Dr. Mumtaz al-Hanash, a Douma local, Douma Hospital announced just one day after the alleged attack that no chemically induced deaths were recorded whatsoever. He went on to say that the “photographed cases” did not provide evidence that chlorine, or any other weaponized chemical, was used.

An imam and preacher at a local mosque, Sheikh Ratib Naji, said: “We did not see with our own eyes any injured or dead, as they claimed, and those whom the terrorists claimed were dead, their bodies did not appear, and when we demanded them, they assaulted us.”

Syria’s permanent representative at the Hague-based chemical weapons watchdog, Milad Attiya, affirmed that Damascus does not recognize the OPCW investigation team’s third and latest report, as it rejected the last two. Attiya added that the report relies heavily on western sources, as well as groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the White Helmets, an Al-Qaeda affiliated rescue organization with links to organ trafficking networks in Syria.

Since 2013, armed groups in Syria have attempted to pin chemical attacks on the government to instigate internationally-led regime change operations against it. This comes in the form of staged attacks, or actual false-flag chemical attacks which leave many dead and are designed to implicate Damascus – as was the case in Ghouta in 2013 and in Khan Sheikhoun in 2017.

On 28 January, the Syrian government released a statement rejecting the OPCW report, which it said ignored “objective information which was provided by some … experts … and former OPCW inspectors with knowledge and expertise,” referring to the fact that the organization suppressed the findings of its initial report on Douma, as revealed by WikiLeaks in 2019.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Syria News

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

South Korea and Japan trying to attend to their own business by inviting unbidden guests to the region should be well aware that they are getting closer to the extreme security crisis, far from defusing security uneasiness.

It was reported that the secretary general of NATO embarked upon his trip to South Korea and Japan.

The high-ranking chief of the military organization which turned Ukraine into a theatre of proxy war is flying into the Asia-Pacific region of the eastern hemisphere across the sea and land, which is not even part of its operational sphere. This fact itself gives rise to concern.

It is well known that NATO has long made persistent attempts to expand its sphere of influence, limited to European defense, to the Asia-Pacific region, which rose to be the strategic center of the world.

NATO stages bilateral and multilateral joint military exercises under various titles by introducing armed forces of its member states, including aircraft carriers and fighters, under the pretext of opposing the so-called “change of status quo by force”. It is also mulling extending its influence to the Asia-Pacific region by expanding and strengthening cooperation with such exclusive security allies as AUKUS, Quad and Five Eyes.

In particular, NATO has put unprecedented spurs to the strengthening of bilateral relations with South Korea and Japan in recent years, regarding them as a key link in realizing its ambition for hegemony.

This is proved by the fact that the chairman of the military committee of NATO visited South Korea and Japan, respectively in April and June last year, to discuss closer partnership and military cooperation and, at the end of June, South Korea and Japan participated in the NATO summit in Madrid of Spain for the first time ever.

Meanwhile, in May last year, the Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence under NATO registered South Korea as its full memberو and in October a delegation of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was dispatched to South Korea to discuss the strengthening of bilateral cooperation.

South Korea signed a huge sales contract for arms including heavy tanks, self-propelled guns, and fighters valued at tens of billions of US dollars with Poland, a member state of NATO, and Japan agreed to jointly develop the next generation fighters with Britain and Italy. This clearly proves to what extent NATO’s sinister intention to use South Korea and Japan for expanding its influence has reached.

NATO, which specified Russia as the “greatest and direct threat” and China as a “systematic challenge” in its new “strategic concept” last year, is now openly stretching its long arm to South Korea and Japan. Its aim is quite clear.

It is the general orientation sought by the US-led NATO to cook up an Asian version of NATO to serve the maintenance of its hegemonic position and order in collusion with its vassal forces.

Over the recent worrying moves of NATO, it is quite natural that countries in the region have warned that NATO seeks to apply the method of collective confrontation in Asia-Pacific, which had already been used in Europe, and South Korea and Japan should not introduce NATO forces into the Asia-Pacific region.

It is as clear as noonday that the secretary general of NATO flying to south Korea and Japan, at a time when the Ukrainian crisis has entered a new critical stage with the US and Western decision on supplying tanks, will shore up the “theory of threat from China” to emphasize again the need to build Asian version of NATO and put pressure on them for their passive military support to Ukraine.

Thus, it’s only a matter of time before the military hardware of South Korea and Japan flowing into NATO is seen in the Ukrainian battlefield.

South Korea and Japan trying to attend to their own business by inviting unbidden guests to the region should be well aware that they are getting closer to the extreme security crisis, far from defusing security uneasiness.

It will be nothing good if NATO, a synonym for war and confrontation, puts its military boots on the region.

The trip of the NATO secretary general to South Korea and Japan is a prelude to confrontation and war as it brings the dark clouds of a “new Cold War” to the Asia-Pacific region.

Regional countries and the international community should remain highly vigilant against the frequent footsteps of NATO toward Asia-Pacific.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is the Trip of the Secretary General of NATO Aimed to Instigate the Creation of the Asian Version of NATO?
  • Tags: , , ,

Cold War Estimates of Deaths in Nuclear Conflict

February 6th, 2023 by William Burr

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

Apprehension about Russia’s war against Ukraine has produced speculation about the possibility of limited Russian nuclear strikes against targets in that country. Especially worrisome is the danger of a local conflict escalating quickly into a major nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States and other NATO countries. However unlikely that prospect, a large-scale nuclear war involving countries with strategic nuclear forces could cause huge numbers of fatalities and injuries in addition to the losses produced by climactic impacts. A recent study in the journal Nature projects a catastrophic 5 billion deaths.

Once nuclear weapons became a significant element in US military force structures and planning, beginning in the late 1940s, government agencies began estimating nuclear war fatalities. Over the years, fatality estimates—usually classified top secret—were embedded in nuclear war plans, strategic force requirements, strategic balance assessments, and arms control decisions. The estimates, which often left out important effects of nuclear detonations, sometimes conveyed the shifting “balance of strength” between the two superpowers. The magnitude of these numbers sometimes shocked US officials, who eventually sought options intended to make nuclear war less catastrophic.

While a considerable number of important estimates from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s have been declassified, government agencies have refused to declassify other fatality numbers, and estimates from the 1980s and beyond remain unavailable. With the war in Ukraine once again raising the prospect of a nuclear war, accurate estimates of such a war’s human impacts are more important than ever. But it is not even clear whether the US government continues to make such estimates.

Cold War calculations. Casualty estimates were part of the war planning effort from the beginning, a recognizable element of ascertaining the impact of nuclear strikes on a given country or set of targets. Estimates made during the late 1940s projected millions of deaths from atomic bombings. By the mid-1950s, with thermonuclear weapons becoming available, deaths in scores of millions became certain. These hydrogen bombs were “area weapons” that could destroy large cities and their surroundings, or large areas around military targets.

With thermonuclear weapons becoming integral to the US arsenal, government officials drew a frightening picture of their effects. In 1959, David Z. Beckler, executive director of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Science Advisory Committee, declared that the radioactive fallout from an all-out US-Soviet nuclear war would cause “enormous” numbers of casualties, but they “would represent only a small portion of the total casualties from all causes (blast, thermal radiation, fire, and local fallout).”

The work of the National Security Council’s highly secret Net Evaluation Subcommittee supported Beckler’s conclusions. As part of its effort to gauge the overall impact of nuclear strikes on each side, the subcommittee prepared casualty estimates. In its 1958 report, the subcommittee imagined a devastating Soviet attack in 1961 involving the detonation on the United States of 553 nuclear weapons with a total yield exceeding 2,000 megatons—more than 130,000 times as powerful as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which had an estimated yield of 15 kilotons. An estimated 50 million Americans would die, with nine million sick or injured, out of a pre-attack population of 179 million. The US retaliatory attack would include every city in the “Sino-Soviet” bloc with a population of over 25,000. It would completely destroy “command facilities” in Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang and kill 71 million people at once; 30 days later, a total of 196 million people would be dead (out of a population of 952 million people in the bloc).

According to the report, the US counterattack “would virtually eliminate [the Soviet Union] as a world power.” As devastating as this picture was, the report nevertheless found that at the end of the nuclear exchange, “[t]he balance of strength would be on the side of the United States.” That confidence would erode as the Soviet Union’s capability to inflict deaths and destruction increased during the 1960s.

Military planning. Estimating of deaths and destruction went hand in hand with US nuclear planning. As the Cold War developed, and atomic weapons became a bigger part of the US arsenal, military planners and civilian authorities began preparing for the possibility of a confrontation. For that worst case, a failure of deterrence in which war was imminent and civilian authorities were ready to authorize nuclear weapons use, military officials developed plans to use these weapons—either in retaliation or preemptively—to destroy the adversary’s key military and industrial installations. In that context, Soviet nuclear weapons sites (delivery systems and stockpiles) became prime targets, as did civilian and military headquarters and key industrial facilities.

Beginning in the late 1940s and early 1950s, target planners developed methodologies to estimate requisite levels of destruction for targets. Usually, explosive blast effects were the chief metric for measuring destruction.

To obtain the desired outcome, target planners assigned warheads and delivery systems, and collaborated with military commanders to develop tactics for optimizing destruction. By 1960, war planning was centralized at the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff, located at the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command in Nebraska. The planning staff had responsibility for preparing the Single Integrated Operational Plan, the US warfighting strategy for the use of nuclear weapons.

A 1961 report by the Joint Chiefs of Staff exemplified the potentially catastrophic impacts of the operational plan’s targeting. The report included estimates of casualties associated with a military conflict over West Berlin. According to numbers drawn from the war plan, a full-force attack on the Soviet Union’s major cities, government control centers, and nuclear threat targets would kill some 50 percent of its total population—some 108 million out of its then-population of 217 million. If the smaller alert force (with bombers on 15-minute to two-hour alert) was used, total Soviet casualties would be 37 percent, or about 80 million.

The total estimated deaths, including Chinese, from a full-force attack, 212 million, were fewer than the estimate of 600 million that the Joint Chiefs provided to the Kennedy White House in 1961, as disclosed in jaw-dropping detail by Daniel Ellsberg. The revelation of these startling numbers was important, but the documentary record is elusive. (Significant Pentagon records from the early 1960s remain unprocessed at the National Archives, so the document may be found someday.)

Estimates of fatalities were also built into decision making on strategic and defensive force levels. For example, in 1962, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara explained to President Kennedy why he rejected Air Force proposals for a first-strike capability. McNamara observed that the latest estimates showed that in a projected 1968 nuclear conflict a strategic strike by the Air Force’s proposed force would leave 100 surviving Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles. If the Soviets targeted those missiles against US cities, “they could inflict roughly 50 million direct fatalities in the United States, even with fallout protection.” That was not an “‘acceptable’ level of damage.” Kennedy let McNamara’s recommendation stand.

Kennedy and McNamara in 1962 meeting

McNamara and Kennedy during a 1962 meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. Credit: Cecil Stoughton. White House Photographs

Shifts in strategic balance. Over the years, fatality estimates reflected the changing strategic balance. During the 1950s and the early 1960s, estimated Soviet fatalities were proportionately higher than US fatalities. As Soviet strategic forces caught up in their lethality, however, estimated US fatalities markedly increased, and optimism about a “balance of strength” favoring a post-nuclear-war United States faded.

Exemplifying the catastrophic scale of destruction and the growing numbers of estimated US fatalities was a 1967 interagency report describing the comparative vulnerabilities of the United States and the Soviet Union. According to the report, in 1964 the Soviets could kill 48 million Americans in a preemptive attack; by 1968, with greater numbers of intercontinental ballistic missiles in place, they would be able to kill 91 million.

By contrast, Soviet fatalities remained relatively constant during the decade, because the United States already had large strategic forces by 1964. In a US retaliatory attack on Soviet cities in 1964, some 77 million would be killed, the report estimated. Under the same circumstances, 81 million would be killed in 1967.

A “political-psychological” burden. While all the estimates were conjectural, some admittedly were underestimates. The authors of a 1969 study prepared for strategic arms control talks estimated scores of millions of fatalities on both sides but acknowledged that they “underestimat[ed] the resulting fatalities.” They based their appraisals on fatalities caused by explosive blast damage and did not include impacts such as radiation and mass fires, which were certain to cause many more deaths.

When Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was briefed in 1955 on the destruction that thermonuclear weapons would inflict, he was initially incredulous. Dulles had to be re-briefed before he accepted the analysis.

The prospect that decisions to use nuclear weapons would cause tremendous death and ruin troubled US officials. As Deputy Secretary of State Elliot Richardson put it years later, there was a “political-psychological” issue: “the imbalance between [the] ability to inflict fatalities and [the] reluctance to accept or cause large numbers of deaths.” Well before then, US presidents and their advisers had become strongly averse to nuclear weapons use, with the “nuclear taboo” stigmatizing these weapons because of the terrible and disproportionate dangers that their combat use would cause.

Huge casualty estimates and the enormous scale of nuclear strikes influenced President Richard Nixon to seek alternatives to apocalyptic attacks, eventually leading to a 1974 directive calling for options to control escalation and limit the scope and intensity of destructiveness. During the following years, the Defense Department tried to break down the operational plan into smaller attack options (Major, Regional, and Selective) to give the president and command authorities less destructive and possibly more credible options. But into the 1980s the options developed by the planning staff continued to require large numbers of nuclear weapons, despite attempts by presidents to scale back the plans.

Presidents Carter and Reagan successively levied explicit requirements for reduced “collateral damage”—civilian casualties—in their targeting policy directives (Presidential Directive 59 and National Security Decision Directive 13, respectively). While target planners prepared still-classified studies on collateral damage, their impact is unknown. It was not until the late 1980s, when the Cold War was winding down, that the White House and Pentagon officials induced target planners to produce attack options that could reduce deaths and destruction. What planners actually did—for example, whether they adjusted target planning to reduce “collateral” damage to civilians—is highly secret. In any event, it’s unclear whether any estimates of casualties were produced.

a presidential memo from the Carter administration

A Presidential Review Memorandum issued during the Carter administration acknowledged that a major nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia would be so devastating that it could never have a “winner.” Source: Jimmy Carter Presidential Library

Secrets and risks. The horrifying scale of fatalities estimated during the 1950s through the 1970s were classified for years, only becoming available through archival releases during the 1990s and later. With rare exceptions, nuclear casualty estimates from the 1980s or later years are unavailable. Indeed, in some instances, the Defense Department has refused to declassify estimates in reports from the 1960s and 1970s.

While non-governmental organizations such as International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility have produced casualty estimates, the degree to which official projections continued into the post-Cold War period is unclear. In 2013, the Obama administration began to apply to nuclear targeting international rules of war presented in the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, such as proportionality and civilian-military target distinctions. The adoption of those rules in 2013 may have led to estimates of fatalities under more restrictive targeting options, but that is also unclear.

The dangers of superpower war and nuclear confrontation declined when the Cold War ended, and both the United States and the former Soviet Union/Russia made significant cuts in their strategic forces. In recent years, with tensions increasing and the future of Ukraine and Taiwan in dispute, risks have risen again.

Adding to the danger is the Indo-Pakistan nuclear arms race. Both countries have engaged in risky confrontations with significant escalatory potential; the perils of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan are grave, and the overall impact would be disastrous. The recent catastrophic flooding of Pakistan, made all the worse by climate change, may influence that country’s security priorities.

The war against Ukraine presents a newer danger. It can only be hoped that the leaders of nuclear weapon states avoid steps that would make Cold War nuclear casualty estimates more than historical curiosities.

Correction: The Joint Chiefs’ 1961 estimate of total deaths—disclosed in Daniel Ellsberg’s 2017 book The Doomsday Machine—was roughly 600 million, not 275 million as originally published. The latter estimate did not include all deaths in China, the Soviet Union, and Soviet satellites.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

William Burr is a senior analyst at George Washington University’s National Security Archive, where he directs its Nuclear Documentation Project.  He is co-author, with Jeffrey Kimball, of Nixon’s Nuclear Specter: The Secret Alert of 1969, Madman Diplomacy, and the Vietnam War.

Featured image: Mass grave markers in Hiroshima, photographed by Lieutenant Wayne Miller in September 1945. (US Navy / National Archives)

Ukraine Had Lost the War Before It Even Started

February 5th, 2023 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published on January 25, 2023

Introduction

In the course of the last 11 months, I have been reviewing on a daily basis numerous carefully documented articles on the unfolding war in Ukraine,

The evolving consensus — after eleven months which emanates from the senior ranks of the US military and intelligence establishment — is that Ukraine “has lost the war”. 

What strikes me in this ingenuous assessment is something which should have been obvious to analysts from the very outset of Russia’s “Special Operation”. 

Ukraine Had Lost the War Before it Even Started

I will start with the obvious, much of which has been confirmed by official sources and analysis. 

From Day One, Russia was involved as part of it’s “Special Operation” in “precision” attacks against Ukrainian military installations, which commenced hours prior to President Putin’s February 24, TV address:  

“I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border. It is a fact that over the past thirty years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries …In response,  we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail.”

From one week to the next, Ukraine was without a Navy and without an Air Force, destroyed at the outset in late February, early March 2022.

Part II of this article focusses in detail on another obvious concept, which has not been the object of media coverage or even analysis by the independent media:

Turkey, NATO’s heavyweight is “Sleeping with the Enemy”. It has a military cooperation agreement with Russia

What this means is that under present conditions a US-NATO war against Russia is an impossibility.

The Black Sea is strategic. While the Ukraine coastline is in large part controlled by Russia, Turkey controls the entire Southern coastline of the Black Sea as well as access to the Mediterranean. (under the Montreux protocol) (see map below)

Turkey is playing a double game, it is not acting on behalf of NATO in the war theater. It is “unofficially” collaborating with Russia. The March 2022 failed peace agreements in Istanbul were hosted by the Erdogan government. 

 

The Obvious: How Could Ukraine Win a War without an Air Force and a Navy? 

According to Russian Sources quoted by B. K, Bhadrakumar (March 25, 2022);

The Russian General Staff disclosed that Ukrainian air force and air defence is almost completely destroyed [March 2022], while the country’s Navy no longer exists and about 11.5% of the entire military personnel have been put out of action.

[Quoting Russian sources] Ukraine has lost much of its combat vehicles (tanks, armoured vehicles, etc.), one-third of its multiple launch rocket systems, and well over three-fourths of its missile air defence systems and Tochka-U tactical missile systems.

Sixteen main military airfields in Ukraine have been put out of action, 39 storage bases and arsenals destroyed (which contained up to 70% of all stocks of military equipment, materiel and fuel, and more than 1 million 54000 tons of ammunition.)

Ukraine had not only lost its naval power in the Black Sea, it had also lost its maritime access to the Sea of Azov and Eastern Ukraine.

That happened in February-March of  last year.

The Kerch strait in Eastern Crimea is controlled by Russia. It constitutes a narrow maritime gateway which links the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov.

All major ports on the Sea of Azov are currently under Russian control.

The Dnieper Seaway

The Delta of Ukraine’s major river-way the Dnieper is controlled by Russia, despite Russia’s withdrawal from Kherson.

The Dnieper is a strategic seaway extending from Belarus, Northern Ukraine and Kiev down to the Black Sea.

The Dnieper is a major corridor for Ukraine grain cargo transportation and maritime commodity trade out of the Black Sea, which is controlled by Russia in collaboration with Turkey. (on Turkey’s role, see Part II)

 

Part II of this article is entitled:

Unspoken Divisions within NATO. “Sleeping with the Enemy” 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The following article was first published by the Armed Forces Press on January 5, 2022

***

According to congressionally passed statutes, research of active laws, and extra details obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the Department of Defense owns, implements, and oversees the COVID-19 vaccine program as a “Countermeasure” to foreign attack. While the public was bombarded with an orchestrated fear campaign, the U.S. Government managed the Covid response as a national security threat.

The research and documents were obtained by a former executive of a pharmaceutical Contract Research Organization (CRO), Sasha Latypova, and intensive legal researcher Katherine Watt.

The Three-Legged Stool

The undercover operation was orchestrated utilizing three critical legal maneuvers:

1. Emergency Use Authorization EUA.

2. Prep Act,

3. Other Transactions Authority

President Trump declared a Public Health Emergency (PHE) on March 13, 2020, under the Stafford Act, putting the National Security Council in charge of the Covid policy.Covid-19 vaccines are “medical countermeasures” – a grey area of products that are not regulated as vaccines or medicines.

“They put the National Security Council in charge and treated it as an act of war,” said Latypova.

 According to Operation Warp Speed/ASPR reports, the DoD ordered, oversaw, and tightly managed the development, manufacture, and distribution of Covid countermeasures, mainly utilizing the DoD’s previously established network of military contractors and consortia.

Department of Defense, BARDA, and HHS ordered all Covid countermeasures, including “vaccines” as prototype demonstrations of large-scale manufacturing, avoiding regulations and transparency under Other Transaction Authority. As prototypes used under EUA during PHE, Covid countermeasures, including “vaccines,” need not comply with the U.S. laws for manufacturing quality, safety, and labeling.

“The implication is that the U.S. Government authorized and funded the deployment of noncompliant biological materials on Americans without clarifying their “prototype” legal status, making the materials not subject to normal regulatory oversight, all while maintaining a fraudulent pseudo- “regulatory” presentation to the public,” said Latypova.

Most incredible is the fact that current Laws enacted by the United States Congress appear to make the coverup actions LEGAL!”

Under the PHE, medical countermeasures are not regulated or safeguarded as pharmaceutical products (21 USC 360bbb-3(k).

The American people were led to believe that the FDA, CDC, and figureheads like Anthony Fauci oversaw the COVID-19 vaccine program.

Their involvement was an orchestrated information operation. All decisions concerning the COVID-19 vaccine research, materials acquisition, distribution, and information sharing were tightly controlled by the DoD.

Hundreds of Covid countermeasures contracts have been uncovered. Many disclosures are in redacted form. However, Latypova and Watt have found sources to fill in the details.

A review of these contracts indicates a high degree of control by the U.S. Government (DoD/BARDA). It specifies the scope of deliverables as “demonstrations” and “prototypes” only while excluding clinical trials and manufacturing quality control from the scope of work paid for by the contracts. To ensure that the Pharma is free to conduct the fake clinical trials without financial risk, the contracts include the removal of all liability for the manufacturers and any contractors along the supply and distribution chain under the 2005 PREP Act and related federal legislation.

Why is no action by regulators or courts?

According to Latypova and Watt, a combination of recently passed legislation and executive orders make it LEGAL to LIE! The HHS Secretary is accountable to no one if the Health National Emergency continues to be extended by Congress every three months.

A significant information operation was set in motion the minute COVID-19 hit. The U.S. government, the intelligence community, the media, and Big Tech colluded to orchestrate and implement an intense pressure campaign designed to get the vaccine legally designated under the Emergency Use Authorization Act while vilifying dissenting doctors, critics, and viable alternative treatments. This designation allowed for speedy manufacturing devoid of the standard safety and public health protocols.

For a vaccine to receive designation under the EUA, there can be no other known treatments or cures. Therefore, many proven treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were blacklisted in the media and dismissed as “horse dewormers” when these cheap, readily available drugs were in the past heralded for their effectiveness.

Eminent COVID-treating doctors such as Peter M. McCullough and Pierre Kory have faced unprecedented attacks on their medical credentials.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Armed Forces Press


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US Department of Defense Controlled COVID ‘Vaccines’ from the Start Under A National Security Program. Lied the Entire Time – Were Never ‘Safe and Effective’
  • Tags: , ,

A Russian Victory in Ukraine Won’t End the War

February 5th, 2023 by Mike Whitney

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published by GR on January 27, 2022

***

Behind Washington’s desperate appeal for tanks and other lethal weaponry for Ukraine, looms the nagging prospect that Russia’s winter offensive may have already begun in the south where heavy fighting has broken out along the Line of Contact in the Zaporizhia region. While the information from the front remains sketchy, some analysts think that Russia is planning to send its troops and armored units northward in order to block vital supply-lines and trap Ukrainian forces in the east.

A Russian blitz northward would likely be synchronized with the movement of a second large grouping pushing south along the Oskil River. These two dagger-like thrusts would be accompanied by multiple missile strikes aimed at strategic bridges and railway-lines crossing the Dnieper River. If the Russians were able to succeed in such an operation, the bulk of Ukraine’s army would be effectively encircled in the east while Moscow would have regained control over most of its traditional territories. The offensive might not end the war, but it would end Ukraine’s existence as a viable, contiguous state. This is an excerpt from an article at Aljazeera:

Moscow’s forces are pushing towards two towns in Ukraine’s southern Zaporizhia region, where fighting intensified this week after several months of a stagnant front… Vladimir Rogov, a Russian-installed official in the region, said offensive actions were concentrated around two towns: Orikhiv, around 50km (30 miles) south of Ukrainian-controlled regional capital Zaporizhzhia, and Hulyaipole, further east….

The Russian army later claimed for a second day in a row that it had taken “more advantageous lines and positions” after “offensive operations” in the Zaporizhia region…. In its daily report on Sunday,the Ukrainian army said “more than 15 settlements were affected by artillery fire” in Zaporizhia…. He also said this week that fighting has “sharply increased” in the southern region.” (“Russia advances towards two towns in Ukraine’s Zaporizhia region”, AlJazeera)

Typically, I wouldn’t spend much time on a topic for which there is so little evidence and so much speculation. But people are following events very closely in Ukraine because they want to know what Putin plans to do with the 550,000 combat troops that are presently scattered across the theatre or gathered along the perimeter in Belarus. The assumption is that Putin will use these forces in a winter offensive that could dramatically impact the course of the war. I agree with that assumption, but I’m not entirely convinced that the fighting in the south proves that the offensive has already started. Even so, the buzz on the Telegram channels and Twitter is hard to ignore and could indicate that my skepticism is unwarranted. For example, here are a few blurbs from independent sites that suggest the offensive is already underway:

The Russian Army is still actively advancing in the #Zaporozhye direction, the front has been pressed to a depth of 7km. At the moment our advance in three directions on the #Orekhov section. On the west side there is fighting for #Novoandreyevka and #Shcherbaki, on the east for #Belogorye and Malaya Tokmachka, on the southeast there is fighting for #Novodanilovka, which is only 6.5 km from #Orekhov. A defensive breakthrough here will allow the RF Armed Forces to develop an offensive in several directions at once, literally cutting the AFU grouping into two parts. Telegram

Or this:

Zaporozhye update

The Russian army continues its offensive on the Zaporozhye Front

The troops of the Southern and Eastern military districts are conducting an offensive on a wide front – up to 60 km (in the Vasilyevsky and Pologovsky districts).
The advance of troops is slowed down due to many minefields.

Or this:

The offensive is going according to plan: close fights in several areas. Fortified positions and regions of the enemy are actively treated with bombs, mines, and howitzer shells; only then come armored vehicles with infantry.

According to the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Zaporozhye direction, the RF Armed Forces are hitting the Armed Forces of Ukraine with all types of weapons in areas of more than 25 settlements, including Olgovskoe, Gulyaipole, Volshebnoe, Novodanilovka, Kamenskoe and Plavni of the Zaporozhye region, Vremovka and Novopol DNR.

This is just a small sampling of the postings that have been flooding various sites for the last few days. A great number of the comments are from people who appear to have first-hand knowledge of events on the battlefield. I can’t speak for their accuracy, but the volume of reports (and their intensity) suggest that something out-of-the-ordinary is taking place.

There’s also a new post at Moon of Alabama in which Bernard states unequivocally that the offensive is already underway. Here’s what he said:

The long expected Russian offensive in Ukraine has begun….

I and others have suggested for quite some time that the Russian forces will use the southern Zaporizhia region for a large thrust into the far back of the Ukrainian forces around Bakhmut…

The Russian moves against the third and fourth Ukrainian defense lines will likely be supported by a move from the south that will liberate the rest of the Zaporiziha and Donetsk oblast…..

There is no Ukrainian artillery brigade in the sector. There are thereby no counter-artillery capabilities available…..The aim of the Russian thrust in the south will not be to take cities like Zaporiziha. The aim is to bring the main transport routes, railways and roads, from west-Ukraine to the front in east Ukraine under Russian artillery fire. This will prevent not only the re-supply for the Ukrainian troops on the eastern front but also their exit from the front line. A 100 kilometer (60 miles) thrust to the north would mostly do that. A complementary thrust from the north towards south, which may or may not be coming, would finally close the cauldron.” (“Ukraine – Russian Army Activates Southern Front”, Moon of Alabama)

Although I’m still not sure that the offensive has actually begun, I entirely agree with MoA that Russia’s plan will be some variation of the strategy he presents in his article. In fact, a similar strategy was laid out by military historian Big Serge in a recent Substack post titled “Russo-Ukrainian War: The World Blood Pump”. The two analysts appear to have drawn similar conclusions as to what we should expect in the weeks to come. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

At the moment, the majority of Russian combat power is uncommitted, and both western and Ukrainian sources are (belatedly) becoming increasingly alarmed about the prospect for a Russian offensive in the coming weeks. Currently, the entire Ukrainian position in the east is vulnerable because it is, in effect, an enormous salient, vulnerable to attack from three directions.

Two operational depth objectives in particular have the potential to shatter Ukrainian logistics and sustainment. These are, respectively, Izyum in the north and Pavlograd in the South. A Russian thrust down the west bank of the Oskil river towards Izyum would simultaneously threaten to cut off and destroy the Ukrainian grouping on the Svatove axis (S on the map) and sever the vital M03 highway from Kharkov. Reaching Pavlograd, on the other hand, would completely isolate the Ukrainian forces around Donetsk and sever much of Ukraine’s transit across the Dneiper.

Both Izyum and Pavlograd are roughly 70 miles from the start lines of a prospective Russian offensive, and thus offer a very tempting combination – being both operationally significant and in relatively manageable reach. Beginning yesterday, we started to see Russian advances on the Zaporozhia axis. While these consist, at the moment, mainly of reconnaissance in force pushing into the “grey zone” (that ambiguous interstitial frontage), RUMoD did claim several settlements taken, which could presage a genuine offensive push in this direction. The key tell would be a Russian assault on Orikhiv, which is a large town with a genuine Ukrainian garrison in it. A Russian attack here would indicate that something more than a probing attack is underway.

It is difficult sometimes to parse out the difference between what we predict will happen and what we want to happen. This, certainly, is what I would choose if I was in charge of Russian planning – a drive south along the west bank of the Oskil river on the Kupyansk-Izyum axis, and a simultanious attack northward past Zaporozhia towards Pavlograd. In this case, I believe simply screening Zaporozhia in the short term is preferable to getting bogged down in an urban battle there.

Whether Russia will actually attempt this, we do not know.Russian operational security is much better than either Ukraine’s or their proxy forces (Wagner and the LNR/DNR Milita), so we know significantly less about Russia’s deployments than we do about Ukraine’s. Regardless, we know that Russia enjoys a strong preponderance of combat power right know, and there are juicy operational targets within range.” (“Russo-Ukrainian War: The World Blood Pump“, Big Serge, Substack)

Not surprisingly, fighting has broken out around Orikhiv which Big Serge says “would indicate that something more than a probing attack is underway.” In other words, this could, in fact, be the opening phase of the winter offensive. And, if it is, then we should assume that there will be a shift away from the ‘positional battles of attrition’ we’ve seen up to this point. The Russia offensive will not face defensive lines of heavily fortified trenches that require weeks of softening with long-range artillery until armored units can be dispatched for mop-up operations. The Big Arrow moves that Serge anticipates suggests that we could see significant territorial gains in lightly-defended areas. That means that things will likely move much faster than they have in the last 11 months. It also means that Ukrainian forces in the Donbass will be effectively cut off from Kiev and left to fend for themselves. Naturally, the casualties are bound to be significant.

According to reports in the media, CIA Director William Burns secretly visited Kiev last week to warn Zelensky about the impending Russian offensive. Burns probably presented a scenario very similar to the strategy laid out by MoA and Big Serge. But whatever Burns may have said to Zelensky, it had no effect on the Ukrainian president at all. Zelensky has continued to send troops to the frontlines (Bakhmut) despite the hopelessness of the situation and despite the fact that the Ukrainian defensive positions are collapsing by the day. There’s no longer any doubt that Russian forces will eradicate pockets of resistance in the east or that the battered remnants of the Ukrainian army will be forced to retreat. It’s only a matter of time.

We’re not saying it’s all going to be “smooth sailing” for the Russians from this point on. No, there are going to be plenty of bumps in the road ahead. But given Russia’s superiority in manpower, firepower and industrial base, we think Russia will undoubtedly win this first phase of the war. The problem is that –even if the Russian army clears all the territory east of the Dnieper River and annexes it into the Russian Federation– that doesn’t mean the fighting will stop. It won’t stop. US-backed forces will continue to launch attacks from across the river, they’ll deploy commandos to strike behind Russian lines, they’ll train paramilitaries to ignite an insurgency, and they’ll fire missiles at Crimea, Russia and, perhaps, even Moscow itself.

Is Putin ready for that?

Washington is not going to throw in the towel because Russia won the first round in a 10-round fight. The United States is still fully committed to its plan to “weaken” Russia in order to become the dominant player in the world’s most promising market, Central Asia. In that regard, the fighting in Ukraine has not dampened Washington’s resolve at all, in fact, we think the conflict is feuling the widespread Russophobia and the relentless cries for revenge. How else do we explain the persistent escalation that has not yet sparked even a peep of public protest? And, keep in mind, the US has already blown up NordStream 2, pushed Europe into a severe Depression, sabotaged global supplylines for the foreseeable future, derailed the 40 year-long “globalization” project, and done everything in its power to goad China into a shooting war. What these incidents show is how much importance the US attaches to its priviledged role in the global order and the risks it is willing to take to preserve that role. In short, the United States will do ‘whatever it takes’ to maintain its iron-grip on power.

If I was Putin, I would prepare myself for a long and bloody struggle. Because that’s what he’s in for.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

All images in this article are from TUR

Beyond Vietnam to Ukraine

February 5th, 2023 by Rick Sterling

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published by Global Research on Jan 16, 2023

In April 1967,  Martin Luther King Jr. delivered an eloquent and stirring denunciation of the Vietnam war and US militarism. The speech titled “Beyond Vietnam” is relevant to today’s war in Ukraine. 

In the speech at Riverside Church, King talked about how the US had supported France in trying to re-colonize Vietnam. He noted, “Before the end of the war we were meeting 80% of the French war costs.”

Click here to access complete text and audio

 

When France began to despair in the war, “We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war.”


King went on to recall that after the French finally left Vietnam, the United States prevented the implementation of the Geneva Accord which would have allowed Ho Chi Minh to unite the divided country. Instead, the US supported its preferred South Vietnamese dictator.

The U.S. has played a similar role in blocking compromise solutions and international agreements to the Ukraine conflict.

Following Ukraine protests in February 2014, the European Union negotiated an agreement between President Yanukovich and the opposition to have early new elections. The attitude of lead US official Victoria Nuland was crystallized in her secretly recorded comment,  “F*** the EU!”  Despite the agreement, a violent bloody coup led by ultra-nationalist Ukrainians was “midwifed”.

The ultra-nationalist coup government immediately started implementing policies hostile to the Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine. The coup and the new policies provoked the conflicts and resistance which have led to the situation today. The coup and policies were abhorred by a majority of Ukrainians, especially in eastern Ukraine.  The Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and re-unify with Russia.

The Minsk Accords of 2014 and 2015 were intended to resolve the conflict by granting some autonomy to the the Russian speaking sections in the eastern Donbass but keeping them within Ukraine.  Thanks to the admissions of two prominent former European leaders, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, we know that the West and their Ukrainian government puppet never intended to implement the Minsk Agreement.

Like the 1954 Geneva Accords regarding Vietnam, the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements on Ukraine were never implemented because Washington did not want a compromise.

When Ukraine President Zelensky had negotiations with Russians in Turkey at the end of March 2022, UK PM Boris Johnson hurried to Kyiv to dissuade Zelensky from continuing serious negotiations to end the war.

Similarly, the US is providing the big majority of  weapons, military supplies and financial aid to Ukraine just as they did to France and then the puppet government of South Vietnam. And similarly the US and allies do not want a resolution to the conflict which might in any way be seen as win for Russia.

Rationalization vs Reality of  Wars in Vietnam and Ukraine

In April 1965, U.S. President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) explained why he was escalating US involvement in Vietnam. With an Orwellian touch, he titled the speech “Peace without Conquest” as he announced the beginning of US air attacks on Vietnam.  He explained that

“We must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny and only in such a world will our own freedom be secure… we have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence and I intend to keep that promise. To dishonor that pledge, to abandon the small and brave nation to its enemies and the terror must follow would be an unforgivable wrong…We are also there to strengthen world order… To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America’s words.”

Click Link to access video and audio of LBJ’s John Hopkins Speech

President Biden and administration leaders  sound similar to LBJ  in the early stage of the Vietnam War. In his remarks to Congress asking for additional funding for Ukraine, Biden said,

“We need this bill to support Ukraine in its fight for freedom…. The cost of this fight is not cheap, but caving to aggression is going to be more costly if we allow it to happen…Investing in Ukraine’s freedom and security is a small price to pay to punish Russian aggression, to lessen the risk of future conflicts.”

Both Russia and the US now acknowledge that the conflict in Ukraine is between Russia and NATO (led the US). Ukraine is a proxy for the US which promoted the 2014 coup and has been pumping weapons into Ukraine ever since. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has been explicit: “We want to see Russia weakened.” The Ukrainian Defense Chief says they are fighting “to fulfill NATO’s mission.”

These wars are unnecessary

Just as the US could have lived with Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh leadership without the war, the US could live with Ukraine being a neutral country and bridge between east and west, Russia and western Europe.

However, as ML King observed 54 years ago, that was not (and still is not)  US policy.

“The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” He went on to name many other countries which are victims of  US intervention and aggression. He said, “And if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves … marching …and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam…”

Incrementally Increasing Conflict toward Total War

In 1965, when President Johnson announced the beginning of US air attacks on Vietnam, the war had been going on for many years.  The US kept incrementally increasing its commitment – from political support to advisors and trainers and special operations. In spring 1965 “only” about 400 US soldiers had died in the conflict. The war was not yet  widely unpopular. Americans who protested against the Vietnam War were a small minority.

We may be at a similar or earlier point in the conflict with Russia via Ukraine. While many tens of BILLIONS of dollars has been committed to Ukraine, plus advisors, trainers and other support, the US military has not yet been openly and actively deployed.

The incremental buildup in Vietnam ultimately led to over 58,000 Americans and three million Vietnamese civilians and soldiers being killed.  US prestige and influence was severely damaged.

Martin Luther King Jr said in his 1967 speech [exactly two years after LBG hi,

“We have no honorable intentions in Vietnam …. The world demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people.”

If the incremental buildup toward war with Russia is not stopped, it will be immeasurably worse than Vietnam. Already we are seeing tremendous destruction with Ukrainians and Russians dying by the thousands.  As with Vietnam in 1965, this could be just the beginning.

The costs of war and militarism

Dr King described the negative impact of the Vietnam war at home. He said

“A few years ago there was a shining moment …. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam and I watched this program broken and eviscerated … I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

Today, with nearly 60% of the federal discretionary budget going to the military, so called intelligence and nuclear weapon modernization, the situation is even more stark.  While US infrastructure corrodes, homelessness, personal debt, suicides and addictions increase. Instead of spending resources improving the lives of ordinary people, the government is pouring borrowed billions into another unnecessary war.

Western Media Distortions

Western media portrayed  the US and South Vietnam winning the war in South East Asia until the 1968 Tet offensive exposed the lies and reality. Similarly,  western media portrays Ukrainians winning the war midst overwhelming Ukrainian public support. In reality, Russia and the  secessionist areas control large areas and will advance in the near future. Ukrainian losses are already huge.

The idea that all Ukrainians love the West and hate Russia is false. As an indication of the  mixed sentiments, the country having received the MOST emigrants from Ukraine is Russia. While a small number continue from Russia to west European countries, the big majority stay in Russia with many awaiting the end of warfare.

Just as South Vietnamese puppet leaders were built up the US for political reasons, so is Ukrainian President Zelensky. His speeches are written by Washington insiders. Largely censored from the media, Zelensky has overseen the imprisonment, torture and killing of opponents. The largest opposition party has been banned.  Many Ukrainians oppose his policy and continuation of the war.

Ukrainians have become cannon fodder for the US geopolitical goals, just as the South Vietnamese were.

Will the US and allies continue to escalate the conflict in Ukraine, to “double down” on an intervention half way around the world with the goal of hurting Russia? Have we learned nothing from Vietnam and subsequent US/Western foreign policy disasters of the past 40 years?

ML King’s Hopes and Death

In his profound speech, Dr King said:

“We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values…When machines and computer, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered… A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death …..The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just… Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out in a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism and militarism.”

 

 

Exactly one year after delivering the speech at Riverside Church, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated. 

The Vietnam war continued for another seven years until the Vietnamese finally defeated and expelled the US military and their puppets. The disaster of the Vietnam War will be small compared to the disaster which may befall us all if US policy of attacking Russia through Ukraine is not stopped.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Rick Sterling is an independent journalist based in the SF Bay Area. He can contacted at [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: U.S. tanks use flamethrowers in a field during the Vietnam War in 1970. /CFP

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

CGTN Question: China’s economic performance during the past three years. Why did China outperform major economies including the US and EU?

Peter Koenig: China has entered new partnerships with the BRICS+, as well as a new strong alliance between China, Russia and Iran, as Iran has become a full-fledged member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – SCO.

China has already 2 years ago “discounted” trade and investments with the west, notably with the US and Europe, and instead concentrated on the ASEAN countries.

In fact, the Chinese initiated the world’s largest trade agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement – ASEAN+plus 5 (Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea) – entered into force on 1 January 2022.

While the RCEP impact on China’s economy may at this point be modest – the future looks extremely good, not only because of a new closer political alliance within the East, but also because it develops trade with China and with and among the RCEP member countries themselves.

Already today China’s trade with the various Eastern Associations has become more important than – and outranked – trade and investment exchange with the “West” – EU and US.

Just before the end of 2022, the special Russia-China strategic partnership, has been enforced by a virtual meeting between Presidents Putin and Xi – strengthening their politico-economic relationship for the future. They projected trade between the two countries to reach some 200 billion dollars equivalent by 2024.

And trade, which means economic growth, has already been enhanced during 2022, as the two countries are massively dedollarizing their economies, and dealing with local currencies, especially the Yuan.

The Yuan will in the future gain in importance due to China’s deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – 6 member countries, led by Saudi Arabia. Perhaps, a new “OPEC” is dawning – an eastern oriented hydrocarbon exchange. It may lead to a universal Petro-Yuan.

And finally – the Belt and Road – the BRI – has made a new start, as it is celebrating its 10th Anniversary this year. Its expansion and new orientation on trade and joint infrastructure, production and investment projects, had already started in 2021/22 – especially with Russia, India and Iran, and in the future direction will include the revived BRICS+….

The BRI will also be an important driver for China’s future economic development – including that of countries that join the BRI, and more in general – countries that join eastern alliances and aim at new associations within a natural Continent – EURASIA – connecting people and countries in peace.

CGTN: How did China escape the global inflation in 2022?

PK: China had a “normal“ economy, over the past few years ever more detached from the western economy. For good reasons – sanctions, China bashing and so on…

Western inflation was manufactured, by the EU Central Bank (ECB) and country central banks, as one of the means to destroy the western economy, especially the European economy – along with artificial energy shortages, and related food shortages – all blamed on Russia’s war with Ukraine.

The purpose being creating poverty, bankruptcies, shifting assets from the bottom and the middle to the top, to the billionaire oligarchy – creating poverty, famine – total destitution and finally death.

Many people in Europe, maybe up to 20% will have to choose between buying food or heating their apartment this winter. Many may lose their living quarters, because they can no longer pay their rent…it’s a way of depopulation – it’s part of the UN Agenda 2030, and the WEF’s Great Reset ….

To answer your question, that’s why China had no inflation, because China has another agenda for her peoples’ development.

CGTN: Decoding latest sets of economic data (up till Nov 2022), what do they tell us?

PK: Well, the reason might be that China’s economy performed so much better than the west projected, despite covid restrictions. And better than western economies.

Some of western countries attempted to restart their economies and relied on trade with China. This is of course never mentioned in the western mainstream media.

What also helped – maybe indirectly – and with a look into the future, the US$ 18 billion equivalent of contracts that German Chancellor Scholz took home from his recent short trip to China.

As a result of this much better-than-expected Chinese performance, the IMF “upgraded” China’s economic growth forecast for 2023, from 4.8% to 5.2%.

In my opinion, that is still an underestimation, given the new alliances and trading and investment potential that China is pursuing with the expanded SCO, with the BRICS-plus and with the new larger alliance – the three letters of the BRICS – Russia – India China – plus Iran.

And of course, with the new Turbo BRI.

CGTN: What had been the major drivers of growth in the past three years?

PK: The short answer – the BRI – which in the future will be revamped into a BRI-plus – as it will focus more on the new and enhanced alliances – Russia, China – and BRICS+.

Also the reorientation away from western markets, towards ASEAN countries, and importantly, China’s “inside look” – concentrating on developing the lesser developed internal and north-western regions.

You may call them investments in internal “equilibrium” – which in themselves will yield economic returns to the nation.

China’s economy, especially the western Provinces, have benefitted from state-sponsored “structural adjustments” at favorable terms, easing infrastructure and industrial development and growth.

CGTN: Debate on Western observations. COVID impact on short term economic activities?

PK: In brief – devastating in Europe and the US; bankruptcies abound, skyrocketing unemployment, rapidly rising poverty – while China’s economy still grew with internal mechanisms of selective structural adjustments, helped ease the covid impact, and at the same time bringing more equilibrium between highly developed Eastern China and middle and western China.

CGTN: Outlook for consumption recovery?

PK: Depends on whether Europe will continue to pursue the UN Agenda 2030 / Great Reset, or whether the European people will come to their senses and reject such nefariously destructive policies.

Both Agenda 2030 / Great Reset are determined to crash the western, foremost the European economy.

The socioeconomic policies of Europe – and partly the US – today look like a suicide pact, both for the economy and the people. An instrument to get there is Russia sanctioning, banning Russia’s gas and oil, creating an artificial energy shortage and blaming Russia for it.

Why the planned destruction? – Because this is the way a Globalist One World Order can be forged, not with two major blocks of functioning economies, the US and the European Union.

In China, consumption is up and running again – soon reaching pre-covid levels.

As far as I can see, China is not following the destructive path of the UN Agenda 2030 which appears to me like the pursuit of a weird and deadly Cult.

CGTN: Housing market named a key driver of recovery in economic conference, will the sector rebound in 2023? What will it mean for consumption?

PK: In Europe, people are very insecure about the economy, especially their own place or home, in an insecure economy. This means, they are hesitant making big investments, and especially debt which in the west is intimately related to housing.

What will happen in the near future, will depend on EU policies – will they detach from the US Hegemon’s dictate?

My vision is that 2023 will be a year of transition, where the people in the west will take back their lives, away from what has become a tyrannical all-controlling governing style.

If We – the People, succeed, there will be a rebound of housing and consumption – of everything.

If not – I don’t even want to think of it.

CGTN: Is export greatly challenged amid a global recession? Is it fair to call the Chinese economy an export-and-investment-driven economy?

PK: Yes, exports are naturally challenged in a recession economy, as consumption is challenged.

The thing is, the western recession is not necessarily a “global” recession.

Much of Asia, especially China and Russia are not in a recession.

The Chinese economy is much more versatile than “export and investment-driven”. Suffice to look at the new initiatives, like the visit by President Xi to Saudi Arabia – the new hydrocarbon deals in Yuan – with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

The ramification of this new relationship is poised to become a generator of a new dimension – a shift from the falling powers of the west to a new growing and more equal and more peaceful – and, thus, more sustainable world economy.

Far from just an export and investment economy – China is already the driver of a new economic concept, based on peace, harmony and stability – back to the true meaning of “trade” which in ancient times had been described as win-win, meaning both parties benefit from it.

This concept is foreign to the west, also the long-term economic concept of “comparative advantage” has largely disappeared from western thinking, let alone from western vocabularies.

These are reasons contributing to the western demise and the unstoppable shift from western power based on conflict, to eastern power based on peace and harmonious cooperation.

CGTN: How will aging affect China’s growth? What are the compensating factors?

PK: In China, as in many eastern cultures, age is considered also wisdom – thus, older people keep an important role in society – as with sharing their experience converting it to advice for younger generations.

Older people’s lesser physical productivity, may be at least partially compensated by ever-updated new technologies.

In short, aging in China may have none, or a much lesser negative impact on the economy.

Whereas in the west, aging may impact societal well-being, because older people are often discriminated and separated from the “working society” – that has a psychological and social cost – and eventually, it also impacts on the welfare system.

CGTN: China’s interaction with global economy. What does China easing COVID policies mean for the world?

PK: It could be very positive, and it will be positive for part of the global economy, namely for the Asian and the Global South socioeconomy.

As to western economy, the west has no shortfall of stalling China – now with travel restrictions, and soon with new sanctions – probably linked to Taiwan…

The west has still not understood that they cannot, never, curtail, control or limit China’s growth, with her 5000 years of history.

It eclipses all of the Global North.

CGTN: Outlook for 2023 growth?

PK: The Outlook for growth in China is good – as mentioned before – the BRI – new and strengthened strategic relations with Russia, and new enhanced association with India and Iran, as well as the BRICS+.

As mentioned before, the IMF forecasts an upward adjusted growth of 5.2%.

CGTN: Does the PBOC (China’s Central Bank) has enough room for policy adjustments and why?

PK: At first sight I would say yes – but cannot substantiate it, other than “structural adjustments” with Chinese characteristics – is a good instrument, as proven in the past.

CGTN: With innovative developments and technological progress, is China becoming a big contributor for a cleaner global economy?

PK: Definitely. As compared with western large powers, like the US and the EU, China is already today contributing more to a cleaner environment. Also, research into alternative sources of energy, are taken seriously in China – less so in the west – and therefore in China they are already much more advanced than in the west.

The west has been captured by a neo-liberal Green Agenda – many have not even noticed it. What used to be a center-left agenda, has become an outright fascist party concept.

The “Green Agenda” in the west is everything else than green and clean. It is a way of oppressing people’s freedom, through new lockdowns and life-restrictions, rather than seeking cooperation in reducing pollution and all levels.

In fact, CO2 is not a pollutant; it’s a vital gas for all life. Without ti, there would be no life on earth.

CGTN: How did the structural adjustments in the last 10 years in China have paved way for a new round of growth?

PK: Structural adjustment – Chinese style – and adapted to local circumstances, has helped shape investment strategies for the interior and western China – thus contributing to people’s well-being, reduction of migration and a better equilibrium with the highly developed eastern China.

CGTN: How will walking out of the pandemic shadow help to accelerate China’s involvement in global economic activities, such as the BRI?

PK: The Chinese easing on covid restrictions is certainly a driver for more connectivity with the “global” economy. Wat will however be the main driver is the “new” BRI.

The re-orientation of the Belt and Road to new or enhanced alliances, like Russia-China, and China-India-Iran — BRICS-plus and SCO — and so on, will be also a potential driver for associated countries’ economies.

This for now will be most visible in Asia, and in a larger sense, EURASIA – with the Middle East, especially the new GCC alliance.

It may be wise to limit the term “global” to Asia, and Asian / Eurasian associations. Unfortunately, the west, as of now, is not trustworthy – and is on a destructive and hostile drive.

CGTN: Uncertainties for China’s growth in 2023?

PK: Considering all the foregoing – especially BRI – my short answer is NO.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s Economy Outlook 2023 in the Context of the World Economy
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

First published by Global Research on November 9, 2022

***

Way back in 2017 I created a country-by-country guide to the biometric ID control grid that was coming into view even then. In that editorial I noted that “it doesn’t take a Nostradamus to understand where this is all heading: From the cashless society and the biometric ID grid to the cashless biometric grid.”

Well, here we are. It’s 2022 and the merger of the cashless society and the biometric ID grid is nearing completion. In fact, the current iteration of this control grid agenda is even worse than predicted. Now known as Central Bank Digital Currency, or CBDC, this programmable digital money offers the banksters numerous options, including the ability to combine the cashless society with the biometric ID grid and even a social credit system. If and when CBDCs replace other payment methods, the banksters’ control over society will be unprecedented.

But however closely you might be following the drive toward the CBDC dystopia, you might be missing the forest for the trees. Although each country’s central bankers talk as if they have come up with the idea for a digital currency all by themselves and that there is no international coordination behind the CBDC agenda, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as a recent Bank for International Settlements report indicates, 90% of central banks around the world are currently studying the feasibility of issuing their own CBDC.

In the past, I have warned about the coming CBDC nightmare and talked about the numerous ways we can start taking the monetary power back into our own hands.

Today, I am going to drive home the point that the coming CBDC prison is truly global in nature by demonstrating that it is not just being put into place in one or two totalitarian countries, but nearly every country in the world.

Only when we recognize how dire the situation is can we hope to motivate communities to implement the survival currencies that will see us through the controlled demolition of the existing monetary order.

Australia

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has been exploring the possibility of an Australian Central Bank Digital Currency since at least 2019, when its “Innovation Lab” drafted a Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology, which states that “the Bank is conducting research on the technological and policy implications of a wholesale CBDC.”

It made good on this threat in November 2020 with the announcement of a partnership between the RBA and Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank, Perpetual, and ConsenSys Software to “explore the potential use and implications of a wholesale form of central bank digital currency.” Philip Lowe, governor of the RBA, has publicly expressed skepticism about the need to implement a retail CBDC in Australia, but the door is still open to the possibility.

The Bahamas

The Bahamas became the unlikely location of the world’s first nationwide CBDC when they launched the “Sand Dollar” back in October 2020. The island archipelago—with one of the highest per capita incomes in the Americas and a 90% mobile device penetration rate—was viewed as an ideal laboratory for the CBDC experiment by central bankers and hyped as a harbinger of a “new world economy” by the global financial press. . . .

But the banksters have not been thrilled with the results so far. The IMF told the Central Bank of The Bahamas earlier this week that it needs to “accelerate its education campaigns and continue strengthening internal capacity and oversight” of the currency.

Brazil

Roberto Campos Neto, president of the Central Bank of Brazil, confirmed last month that the bank will be running a pilot test of its CBDC, the digital real, before the end of the year. “This is a way to create currency digitization without creating a break in bank balance sheets. This project should have some kind of pilot in the second half of the year,” Neto said at the press conference announcing the pilot’s launch.

Canada

Chile

Chile’s central bank issued a report this week on its plans for a future Chilean digital currency. Spouting the usual bankster platitudes about how a CBDC “would contribute to achieving a competitive, innovative and integrated payment system that is inclusive, resilient and protects people’s information,” the review ultimately concludes that “a deeper analysis of the benefits and risks” is in order, and promises (or threatens, depending on your perspective) to issue a new report on the subject toward the end of the year.

In the meantime, the Chilean Central Bank governor, Rosanna Costa, has said that Chile’s CBDC “should operate both online and offline” and that it should “allow the authorities to trace the transaction afterwards” while paradoxically “safeguarding personal data.”

China

The digital yuan (as readers of this column will already know) has been in the works for at least five years. It is no surprise, then, that China’s CBDC—already operational in various trials—is seen as one of the most developed CBDC projects in the world and is held up by various Western countries as the bogeyman justifying their own CBDC experimentation (“We can’t let the ChiComs beat us to the punch!”).

As you may or may know (depending how closely you’re tuned in to CBDCInsider and other such sources of info), the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) did a “test rollout” of the currency at the Beijing Olympics this year, offering athletes, attendees and press the chance to use the new CBDC at the Games. That test was deemed a success, with the PBoC later declaring that the digital yuan was used to make 2 million yuan ($315,000) of payments per day during the event.

Now, in the latest move toward full implementation of the Chinese CBDC, three cities across China have declared they will accept the digital yuan for tax payments.

European Union

The EU is currently conducting “in-house experiments” for a digital euro and expects to start working on a prototype next year. As part of its ongoing “research” process, the European Central Bank released a working paper this past week on “The digital economy, privacy, and CBDC.” The paper suggests that a digital euro could strike a happy balance between “inefficient” offline cash transactions that preserve anonymity and “efficient” online bank deposit transactions that do not preserve anonymity.

The best kind of digital currency, the report concludes, is a “CBDC with data-sharing,” a conclusion they arrive at by redefining privacy: “Privacy is not the opposite of sharing—rather it is control over sharing.” Actual Europeans are not buying this self-serving twaddle, but the ECB, unsurprisingly, seems not to be listening to them.

Ghana

The Bank of Ghana was one of the first African countries to announce that it was developing a digital currency. And now, with the release of a design paper for the eCedi—its retail token-based CBDC—it is one step closer to implementing that vision. The bank is currently soliciting feedback on the proposal from the public.

Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has released a number of studies, white papers, proposals and discussion papers surrounding the topic of CBDCs over the past few years, from the 2019 announcement of Project LionRock-Inthanon (a joint project with the Bank of Thailand to study the application of CBDC to cross-border payments) to last month’s “Discussion paper on e-HKD from policy and design perspective.”

This paper invites “views from the public and the industry on key policy and design issues for introducing retail central bank digital currency,” leaving little doubt that the introduction of a digital Hong Kong Dollar is now all-but-inevitable.

Read: Biden is handing over American sovereignty with proposed World Health Organization treaty

India

Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman made waves earlier this year by announcing that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) would launch a CBDC sometime in the next fiscal year. Lest there be any doubt about the Indian government’s intention to make good on its digital currency threat, Union Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar asserted in March that the digital rupee is a “natural progression” of the digital payment ecosystem.

But for those worried about what life in the coming digital dystopia will be like, relax! RBI Deputy Governor T. Rabi Sankar says the bank “will probably go in for a very careful and calibrated, nuanced manner” as it springs its CBDC trap on the Indian public.

Iran

There’s an old canard in conspiracy realist circles that there are only three (?) central banks on the planet that aren’t owned by the Rothschilds. The exact list of these supposedly independent central banks varies in the telling, but Iran is usually included among them. Well, guess what? The Central Bank of Iran (CBI) is all on board with the CBDC revolution!

This past January, Abutaleb Najafi—the head of CBI’s information services company—revealed that, after two years of “continuous work” on the platform, “the infrastructure needed for CBI’s cryptocurrency and now its pilot version is ready.”

Details on the pilot test of the Iranian CBDC are scarce, but Najafi has confirmed that both state-run and private banks in the country will allow customers to open digital wallets for the currency during the trial.

Israel

Generally speaking, central banks are finding CBDCs to be a public relations disaster. In every country they hold “public consultations” about a central bank digital currency and solicit comments from the citizens, but find the overwhelming majority of those responses are negative. As it turns out, people are wary of a government-issued programmable money that could be used to completely exclude them from the financial system itself if they dare engage in activities the government disapproves of.

The Bank of Israel (BoI) has decided to do an end run around this problem by simply declaring (without showing proof) that it has “received public support for its plans to possibly issue a digital shekel on grounds it would help the economy by supporting innovation in the payments system, reducing the amount of cash and bolstering the fintech sector.”

Yes, the banksters actually want you to believe that the majority of Israelis support the idea of a digital shekel because it will reduce the amount of cash. Riiiiiiight. Don’t worry, though. The BoI says it “has still not made a final decision on whether it will issue a digital shekel” even though “all of the responses to the public consultation indicate support for continued research.” Riiiiiiight.

Japan

In March, Bank of Japan (BoJ) Governor Haruhiko Kuroda declared that the BoJ has no plan to issue a digital currency as of yet but that it “will prepare ‘thoroughly’ to respond to changing circumstances that could require it to do so in future.” Last month, BoJ Executive Director Shinichi Uchida clarified that the bank would not introduce a digital yen as a means of achieving negative interest rates, as some have warned.

Around the same time, Kazushige Kamiyama, head of the bank’s payment system, pledged that the BoJ would follow Sweden’s slow, cautious approach to CBDC testing before any digital yen is actually implemented.

In a sign that plans for a Japanese CBDC may be further along than publicly acknowledged, however, Kuroda took a moment from fearmongering about decentralized digital assets to state that a CBDC “could be an option to secure a seamless and safe [payment and settlement] infrastructure in Japan.”

Namibia

The Bank of Namibia revealed its plans last month to launch a CBDC. “We cannot ignore CBDC, it is a reality out there and for that reason, the Bank of Namibia has started researching CBDCs and they very soon will go out with consultations,” the Bank of Namibia Governor Johannes Gawaxab said at a press conference announcing the move, adding that a consultation paper on the plan is nearing completion.

Nigeria

As discussed on a recent edition of New World Next Week, Nigeria is one of only two countries in the world with an official, nationwide CBDC (the other being The Bahamas, mentioned above). The eNaira is a stablecoin minted by the Central Bank of Nigeria, making it a true digital version of the fiat currency.

This CBDC has already been declared a success by the bankster class, with the IMF predicting that the eNaira will be adopted by 90 percent of Nigeria’s population. An upgraded eNaira wallet app will be available this coming week that will allow Nigerians to “do transactions such as paying for DSTV or electric bills or even paying for flight tickets.”

Russia

For those who still believe that Vladimir “Get the Vaxx” Putin (and his pals at the WHO) are somehow against the New World Order despite being demonstrably on board with every part of the technocratic agenda, here’s another dose of reality: the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) has been working on its own CBDC project for years.

Last year, the CBR announced the creation of a “pilot group” of 12 banks that will test a version of the digital ruble later this year. According to statements from CBR representatives, citizens will be able to use the CBDC “for purchases, transfers to individuals, firms and the state, tax payments, conversions to foreign currencies in e-wallets and as a store of value.”

Rwanda

Rwanda hopped aboard the CBDC bandwagon last June, with John Karamuka, the Director of Payment Systems at the National Bank of Rwanda, telling The New Times that the central bank was “studying the possibilities of issuing its own Central Bank Digital Currency in response to global trends in digital currency.”

Earlier this year, central bank Deputy Governor Soraya Hakuziyaremye confirmed that the bank was still in the investigation phase and that it will reveal its stance on implementing a CBDC by the end of December 2022.

Saudi Arabia

In 2019 Saudi central bank (the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority, or SAMA) announced Project Aber, a partnership with the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates, to determine whether a new, dual-issued digital currency could be used as a unit of settlement between the two countries.

The final report of that project was released one year later, concluding that “a cross-border dual issued currency was technically viable and that it was possible to design a distributed payment system that offers the two countries significant improvement over centralized payment systems in terms of architectural resilience.”

This led to an admission last October by a SAMA official that the central bank is now actively exploring CBDC as a means to digitize payments, with an ambitious target of having 70% of all payments in the country being conducted digitally by 2030.

South Africa

The country’s central bank, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB), revealed in May 2021 that it had commenced a feasibility study for a general-purpose retail central bank digital currency. Earlier this year, it announced that it had completed the second phase of a separate trial, known as Project Khokha 2, focusing on the creation of a wholesale central bank digital currency.

Its project report on the trial concluded that the trial was successful and that the next steps should include further testing and collaboration with other countries on the development of a cross-border digital currency.

To that end, the bank announced in September 2021 that it signed up to a pilot program to develop a shared platform to enable cross-border digital currency transactions with Malaysia, Australia and Singapore.

READ: Trudeau is turning Canada into the world’s most comfortable prison state

South Korea

The Bank of Korea (BoK) launched a “forward-thinking” digital currency pilot program in August 2021 with the aim of exploring the feasibility of a retail CBDC. Selecting Ground X—the blockchain subsidiary of Kakao, Korea’s largest social network—as its blockchain simulation provider and partnering with Samsung to research cross-border payments to other mobile phones or connected bank accounts, the BoK has reportedly invested 5 billion won in the project. Phase 2 of the trial, testing “payments using CBDC, remittances between countries, and applications of privacy technologies,” is slated to wrap up this June.

Switzerland

In December 2020 the Bank for International Settlements launched Project Helvetia, a “proof-of-concept experiment to integrate tokenised digital assets and central bank money” in conjunction with the Swiss National Bank (SNB). In January of this year, the SNB revealed the results of that experiment: Project Helvetia “has successfully used central bank digital currencies to settle transactions with five different commercial banks.”

The results of the test, we are told, will allow the bank to proceed with some of the most advanced CBDC testing in Europe and “could pave the way for the implementation of a digital currency in Switzerland.”

Ukraine

Remember Bitt, the Barbadian fintech firm that helped to develop the eNaira for Nigeria? Well, guess what Bitt’s working on now? An electronic hryvnia for Ukraine. That’s right, the Ukrainian government paved the way for a CBDC last year by announcing a test pilot of the digital currency, which was slated to begin this year.

No word yet on how Russia’s ongoing “special operations” in the country have affected that plan, but so far there has been no formal announcement that the CBDC idea has been scrapped.

United Kingdom

The Bank of England (BoE) has been looking into the possibility of creating a digital currency in the UK since at least 2015. They are still officially in the “research” phase, with the bank releasing “Responses to the Bank of England’s March 2020 Discussion Paper on CBDC” in June 2021. In November 2021, the BoE released a statement that it will “launch a consultation which will set out their assessment of the case for a UK CBDC” sometime in 2022.

United States

As you may have heard by now, the Biden White House issued an Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets this past March. Although the order generated a lot of stories about how the administration was clearing the way for the possible introduction of a digital dollar, it should be noted that the Federal Reserve has been actively exploring the concept for some time now; the “go ahead” from Biden was more window dressing than substantial policy shift.

Specifically, the Boston Fed has been collaborating with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Project Hamilton—a “multiyear research project to explore the CBDC design space and gain a hands-on understanding of a CBDC’s technical challenges and opportunities”—since the summer of 2020.

The first fruit of that collaboration—a report on Phase 1 of the project—was released earlier this year, resulting in new “learnings” about the best way to design a CBDC and clearing the way for Phase 2, which, we are told, “will explore new functionality and alternative technical designs.”

Venezuela

Although The Bahamas and Nigeria are now touted as the first countries to have a national CBDC in place, Corbett Reporteers will remember that Venezuela launched its own “cryptocurrency” in 2018.

Of course, as I pointed out at the time, it isn’t really a cryptocurrency; it’s a Central Bank Digital Currency. It’s completely centralized, it’s closed source and there’s only one government-run block explorer and one government-issued official wallet. You might also recall that, in a remarkable coincidence, Venezuela introduced its social credit ID card—the “fatherland card”—later that same year.

Well, in case you were wondering, Venezuelans are continuing to be pushed off the digital cliff into technocratic tyranny. Just this past March, President Maduro announced that the country’s minimum wage would now be pegged to the digital currency.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Sinister Growth of Digital Currencies (CBDC) around the World. James Corbett

China Balloon Opportunism and Hypocrisy

February 4th, 2023 by Kurt Nimmo

Day Two of Commie Balloon Madness. The primary feature here is an inflow of “public servant” careerists clogging the interwebs with condemnation of something they hardly understand.

In Neocon slash Neolib Bizarro World, a helium bag the length of three school buses with an unknown payload and solar panels attached has become a declaration of war for the uniparty political class. Consider the former vice president under Orange Man:

.

.

Twitter avatar for @Mike_Pence

Mike Pence @Mike_Pence
Shoot down the Chinese spy balloon. Go ahead and send the Secretary of State to China next week. Have @SecBlinken Look them in the eye and tell em- it better never happen again. That’s Peace Through Strength🇺🇸

I posted yesterday on the infeasibility of this.

Reality, however, is not a strong suit for “representatives” jockeying for attention, as power-hungry narcissists are wont to do.

Here we have a former CIA boss and a former ambassador to the United Nations venting spleen over them damn Chicoms. Note the stern visage.

Pompeo’s Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School is of little help in understanding balloons, missiles, and the Stratosphere.

Politicians and blue-checkers on Twitter are not inclined to compare and contrast. The “threat” posed by what is either an errant weather balloon or a clumsy surveillance device doesn’t hold a candle to the threat of the USG surveillance state.

The National Security Act, signed into law by a nuclear terrorist in 1947, resulted in mass surveillance of the American people. The FBI was established as a political police force, while the CIA concentrated on overthrowing foreign governments (it also violated its supposed charter to spy on domestic antiwar activists).

The Church Committee of the mid-1970s revealed how presidents used the CIA, FBI, and NSA to destroy political enemies (Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon—all employed the FBI to neutralize the opposition). No balloons were required.

The list of subversive, liberty-destroying programs and operations is long and sordid—ECHELON, COINTELPRO, Operation CHAOS, Project Mockingbird, Projects RESISTANCE, MERRIMAC, HT/LINGUAL, and the Cactus program, which tied it all together. This is a short list of known USG anti-liberty programs. No doubt many others remain classified and secret.

Following 9/11, the USG used “terrorism” as an excuse to violate the civil liberties of Americans. The so-called PATRIOT Act was rushed through Congress, resulting in illegal and “warrantless” surveillance of “tens of millions” of Americans.

In 2014, it was revealed the NSA had built a system designed to infect target computers with malware. The USG surveillance state went so far as to masquerade as a Facebook server in an effort to exfiltrate data. The overall objective was to “own the Net.”

The obsessive-compulsive effort by the state to disrupt the constitutionally protected political activity of its subjects—including the destruction of careers, frame-ups, and assassinations—is a topic far too lengthy for this Substack post.

Hypocrisy abounds, even though none of us know for certain what the ominous balloon is meant to do. Regardless, it was exploited to condemn China, resulting in Antony Blinken canceling a trip to the authoritarian crony capitalist “communist” nation.

It should come as no surprise Pence, Pompeo, Haley, and the majority of Congress critters and bureaucrats of the state, not only approve of tyrannical surveillance and “neutralization” of folks not on narrative but also enthusiastically support implanting military bases in foreign lands, thus creating endless tension as it develops and fields ever-evolving mechanics of death and mass murder.

For instance, consider the following:

Imagine the response of the USG if China moved troops near the Canadian and Mexican borders.

The Doomsday Clock would be a nanosecond before midnight.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

What do corporations gain from virtue-signaling their support for Social Justice™ pet projects?

The Coca-Cola™ corporation makes sugar water with a splash of carcinogenic industrial food coloring to get the iconic caramel shading.

What on Earth does it have to do with Social Justice™, and why does it send millions of dollars to activist groups?

Indeed, the neoliberal intersection of identity politics and multinational business is, on its face, perplexing. And it’s admittedly a complex phenomenon.

But arguably the most obvious reason: pure profit and market-cornering.

In the 2010s, the Coca-Cola corporation and competing soft drink manufacturers had a big problem. In New York and elsewhere, local governments were considering banning or limiting the sale of soda on public health grounds.

Some were even threatening to remove soda from the accepted foods available for purchase through SNAP programs (publicly funded food assistance, aka “food stamps”).

Via NPR:

“SNAP households spend about 10 percent of food dollars on sugary drinks, which is about three times more than the amount they spend on milk. In New York City alone, as we’ve reported, this translates into more than $75 million in sugary drink purchases each year that are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers…

As Congress debates a new farm bill containing billions in SNAP funding, there’s an increasing appetite to overhaul the program while at the same time preserving the benefits it provides in keeping low-income Americans fed.”

Ten percent of the annual $182 billion SNAP budget is obviously a huge sum of money that Coca-Cola stood to lose.

Removing sodas from the list of acceptable purchases for food stamp holders might have been good for the peasants’ personal health. The proposed changes may have alleviated the public health burdens of obesity and heart disease and diabetes.

But it would have devastated Coke’s bottom line.

So, how best to protect their interests and keep SNAP people hooked on the bottle?

Why not dump some cash into race hustlers’ bank accounts and enlist them to smear their ideological opponents as racist? It works for aspirational politicians (like Kamala Harris) and Person of Color© collegiate athletes and virtually any protected identity in any other context, so why not for a giant corporation? And Coca-Cola™ certainly has the cash on hand to grease the wheels.

.

.

Via Nutrition Insight:

“According to a new report issued by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, that case, in which the state chapter of the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation unexpectedly joined Big Soda’s legal fight, is just the latest illustration of the persuasive power of “philanthropic” grants from the sugar-drinks industry.

Both groups received grants from Coca-Cola, with the national NAACP receiving at least $2.1 million from the soda giant since 1986, including $100,000 as recently as December. The Hispanic Federation also lists Coke as a donor, and in February 2012 its president, Lillian Rodriguez Lopez, left the nonprofit group to become director of Latin affairs at the company.”

(The report notes that, beyond civil rights groups, the processed sugar industry “has given money to—and cultivated relationships with—groups representing doctors, dentists, dietitians, anti-hunger advocates, and others.” We’ve previously reported on the collusion between the medical and big food industry to move more product.)

As they were contracted to do on behalf of Coca-Cola™, the NAACP and dozens of other groups funded by the corporation attacked proponents of the proposed SNAP regulations to ban soda as “discriminatory, paternalistic, and ineffective.”

.

.

The issue here isn’t whether the New York soda ban was ethically justified. Most rational people agree that the role of the state isn’t to protect people from their own destructive decisions that don’t directly affect anyone else.

The key issue is the cynical weaponization of identity politics to enhance market and political power among disingenuous actors.

The result is that liberal/”progressive” actors otherwise ostensibly opposed to big business become the willing tools of profiteering at a cost to the health of the very communities they purport to serve.

The irony can’t be emphasized enough that the ones who disproportionately get hurt by this brand of performative wokeness are the racial minorities who consume high-fructose corn syrup products like Coca-Cola™ at higher rates than their white counterparts.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Daily Bell.

Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Armageddon Prose and/or Substack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TDB

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

 

***

An increasing number of videos are appearing on social media and confirm that people in Ukraine are being mobilized by force, demonstrating that the Ukrainian army are suffering from heavy losses.

Some of the videos show people being dragged along the ground and thrown into cars so they can be forcibly taken for a medical examination, yet if Western media was to be believed, it is Russians who are facing such a dramatic mobilization.

Videos from Odessa, Krivoy Rog, Dnipropetrovsk, Transcarpathia, and elsewhere show how Ukrainian army officers behave aggressively towards people when they are handing out military summons.

Recently, in the Transcarpathian town of Mukačovo, the entire market was closed and soldiers and policemen forcibly took all men who looked fit for the army onto buses. In Lvov, they handed out recruitment invitations at the funeral of a Ukrainian soldier, several of whom were immediately taken to a military unit. In fact, the Ukrainian military is evidently so desperate that they even gave a military notification to a man in Lvov who was born without his hands.

The situation is so bad for the Ukrainian military that some estimates believe that as many as 85% of soldiers in the Ukrainian army are insufficiently trained. Kiev hoped that foreign mercenaries and an influx of military equipment would help minimize losses. However, this quite obviously did not occur because the Ukrainian military is being crushed.

According to military experts, 157,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died. It can be safely assumed that there are at least three times as many wounded. There is also evidence that over 350,000 people are missing. As for the soldiers who surrendered to the Russian army, they number about 10,000-12,000 people. With the Ukrainian military suffering huge losses, Kiev is desperate to mobilize as many men as possible. 

With the war quickly approaching its one-year anniversary, all Ukrainian men who were willing to fight have already joined the army. The mobilizations are so violent and forceful because the Kiev regime understands that men who are not conscripted already are those who are unwilling to fight.  

A deep scepticism is beginning to set in Ukraine, especially as this has been one of the most difficult winters in living memory. The thought of the next winter being even more difficult is one that worries Ukrainians considering that the economy will be in an even worse situation and more infrastructure will be destroyed.

By the Ukrainian military having to use force, it demonstrates that Kiev no longer has trust in its own citizens. Hungarian media pointed out that the largest mobilizations have been in Transcarpathia, a region with a large Hungarian and Romanian minority. 

According to Hungarian media, the Transcarpathian 128th Mountain Assault Brigade suffered heavy losses near Soledar. They also wrote that the Security Service of Ukraine forbids the relatives of the deceased Transcarpathian Hungarians to search for them on social media and talk about their deaths. In this way, there is clear racism against non-Ukrainians as Transcarpathian Hungarians are forced to fight on the most dangerous fronts.

At the same time, Ukraine Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov claimed on February 2 that Russia had mobilised 500,000 soldiers and is preparing to launch a fresh offensive on February 24, the one-year anniversary of the special military operation.

“We think that, given that they [Russians] live in symbolism, they will try to try something around February 24,” Reznikov told BFMTV.

Ukraine’s Defence Minister used this claim to call for more military assistance from NATO countries, adding that he expects the Russian army to launch an offensive “in two directions: it could be the Donbass, or it could be the south.”

It is recalled that the Ukrainian Commander of the Operational Command South, Major General Kovalchuk, claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin will order millions of soldiers that were only mobilized in January into the war, adding that he needs more weapons to counter Russia. There is little suggestion or evidence that millions of Russians were mobilized in January, and is thus another exaggerated propaganda effort by the Kiev regime to try and secure Western weapons. 

Because of such exaggerations, it could be easy to dismiss Kiev’s claims on when Russia plans to launch a spring offensive and the 500,000 personnel size of its mobilization as another call for immediate Western weapons and/or intervention. However, the rapid and forceful mobilization of men in Ukraine could suggest that Kiev does believe the intelligence to be true and is not just using it for propaganda purposes. 

With a major Russian offensive seemingly inevitable at some point in 2023, Ukraine’s defence minister was in France on February 2 to meet President Emmanuel Macron and secure the purchase of air defence radars and lobby for F-16 fighter jets, something Macron said his country had not ruled out.

“We tell our partners that we too must be ready as soon as possible,” Reznikov told French media. “That’s why we need weapons to contain the enemy.”

Nonetheless, there is very little evidence that weapon deliveries, including the delivery of F-16 fighter jets that would take many months to facilitate and even more to train competent pilots for, could reverse the impending success of Russia’s offensive. With Bakhmut on the verge of collapse, the path to liberate all of Donetsk region will be opened, and unmotivated civilian fighters will not be able to stop it.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The corporate media and their Antifa footsoldiers bandy about the term “fascism” quite freely. Somehow, through magnificent logic-pretzel contortions, they claim that resistance to government mandates to inject yourself with experimental drugs is not resistance to fascism, but fascism itself.

.

Truly, they have a wondrous capacity to invert reality.

But, for all the revisionism, fascism as a governing ideology actually means something very specific.

Progenitor of the ideology, Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, infamously defined fascism – or, alternatively, corporatism — as the “merger of corporate and state power.”

Let’s examine true 21st-century techno-fascism, and how it works in the real world:

The total 2022 US government budget was $6.272 trillion (25.1% of GDP).

A full quarter of the nation’s economic activity is allocated to projects carried out theoretically in the public interest, funded by the public treasury.

As one might expect from the massive bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to administer this activity, these vast resources are frequently abused. On an opaque journey through a series of unseen hands, the funds are redirected into private purses with limited or no benefit to the actual public. Private interests suckling at the teat of power are the biggest beneficiaries.

The most obvious example of the fascist grift in the modern era is the mRNA COVID “vaccines.”

.

The private, for-profit pharmaceutical industry has long abused the public coffers by bribing politicians through campaign donations, who in turn funnel taxpayer money into the subsidy of private “research and development” (called “R&D” in the industry). The COVID-19 pandemic greatly expanded the scope of public funding of the pharmaceutical industry’s projects.

Via the Journal of the American Medical Association:

“There also has been a major shift in the funding of product commercialization during the pandemic. Government agencies and philanthropic organizations are offering large sums not only to support research but to fund late-stage product development, the expansion of manufacturing capacity, and efficient systems for distribution. In the past, these activities have been funded largely by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Pfizer and Moderna pillage the treasury to offset the cost of research and development for their mRNA shots. Then, once they’re developed, they manage to get the government to cover the price for the shots administered to the public.

The shot is then marketed as “free” to the public. But, of course, the public is paying for the shots via the treasury. The problem is that no one sees dollars drained from their personal bank accounts. The cost to the individual, which is filtered through large institutions, seems far-off. To Joe Six-Pack and Sally PTA, they’re just vague digits in some government spreadsheet.

Meanwhile, Pfizer and Moderna reap record profits because their project costs are subsidized on the back end and they get a premium at the point of sale. Pfizer doubled its profits from 2020 to 2021 by selling its COVID shots to the government that paid to develop them in the first place.

Project Veritas recently exposed an undercover meeting with a Pfizer executive in which he admitted that “Pfizer is a revolving door for all government officials.”

He flat out states that individual FDA officials go easy on Pfizer, knowing that they will later receive an extremely lucrative job or consulting gig from Pfizer.

.

Then you have the actual mandate to use the product. You will enrich Pfizer, or the government will use its power of force to make you lose your job.

This fits perfectly the actual definition of fascism.

In the end, the public treasury is bankrupted and the national debt soars, while no one seemingly cares – certainly not the industries that profit of the public dole.

Of course, the pharmaceutical industry is just one head of the private-public hydra.

There is also, for example, the sports industry that manipulates local governments into funding bloated stadiums with empty promises of a return on investment at some future point.

There’s the US war machine that funnels public defense dollars into private weapons contractors.

The Pentagon, for instance, has never once passed an audit. Were it a private entity, with a fiduciary responsibility to stakeholders, its administrators would be on the hook for civil and potentially even criminal penalties for malfeasance. Instead, its incompetent management is rewarded with year-on-year budget increases.

It’s bad enough to be forced to support businesses we don’t want to.

But it reaches another whole level when the fascists force us to inject their product into our bodies, or when they force us into their for-profit wars.

Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Armageddon Prose and/or Substack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter.

CBDC stands for Central Bank Digital Currency, and these are digital versions of a country’s currency. We’ve talked a lot here on the Organic Prepper about digital currencies and the dangers of a cashless society, and if the WEF has its way, we could be looking at just that – and soon. The governments of the world are hard at work creating tunnels and secret routes that all lead to one place – a one-world monetary system. This is all part of the Great Reset they’ve been touting.

The Central Bank has a plan to implement digital currency in the near future.

As always, it will be positioned as something beneficial to get the less critical thinkers on board first.

Then, at some point, it could become the only legal tender that exists, and this will give the powers that be the ability to completely control every financial decision you make.

For the record, governments already have the ability to freeze personal bank accounts. This was tested in Canada last year during the Freedom Convoy when truckers protested Covid regulations. The bank accounts of donors to the cause were frozen without recourse. This actually happened to a friend of mine back in Canada, all because she made a $20 donation to the Go-Fund-Me, which was, incidentally, withheld from its intended recipients.

Anyway, a digital currency could mean such controls as automatic taxation or where and when you’re allowed to make purchases – all at the push of a button. The most likely way this will be rolled out is to “fight inflation” and “fix the economy.” As per the IMF:

A world with lower inflation (and even zero inflation) and no persistent recessions may sound like a pipe dream, but we argue that it is possible by transitioning to an “electronic money standard.” Such a transition requires eliminating the zero lower bound, which central banks can achieve using readily available tools. Breaking the zero lower bound implies that the optimal rate of inflation will be lower than in the presence of the lower bound. This will empower central banks to quickly restore full employment and, over the medium term, possibly move toward targeting full price stability with zero inflation.

Obviously, any kind of manipulation like this is false, and while there may be some temporary relief, it won’t solve the underlying problems with our economy.

(Want to learn more about how you can starve the beast? Check out our free QUICKSTART Guide here.)

What are the details of CBDCs?

Bank for International Settlements wrote a glowing report about the “benefits” of the CBDC system. Here’s what I took away from this:

  • Central bankers can execute policy or modify rates instantaneously, at the push of a button.
  • Private crypto is bad.
  • Central bank digital currency is good.
  • CBDCs are better than crypto because they’re trusted.
  • CBDCs aren’t “subject to the practical limitations of paper money.” (i.e., they can be tracked.)
  • Therefore it protects against “money laundering, proliferation financing, and terrorist financing.”
  • It will increase the pool of data generated on users and transactions, thus “helping” the “proper authorities.”
  • “Multi-CBDC platforms” aids in decentralization. (i.e., a global economy)
  • On a common CBDC platform across multiple central banks, transactions are recorded on one ledger.

Good times.

There’s no anonymity with this system.

With CBDC, you would never, never be able to purchase anything anonymously. Period.

Your identity would be verified for every purchase. So that means no food stockpile would go unnoticed. No ammo purchases. No firearm purchases. No generator or stash of medical supplies. No books on preparedness or off-grid living, or revolutionary philosophies. No lessons on herbalism or self-defense, or firearms.

Every single thing you bought would be able to be pulled up or flagged when the purchase was made, painting a picture of your lifestyle and your personal philosophies. For folks like us, that’s pretty darned uncomfortable. And if we pair this with a social credit system and/or an ESG score, those who buck the system could potentially lose access to their hard-earned money.

And think about the tax collection ramifications. There will be no more yard sales that result in a wad of undeclared cash. If you spend more than the “authorities” feel you should be able to afford, you’ll leave a glowing trail for them to follow. And if they feel you owe more money, they can literally just help themselves or freeze your account until you pony up.

So what can we do?

You may be thinking about immediately shutting down your bank account to dodge this system.  Don’t. It won’t work.

As much as I’d love to think we could opt out of this system, we can’t. At least not completely. Unless you live completely off the grid and produce every single consumer good that you use, including such things as food and sanitation needs, you cannot get away from this system. And even then, property taxes will need to be paid, and if our only legal tender is CBDCs, you’ll have no choice but to use it if you want to keep that off-grid home.

Let’s quickly look at the four functions of money:

  • a tool of accounting for measure
  • a tool for saving for future use
  • a tool of barter for trading
  • a store of value for fair payment of labor

Of all these, only precious metals fulfill these functions with your privacy and anonymity intact. And, if enough people switched to gold and silver, this nonsense would be a lot harder to enforce.

Now, I’m not suggesting going out and dealing in only silver dimes if you are in a situation in which you’re living from paycheck to paycheck. If you are in those shoes like so many of us are right now, you don’t have as many options. It isn’t feasible or practical if you’re going to need this money right away for existing expenses.

But if you are trying to protect existing wealth and this is not money you’ll need to access immediately, I urge you to consider investing it into gold or silver to protect your savings during the economic downturn ahead. At the same time, getting your money out of this currency system that may soon be switched to CBDC is the only way to ensure it remains yours. (Remember how I mentioned Canada, when Trudeau locked down accounts for wrongthink?)

I use ITM Trading, out of Phoenix, AZ, for all of my metals purchases. I know there are plenty of good companies out there, but I prefer ITM because of their focus on education. I’ve learned so much in my consultations (which are free, btw). I’ve been very impressed with the access to curated resources, research, and weekly insights on macroeconomics, central banks, currencies, and the global reset that they provide. To me, there’s really no other option for my purchases.

If you want to schedule a strategy session with ITM, it’s absolutely free, and there is no pressure whatsoever. Some folks take weeks or months before investing, and others decide it isn’t for them. But what every single person walks away with is a clearer understanding of the monetary system and what investing in precious metals entails. And you get all of it at no charge. To schedule your own appointment, go here or call this number directly: 1-866-517-1257 – I’ll be really interested to know whether you’re as impressed as I am.

(Want uninterrupted access to The Organic Prepper? Check out our paid-subscription newsletter.)

A CBDC economy is good for governments, not individuals.

I truly want to evade having everything I own put into CBDC that could be taken away or deflated at the push of a button. I’ve worked too hard for too long to have my finances completely at the mercy of a global banking system. I have no desire for my spending data to be used against me. I want privacy and security, and I don’t think I’ll get either with a CBDC system.

What are your thoughts about CBDCs? Do you think that this is coming soon? Is there a timeline on which you expect to see this occur? Are you concerned about it, or do you think it’s a good idea? Let’s talk about it in the comments.

About Daisy

Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging, adventure-seeking, globe-trotting blogger. She is the founder and publisher of three websites.  1) The Organic Prepper, which is about current events, preparedness, self-reliance, and the pursuit of liberty; 2)  The Frugalite, a website with thrifty tips and solutions to help people get a handle on their personal finances without feeling deprived; and 3) PreppersDailyNews.com, an aggregate site where you can find links to all the most important news for those who wish to be prepared. Her work is widely republished across alternative media and she has appeared in many interviews.

Daisy is the best-selling author of 5 traditionally published books, 12 self-published books, and runs a small digital publishing company with PDF guides, printables, and courses at SelfRelianceandSurvival.com You can find her on FacebookPinterest, Gab, MeWe, Parler, Instagram, and Twitter.

Covid Vaccine: Deaths in England Surge Again

February 4th, 2023 by Alex Berenson

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The death surge in highly mRNA vaccinated countries continues this winter.

Meanwhile, less-vaccinated countries are reporting normal or below normal mortality rates.

The latest bad news for vaccine advocates came from the British government this morning.

The Office of National Statistics said it had registered 17,381 deaths in England and Wales in the week ended Friday, January 13. That figure is about 20 percent more than the five-year average – and 30 percent more than longer-term averages – for the year’s second week.

Only about 650 of the deaths had Covid as an underlying cause, the government said, so most of the excess was not related to Covid.

The British data confirms recent trends all over Western Europe, including the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Most wealthy countries that relied on mRNA Covid shots and boosters had non-Covid deaths well above normal in 2022. The problem has worsened in recent weeks, in the wake of the fall Omicron booster campaigns.

With recent upward revisions, Europe will now probably report more excess deaths in 2022 than either 2020, before Covid vaccines were available, or 2021, before boosters began in earnest.

No connection has yet been proven.

But in contrast, South Africa and Bulgaria – two middle-income countries with much lower levels of Covid vaccinations – have reported normal or below-normal deaths for several months.

*

(TRUTH, DELIVERED AS NEEDED)

While the United States lags substantially in reporting complete death figures, many European countries post them within two to three weeks.

Britain is among the fastest, as well as very highly vaccinated.

About 90 percent of English adults received mRNA Covid jabs from Pfizer or Moderna or AstraZeneca’s DNA shots, according to government data.

About 70 percent of English adults then received a booster, and about 60 percent of those over 50 received the “bivalent” booster against Omicron in fall 2022. (Many adults over 75 also received a spring 2022 booster, meaning they have now taken five shots.) The boosters have been almost exclusively mRNAs.

Yet deaths in Britain have recently soared.

(Deaths registered in England and Wales, by week for the last three years. Deaths are now far above normal, with non-Covid deaths higher than at any point since the epidemic began.)

SOURCE

Bulgaria offers a striking contrast.

Deaths in Bulgaria have fallen far below their 2020 and 2021 levels – and more recently even below the 2015-2019 averages.

Bulgaria had among the lowest vaccination rates anywhere in the world, with only about 30 percent of adults jabbed and under 15 percent receiving even one booster. The country had widespread Covid outbreaks and high Covid deaths in 2020 and 2021.

But – as was widely predicted when Covid began and before the mRNA vaccines were introduced – it now appears to be running a deficit of deaths. The most likely explanation is that many of the people Covid killed were very old and sick and would have died within a year or two.

The Bulgarian data, and similar figures from South Africa, also appear to end “long Covid” as an explanation for the excess deaths in the mRNA countries. Both countries had nearly everyone exposed to the coronavirus.

(Deaths in lightly vaccinated Bulgaria. The red line is 2022: no excess deaths since May, deaths below normal since September)

SOURCE

I normally try to end these pieces with a clever kicker, but I don’t have one. And I want to get this out as quickly as possibly, especially since American public health bureaucrats STILL will not lay off boosters.

So that’s it. Thanks for reading.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Dr. Rath Health Foundation


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

The Truckers Freedom Convoy – And The Grapes of Wrath

February 4th, 2023 by Dr. Francis Christian

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

On the first anniversary of the Truckers for Freedom Convoy, I must modify somewhat President Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and state quite unequivocally that “the world will continue to take note and long remember what Canadian Truckers did here, and it can never forget what they achieved here.” 

The Convoy has passed through the narrow confines of time and become immortal.

In John Steinbeck’s novel, “The Grapes of Wrath,” (turned into a widely acclaimed film), two Truckers do an enormous good deed to an unsuspecting diner and store keeper.

The very hard times of the great depression (the “Grapes of Wrath”) were of no consequence to the Truckers. With triumphant grace, humble nonchalance, they handsomely reimburse with several dollars, the bewildered store lady for giving two poor kids two nickel-worth of candy, for a penny.

Kris Kristofferson turned this beautiful story into a beautiful song, in which the store lady calls out to the Truckers as they leave – “hey you left too much money.” The Truckers tell her as they pick up their coats to leave, “what’s it to you?” 

Video Below

 

Here’s what the Canadian Trucker’s Freedom Convoy was to us – a reason to hope again, a reason to believe in humanity again, a reason for millions of Canadians to show the world that tyranny has a defined lifespan and that peaceful civil disobedience can shake its fragile foundations.

It was all that and more to us!

In the frigid temperatures of a very cold Canadian winter, we lined the highways and stood with large maple leaf flags waving with a furious indignation at the terrible suffering that the totalitarian tyranny had inflicted upon our people.

On the overpasses across the nation, the very young and the very old and every age in between leaned into the convoy with their flags, willing them forward on their mission of liberty.

It was all that and more to us!

Across the world and over the airwaves of new and dinosaur media the peaceful, powerful Freedom Convoy embarrassed and scared the hell out of our totalitarian Canadian politicians – one went into hiding (Trudeau) and within days of the Freedom Convoy reaching Ottawa, the other (O’Toole) was quickly voted out by his own party!

South of the longest land border in the world, our American cousins held their breath in awe, in admiration and in utter disbelief that the “polite” Canadian masses could rise in their millions in peaceful revolt and challenge a totalitarian tyranny. The roar of the Canadian bear was heard across the world and Trudeau’s fellow tyrants everywhere heard too – and trembled.

Almost exactly a year later, the dictator of the banana republic New Zealand (otherwise called its prime minister) has resigned. Four months ago, the blundering buffoon tyrant in Downing Street (Boris Johnson) was also told he had to go! Without a shot being fired, the Freedom Convoy has dethroned dictators and reminded the world that the sum total of reality is resolutely set against evil.

It was all that and more to us!

It was no accident that during and soon after the Convoy, the mandates started to fall. The science had not changed. The desire of the politicians, corporations, globalists, “experts” and health czars to control, manipulate, abuse and insult the population had not changed. These petty tyrants were made to change – forced to give way to the peaceful assault of a determined, tenacious civil disobedience movement.

The Freedom Convoy literally linked the hands of millions of Canadians and made them dance together; literally increased the hug rate exponentially in Ottawa; literally brought all shades, hues and sizes of Canadians together; and literally did more for French-English unity than decades of political polemics!

It was all that and more to us.

I wrote an essay a few weeks ago about why the Trucker is smarter – than the doctor, the scientist, the lawyer, the philosopher, the college professor, the politician and the bureaucrat!

The Truckers who constituted the Freedom Convoy also possessed that most elusive of all human virtues – humility.

I don’t believe any of the Freedom Convoy Truckers brought about what Mr. Carlson described as “The Single Most Successful Human Rights Protest In A Generation” for selfish reasons. Many of them even today, are unaware of the seismic nature of their collective, peaceful protest. The aftershocks of the earthquake they caused are being felt today in peoples homes, in the places they work and up and down the halls of tyranny – and will be felt long after this generation is gone.

They did what they did for humanity, for the oppressed, for freedom, for liberty, for human rights, for free speech, for our family, for our friends, for us all.

And they did all that with exemplary demonstration of the timeless words of Jesus who said we ought to do our good deeds with humility: “let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.”

This is what the Truckers of the Freedom Convoy did. This is why, “great shall their reward be.”

 


It’s been approximately three years, three long and wearisome years, since the madness descended upon us.

Some of us thought that the story about a wet-market bat in Wuhan was an obviously deliberate deception.

Some of us thought that the globally-synchronized rush to shut down the world and pursue a single solution – the so-called vaccine – was an omen.

Some of us thought that our medical institutions, by pushing lockdowns for the healthy, masks for everybody, school closures and remote learning and work, among other things, all the while neglecting early treatment and prevention, had betrayed us and themselves profoundly and inexplicably.

Some of us hesitated to believe that the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for COVID was legitimate.

Some of us, looking around carefully to notice a dearth of dead bodies regularly scooped up off the streets, doubted that we were truly in the midst of a devastating pandemic.

Some of us chose to heed the therapeutic advice of Drs. Vladimir Zelenko, Pierre Kory and Peter McCullough, the epidemiological findings of Dr. John Ioannidis, and the grave warnings about the mRNA inoculation by Drs. Sucharit Bhakdi and Mike Yeadon, and many others.

Some of us simply listened to our own autonomous good sense and reasoned that there was no cause to be hysterically alarmed and no need to receive a newly-introduced injection for which long-term studies were absent.

Some of us were mystified by the increasingly vehement language used to subject us to political and medical dictates.

Some of us wondered why doctors stopped being doctors and instead became meek unthinking servants who forgot all about informed consent, individualized treatment and the principle of not doing harm.

Some of us predicted that the generation of spike proteins and the introduction of messenger RNA into our cells might result in a plethora of devastating consequences for health, consequences that could not be described in their entirety but which could include vascular compromise, strokes, inflammatory autoimmune reactions and a weakening of our immune system’s ability to function properly and robustly.

Some of us were disgusted by the attempt to scapegoat those who refused to be inoculated by an unnecessary and potentially dangerous agent, and to exclude us from the fabric of society.

Some of us bristled at the attempts to deny us the right to congregate, worship, protest and, in countries like New Zealand, even to take a swim.

Some of us didn’t accept that young children having strokes or dropping dead, or super-fit athletes dying on the pitch, or regular folks perishing far sooner than expected was normal.

Some of us gave up our jobs and lost many friendships for making a decision to think for ourselves and reject ill-conceived coercions.

Some of us also saw that the Corona War was the first big battle in a mission to digitize, control and enslave much of the now-depopulating population.

Some of us called a spade a spade and murder, by any other name – such as ‘excess mortality’ – murder. .

Others, now three years down the line, as a mountain of evidence that can no longer be concealed, even by MSM propaganda, accumulates about the serious risks of the jabs, aside from their inefficacy, are beginning to give public mea culpas for their initial and often rabid promotion of the global governmental/media position.

Some of these others have dared to ask how those of us could have been so right so early on:

‘What was our secret?’

They have had the chutzpah to criticize us for not having warned them emphatically enough in the midst of the fear-frenzy:

‘Why hadn’t we pulled them up by the lapels and shaken some sense into them? Why were we so selfish with our knowledge, and so timid in our campaign?’

To all these others, late-comers to the party of truth, standing at the gates on Judgment Day, I have two words, which I will not say.

Instead, I ask:

“Why were you such cowards? Where was your common sense?”

Emanuel E. Garcia, M.D.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

It may soon become a punishable offense to speak your mind here on Substack or, for that matter, anywhere else, on or off the internet.

Last month, at the billionaire confab in Davos, “a European Union official predicted to a U.S. congressman that the U.S. would ‘soon’ enact laws on ‘illegal hate speech’ similar to those in the EU,” according to American Military News.

Věra Jourová, the vice president of values and transparency for the European Commission, tapped Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton on the arm and laughed as she made the prediction. It came as she discussed whether AI is capable of moderating online hate speech.

Jourová is a Czech politician and lawyer. She is the Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency. Her personal “values” have been called into question.

Some MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) believe she is too close to the oligarch billionaire and former Czech PM Andrej Babiš. He was implicated in the Pandora Papers.

In 2021, The Guardian ran an article revealing Babiš’ “offshore arrangements,” including “secretive” loans, amounting to €15 million from three different companies via “the British Virgin Islands-based Blakey Finance Limited through a business called Boyne Holding LLC in Washington DC to its subsidiary SCP Bigaud in Monaco.”

Babiš, the second richest man in the Czech Republic, was also involved in subsidy fraud. He used EU funding to finance the construction of a resort and conference center in Bohemia. It was discovered “that the company was originally under Agrofert, the industrial holding that Mr Babiš founded, until it was renamed and transferred to an unknown owner via anonymous shares,” Radio Prague International reported last June.

Thus, if the connection is indeed as close as the MEPs argue, it is nothing less than a sick joke that a woman cozy with a criminal oligarch is permitted to oversee the “core values” of the EU. In 2006, she was brought up on corruption charges of her own (the Budišov Affair), however, thanks to savvy lawyers, she was acquitted and awarded a settlement of 3.6 million Czech korunas as compensation.

Jourová is no stranger to censorship. In 2018, she accused Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, leader of the “far-right” League party, of hate speech against Roma and immigrants. She argued that Salvini should have his speech curtailed. Jourová made the remark after Salvini went on Twitter and accused North Africans of kidnapping a 13-year-old girl.

In 2021, Salvini was put on trial in Palermo, accused of “allegedly illegally blocking over 100 migrants in dire sanitary conditions from disembarking from a rescue ship,“ Al Jazeera reported.

Salvini was a target of opportunity for Jourová and her desire to eradicate all speech she finds objectionable or politically incorrect. “Contrary to what Věra Jourová has said,” the Visegrad Post reported,

she is not only demanding more transparency but is actively seeking to control online content. Her exchange with Matteo Salvini, coupled with her close ties with Soros networks, only further highlight how hypocritical she is and, when the opportunity arises, how she eagerly attacks countries that show the slightest insubordination towards Brussels… she is in reality an agent of George Soros’ Open Society.

For Jourová, censoring critics of the EU and punishing people for not accepting Brussels’ narratives is a form of democracy. “Media are a pillar of democracy,” she argued last January during an open public consultation on the upcoming European Media Freedom Act, a pet project of Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission.

“But today this pillar is cracking, with attempts by governments and private groups to put pressure on the media. This is why the Commission will propose common rules and safeguards to protect the independence and the pluralism of the media. Journalists should be able to do their work, inform citizens and hold power to account without fear or favor. We are now consulting broadly to come with the best proposal.”

Jourová, of course, is not addressing the “independence” of a Substack newsletter like this, or its European counterpart, but rather corporate media, connected to the government, which has come under criticism as people begin to understand they are lied to on a number of important issues. As noted in the following tweet, the proposed law is basically a “media privilege” act.

“The system of proposed ex-ante notification to self-declared media establishes de facto fast-track, non-transparent procedures to certain privileged actors that will have a major negative impact on the right to freedom of expression and information,” Article 19 argued last month.

Article 19 is an international human rights organization that defends and promotes freedom of expression and freedom of information. It takes its name from the United Nations Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The group notes that the Media Freedom Act’s primary focus is on content moderation. In order to achieve the gargantuan task of scouring the internet in search of content malefactors, a 2019 paper issued by Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, proposes the use of artificial intelligence.

“A key element of this debate” to censor content harmful to the state “has centred [sic] on the role and capabilities of automated approaches (driven by Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning techniques) to enhance the effectiveness of online content moderation and offer users greater protection from potentially harmful material,” states a Cambridge Consultants PDF, “Use of AI in Online Content Moderation.”

According to Ofcom, in addition to “actively moderating harmful content, AI technologies can be used to encourage positive engagement and discourage users from posting potentially harmful content in the first place.” Ofcom believes the problem is “anonymity,” described as “a potential explanation for why some internet users act maliciously online.”

In other words, anonymous debate, as practiced in 1787-88 by “Publius” (Madison, Jay, Hamilton) in the Federalist Papers, would be illegal if this EU bureaucrat has her way. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission that

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority…  It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation… at the hand of an intolerant society.

That “intolerant hand” is busy at work in the European Union—an imposed government with unelected bureaucrats who are not answerable to the people—and that intolerance, according to the corrupt sub-czar of European censorship, has informed the Americans that similar tyranny will be coming their way.

I’m not certain that will be the case. However, over the last few years, Congress has worked with social media giants to “moderate” (censor) content the state finds objectionable.

We shouldn’t expect arbitrators in black robes to save us from political censorship. Last year, the Supreme Court blocked a law in Texas that would have prevented social media giants from censoring political content unacceptable to the state.

“The court’s decision to temporarily block the Texas law comes as politicians in Congress and in statehouses across the country look to regulate social media giants like Facebook and Twitter,” CNET reported.

Věra Jourová warned a member of Congress at the elite confab in the Swiss Alps that the EU, and soon the USG, will use the hyped-up phantom of “disinformation and extremism in the media” (that is, media critical of government narratives) to shut down any and all opposition to the state, its financial crimes, and its addiction to forever war.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are no longer the law of the land in America.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.a

a

***

“A cloud of confusion has settled on many people, as the lusty calls for war with Russia grow louder and the propagandistic appeals to patriotism, racial nationalism, and the defense of “white civilization” intensify. For BAP, there is no confusion. The conflict in the Ukraine has only exposed the hypocrisy and contradictions of imperialism, war, and militarism – and the demand for peace means to fight against U.S. imperialism and the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination.

“On this strategic focus, BAP says once again that there will be No Compromise and No Retreat!”

Black Alliance For Peace [1]

“There’s also other countries that are helping America help Ukraine, however, this help, I don’t think it’s going to the people. It’s going to the army mostly. And if anything, people need to be evacuated and taken somewhere safe.”

– Olya (from this week’s interview)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

As this introduction is being written, we are approaching the anniversary of the day people of the country of Ukraine were being subjected to a foreign power’s attempt to wrench the country out of the grasp of the democratically assigned leadership. This move resulted ultimately in thousands of dead Ukrainians and major instability in the region.

Am I speaking of the “Special Military Operation” by Russia a year ago this month?

Well, no. I am referring to the events of February 2014, when a coup waged by the United States with the assistance of the European Union, well documented but seldom mentioned in the major media, forced the ousting of democratically elected president Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych with assistance of the NAZI-backed Maidan protests. They then played a role in backing a new leader. [2]

Having witnessed this coup, and then fearing that violence perpetrated by the militant segment of the opposition that has taken over, the populations in the more Russophone areas in the south and east were bracing for upheaval and even calling for secession from Ukraine. [3]

As discussed on the Global Research News Hour and throughout Global Research, it is important to take this information into consideration before coming to the conclusion that Russia blazed into battle a year ago simply as a first step in rebuilding the Soviet Empire.

But this episode takes analysis a bit further. It seeks to look at some of the other alternative voices kept out of mainstream discourse. How should you and I and several citizens throughout the Western world react to a war waged because of the coup our own leaders orchestrated? As well, what about individual Ukrainians who don’t quite fit the standard “thank you for helping save us from the Russians!” stereotype? We have taken the time to sample these voices on this week’s show if the legacy media will not!

In our first half hour, Ajamu Baraka, frequent guest on the Global Research News Hour joins us. As a member of the Black Alliance for Peace, he articulates the message of the war in Ukraine being a proxy war against Russia in several articles over the last year. He joins us to express rejecting the war and NATO as important not only for peace, but as an activist in the Black Liberation Movement.

In our second half hour, we are joined by a Ukrainian named Olya who left the country in 2008. She shares her story, her objections to what media in the West portrays and what it doesn’t portray about her homeland, and the devious role she sees the U.S. playing with her country.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the U.S. based United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) and the Steering Committee of the Black is Back Coalition.

Olya came to Canada as an immigrant from Ukraine. She lives in Winnipeg.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 378)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/african-colonized-peoples-understand-ukraine-de-center-europe-focus-imperialism/5772591
  2. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-road-to-moscow-goes-through-kiev-how-the-protests-in-ukraine-transformed-into-a-coup-that-could-target-russia/5370479
  3. ibid

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

Our thanks to the Daily Mail for having brought this article to our attention.

***

  • Ihor Kolomoisky was raided at his hunting lodge residence near Dnipro
  • The warlord tycoon is accused of embezzlement and corruption

A ‘James Bond villain’ oligarch who is said to keep sharks in his office to intimidate his enemies has had his mansion raided in Ukraine as part of a sweeping anti-corruption clampdown.

Ihor Kolomoisky, a warlord who helped Volodymyr Zelensky‘s rise to power, was targeted by the SBU, Ukraine‘s security service yesterday.

The 59-year-old tycoon was pictured standing in his hunting lodge residence near Dnipro wearing tracksuits and slippers as he was confronted by the agents.

nvestigators are probing claims Kolomoisky embezzled around £1billion from two oil companies where he was previously the majority shareholder, Ukrainian media says.

The Ukrainian government seized stakes in the energy companies, oil producer Ukrnafta and refiner Ukrtatnafta, as part of moves to consolidate the war effort.

Ihor Kolomoisky is pictured during the raid by Ukrainian security services at his Dnipro lodge yesterday

Ihor Kolomoisky is pictured during the raid by Ukrainian security services at his Dnipro lodge yesterday

The oil baron, who was named in the Panama Papers, is accused of dodging customs duties to rack up his huge fortune, which included owning the TV channel that launched Zelensky’s comedy career.

He backed the then-actor during his 2019 presidential bid with his media empire, although Zelensky has distanced himself from the billionaire businessman.

The mogul, who has been sanctioned by the US, also ‘laundered $5.5billion through a tangle of shell companies, purchasing factories and commercial properties across the U.S. heartland,’ the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists claims.

He is accused of heading up one of the biggest ever Ponzi schemes in the US and is one of the biggest real estate landlords in the US midwest.

Kolomoisky was born into a Jewish family in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, when it was part of the Soviet Union.

After the collapse of the USSR, he started making a fortune importing foreign goods, and trading local metals on the international market.

Investigators are probing claims Kolomoisky embezzled around £1billion from two oil companies where he was previously the majority shareholder, Ukrainian media says

Investigators are probing claims Kolomoisky embezzled around £1billion from two oil companies where he was previously the majority shareholder, Ukrainian media says

Kolomoisky, a warlord who helped Volodymyr Zelensky's rise to power, was targeted by the SBU, Ukraine's security service yesterday

 Kolomoisky, a warlord who helped Volodymyr Zelensky’s rise to power, was targeted by the SBU, Ukraine’s security service yesterday

Propping up the Wobbly Dollar

February 4th, 2023 by Emanuel Pastreich

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Federal government gave up all pretensions that money is backed by the gold held at the Federal Reserve, or backed by anything concrete, in 1972. The dollar became a fiat currency, money that is not tied to anything but reputation. Since that fatal day, the powers behind the curtains have maintained the value of the dollar in various ways.

The legitimacy of the dollar was tied to the legitimacy of the United States and its strength as a cultural, educational, scientific, technological, and sadly military, power. This approach worked until the 1990s, but the decay of the angel was inevitable.

As the value of the United States decreased because of corruption and decadence, and because of the inevitable rise of the other nations devastated in the Second World War, increasingly devious means were employed to assure dollar’s value.

Covert efforts were launched to undermine the authority of other nations, whether Russia and China, or Germany and Japan. Perhaps it seemed like a good idea on Wall Street, but the result was the creation of a brutal winner-takes-all global economy—and the same covert means would be used finally against Americans themselves to keep them addicted to the dollar economy as it collapsed.

The United States slipped into a malignant culture. The decadence of wealth and power meant that innovation was stifled by conceited men like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates who pretended to be the inventers of things they stole and were enshrined in a handful of paralyzed institutions.

The quality of literature and art, of film and music, declined. American universities ceased to strive for truth and for science. Instead they crawled into bed with private equity and billionaire philanthropists, using advertising, rather than education, to prop up their global status. The strategy of using culture to hold up the value of the dollar ceased to be effective.

Another approach was to tie the dollar’s value to the sale of petroleum, a product that everyone needs in our over-industrialized society.

The United States used its diplomatic, financial and military power to make sure that petroleum was only sold in dollars, thereby establishing a clear value for that fiat currency—that almost was equal to being backed by gold. But that value was added to the dollar at a horrific price.

Many nations saw the value of selling petroleum in their own currencies, and they tried to do so. Those countries had to be infiltrated, undermined, intimidated, or bought off. In some cases, they had to be invaded and overthrown. The process has reached a crescendo in recent months, auguring for world war as the final consequence of this crusade to save the dollar.

You see, the United States had to control the Middle East, and to have its long fingers deep in the politics of nations around the world, in order to keep this petroleum system going. The cost of holding up the dollar was horrific, and bit by bit, the United States was corrupted beyond recognition.

Wars for oil, and other natural resources, became the primary concern in foreign policy, not peace. As a result, militarism sunk its roots deep in the economy, deep into the very spirit of the nation. There was no space left to seek for cooperation and accommodation. Any threat to the dollar had to be beaten down brutally.

At the same time, it was necessary to promote petroleum, and a consumer culture that demanded petroleum usage, at every level in America, and around the world. Automobiles were glorified, cities were designed to make automobiles necessary, oil-based fertilizers, and pesticides were sprinkled on industrialized farms. Oil companies and auto makers became all powerful because they helped to prop up the value of the dollar and forced petroleum on the common man.

The other device for backing the dollar was the promotion of global free trade, asystem where in products that could be made locally by neighbors are shipped half way around the world, burning fuel all the way,so as to make sure thatmoste very thing on your plate, on your table, on your back, has passed through the logistics monopolies who take their cut. This global “free” trade destroys local economies and renders citizens dependent on multinational corporations like Walmart and Amazon that take their money and do nothing to help the local economy.

The dollar was placed at the center of this closed trade system—anything but “free.” Average Americans were impoverished even as the dollar was promoted in our name. Our republic was transmogrified into a ruthless empire that demanded everything be bought and sold in dollars.

The cancerous military economy also served a critical role in propping up the dollar as the other source of power faded in the 1990s. Nations could be invaded, or sanctioned if they did not accept the dollar as the global currency.

Military equipment became a form of meta-currency—nations were compelled to purchase overpriced, and often worthless, military systems for billions of dollars as a way of propping up the dollar. Those designated as allies of the United States were expected to purchase fighter planes and tanks, drones and missiles at exorbitant prices. The most notorious example is the F-35 stealth fighter which costs around 80 million US dollars each and is barely functional. These devices, bulky tokens, force the large transfer of foreign capital into dollars in the name of security.

With trillions of dollars unaccounted for, the Pentagon has become the primary money laundering operation for the world, taking in money from billionaires, drug dealers, and just about anyone else and paying them off with money from the defense budget, and from weapons purchases from around the world.

Of course the threat of force makes the fiat currency stronger—but the cost is endless war.

Another ingenious way of propping up the dollar is to force debt on our citizens, making them scramble to obtain the dollars to pay off debts incurred in the process of trying to stay alive and meet the criteria demanded by corporations for employment.

The cost of healthcare has skyrocketed, as has the cost of education. We find ourselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt just for being born, educated, treated for illness, and buried—let alone more serious challenges. And the banks drive up the cost of a home through their endless speculation with the fraudulent money they have printed up.

Chase Manhattan and Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and BlackRock using their pay-to-play authority figures who appear on TV, or at Harvard University, set the value of everything in society, justifying why it must be so expensive.

How many times have you heard your friends talking about money, about how much money they have in their pensions, how much their houses are worth, and how much they spend on their children’s educations? Money has been made the primary topic of discussion for our people because the media, the entertainment complex, and the educational system make it that way. The questions: How can I be a good person? What is the truth? What is justice? What does the Constitution say? These questions have disappeared from our discourse.

IMFThe Bretton Woods complex, centered around the World Bank and the IMF, and linked to central banks around world, was flawed from the start, but recently it has degenerated much further into a Disneyland of make-believe value wherein human endeavors can only be assessed according to the Procrustean metrics of growth, production, consumption, exports and imports. The rise and fall of the stock market, the bond market, and other fantastic ephemera is considered the determining factor for the well-being of mankind by every newspaper or magazine from the fascists to the socialist, and these metrics of growth and consumption are cited in the university, the government, and the corporation.

In a horrific farce, the fundamental values of humanity: modesty, honesty, sincerity, chastity and humility are treated as at best as hobbies for the leisure class after they have accumulated wealth, but are frequently presented as obstacles to economic growth that requires waste and impulse.

Frugality, is the greatest sin, believing that one can live a spiritually and mentally healthy life without waste is an insult to the beastly ritual of consumption that is held up for all to worship. Caring for your ill parents, helping your neighbor to repair her window, growing potatoes, or teaching your children to be ethical and to distinguish the truth from falsehood, all these actions are negatives for the gross domestic product, negatives for your standing in society.

Along the way, we drifted from a cooperative economy into a predatory economy, into a parasitic economy.

That process was linked to the two most horrific traumas that shook us to the core. The only way to cover up the frauds of 9.11 and of COVID-19 over the last twenty years is to silence citizens by making them an offer they cannot refuse: chose money or truth.

The truth is that the billionaires own nothing except a bankrupt and covetous ideology of money. The purchase of farmland by Bill Gates, the paving over of priceless farmland to erect pointless shopping malls, highways, and highrises by construction firms and real estate speculators, all this was done using the bogus money printed for them by their lackeys at the Federal Reserve.

Click screen or link to Access Video

That land belongs to all of us. The parasites who have murdered our people so viciously with COVID-19 weapons, poisonous processed foods, or chemicals dumped in our rivers and lakes, those parasites shall hold no dominion.

The first step in addressing the money issue is to give the land back to the people and allow them to grow their own food, make their own furniture, and be independent of the covert stranglehold of the multinationals.

Similarly, we can write our own music, hold our own concerts, make our own art, put on our own theatre, and thereby leave behind the decadent Hollywood culture of sexual titillation and momentary narcissism.

Take away the imperative to collect money at all costs so as to meet artificially created need to consume, and many social ills will be cured.The institutions regulating money have been turned against the citizens whom they should be protecting.

Multinational corporations, and their puppets, flush with our money, lecture us about recycling and sustainability, about how we must tighten our belts, but they will pull every punch to make sure that no one threatens the plastic and paper packaging systems they have set up to extract profit from us at every turn.

We are not citizens empowered by a contractual relationship with each other using money as determined by Constitution, but rather we have been reduced to consumers who can conceive of value only in terms of dollars because Madison Avenue advertising and public relations firms have indoctrinated us to embrace the false values of the cult of the self.

Because we have been reduced from citizens of a republic with a sense of civic responsibly to consumers of the gaudy wares laid out to distract us, we are led forward not by a clarion call, but by a ring through the nose. We are not masters of our fates; we are no captains of our souls. We are but products to be processed and then disposed of like the ragdolls littering the squalid cage of an idle ape.

No! Our eyes must turn to the hope of a new nation coming.

We must trample those hideous grapes of wrath, unloosing the terrible swift sword of truth; like lightening, that the truth may go marching on.

First published by Global Research on December 20, 2015

***

I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one. – President Theodore Roosevelt

The American public and the world have long since been warned of the dangers of allowing the military industrial complex to become such an integral part of our economic survival. The United States is the self-proclaimed angel of democracy in the world, but just as George Orwell warned, war is the health of the state, and in the language of newspeak, democracy is the term we use to hide the reality of the nature of our warfare state.

In truth, the United States of America has been engaged in some kind of war during 218 out of the nation’s total 239 years of existence. Put another way, in the entire span of US history, this country has only experienced 21 years without conflict. For a sense of perspective on this sobering statistic, consider these 4 facts about the history of US involvement in military conflict:

  • Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
  • No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president.  Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
  • The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
  • The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.

As the world moves closer and closer to an official beginning to world war III, and as many people are seeking opportunities to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East, it is important to realize that the US state and the American people are simply not equipped or conditioned to pursue and realize peace. War is indeed the health of our state.

US-War-GraphHere is a year-by-year timeline of America’s involvement in military conflict, as compiled by Danios ofLoonwatch.com. It is noted that this list is not exhaustive, but rather a compilation of events that fit the definition of ‘war,’ excluding acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing such as were carried out against Native American populations during the establishment of the empire, and also excluding foreign interventions by America’s covert security agencies such as the CIA:

Year-by-year Timeline of America’s Major Wars (1776-2011)

1776 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamagua Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War

1777 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War

1778 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1779 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1780 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1781 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1782 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1783 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War

1784 – Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War, Oconee War

1785 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1786 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1787 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1788 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1789 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1790 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1791 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1792 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1793 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1794 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War

1795 – Northwest Indian War

1796 – No major war

1797 – No major war

1798 – Quasi-War

1799 – Quasi-War

1800 – Quasi-War

1801 – First Barbary War

1802 – First Barbary War

1803 – First Barbary War

1804 – First Barbary War

1805 – First Barbary War

1806 – Sabine Expedition

1807 – No major war

1808 – No major war

1809 – No major war

1810 – U.S. occupies Spanish-held West Florida

1811 – Tecumseh’s War

1812 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Seminole Wars, U.S. occupies Spanish-held Amelia Island and other parts of East Florida

1813 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Peoria War, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in West Florida

1814 – War of 1812, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in Florida, Anti-piracy war

1815 – War of 1812, Second Barbary War, Anti-piracy war

1816 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

1817 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

1818 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war

1819 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

1820 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

1821 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)

1822 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)

1823 – Anti-piracy war, Arikara War

1824 – Anti-piracy war

1825 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war

1826 – No major war

1827 – Winnebago War

1828 – No major war

1829 – No major war

1830 – No major war

1831 – Sac and Fox Indian War

1832 – Black Hawk War

1833 – Cherokee Indian War

1834 – Cherokee Indian War, Pawnee Indian Territory Campaign

1835 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War

1836 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Missouri-Iowa Border War

1837 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Osage Indian War, Buckshot War

1838 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Buckshot War, Heatherly Indian War

1839 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars

1840 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade Fiji Islands

1841 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade McKean Island, Gilbert Islands, and Samoa

1842 – Seminole Wars

1843 – U.S. forces clash with Chinese, U.S. troops invade African coast

1844 – Texas-Indian Wars

1845 – Texas-Indian Wars

1846 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars

1847 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars

1848 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War

1849 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians

1850 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, California Indian Wars, Pitt River Expedition

1851 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars

1852 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars

1853 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, Walker War, California Indian Wars

1854 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians

1855 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Yakima War, Winnas Expedition, Klickitat War, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay

1856 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, Tintic War

1857 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Utah War, Conflict in Nicaragua

1858 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Mohave War, California Indian Wars, Spokane-Coeur d’Alene-Paloos War, Utah War, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay

1859 Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Pecos Expedition, Antelope Hills Expedition, Bear River Expedition, John Brown’s raid, U.S. forces launch attack against Paraguay, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1860 – Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Paiute War, Kiowa-Comanche War

1861 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign

1862 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Dakota War of 1862,

1863 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Goshute War

1864 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Snake War

1865 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Colorado War, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War

1866 – Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Franklin County War, U.S. invades Mexico, Conflict with China

1867 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, U.S. troops occupy Nicaragua and attack Taiwan

1868 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Battle of Washita River, Franklin County War

1869 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War

1870 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War

1871 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, Kingsley Cave Massacre, U.S. forces invade Korea

1872 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Franklin County War

1873 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Apache Wars, Cypress Hills Massacre, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1874 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Red River War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1875 – Conflict in Mexico, Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Eastern Nevada, Mason County War, Colfax County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1876 – Texas-Indian Wars, Black Hills War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1877 – Texas-Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Black Hills War, Nez Perce War, Mason County War, Lincoln County War, San Elizario Salt War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1878 – Paiute Indian conflict, Bannock War, Cheyenne War, Lincoln County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1879 – Cheyenne War, Sheepeater Indian War, White River War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1880 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1881 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1882 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1883 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1884 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1885 – Apache Wars, Eastern Nevada Expedition, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1886 – Apache Wars, Pleasant Valley War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1887 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1888 – U.S. show of force against Haiti, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1889 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1890 – Sioux Indian War, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Ghost Dance War, Wounded Knee, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1891 – Sioux Indian War, Ghost Dance War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1892 – Johnson County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico

1893 – U.S. forces invade Mexico and Hawaii

1894 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1895 – U.S. forces invade Mexico, Bannock Indian Disturbances

1896 – U.S. forces invade Mexico

1897 – No major war

1898 – Spanish-American War, Battle of Leech Lake, Chippewa Indian Disturbances

1899 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1900 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1901 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1902 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1903 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1904 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1905 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1906 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1907 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1908 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1909 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1910 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1911 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1912 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars

1913 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars, New Mexico Navajo War

1914 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico

1915 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico, Colorado Paiute War

1916 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico

1917 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S. invades Mexico

1918 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S invades Mexico

1919 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico

1920 – Banana Wars

1921 – Banana Wars

1922 – Banana Wars

1923 – Banana Wars, Posey War

1924 – Banana Wars

1925 – Banana Wars

1926 – Banana Wars

1927 – Banana Wars

1928 – Banana Wars

1930 – Banana Wars

1931 – Banana Wars

1932 – Banana Wars

1933 – Banana Wars

1934 – Banana Wars

1935 – No major war

1936 – No major war

1937 – No major war

1938 – No major war

1939 – No major war

1940 – No major war

1941 – World War II

1942 – World War II

1943 – Wold War II

1944 – World War II

1945 – World War II

1946 – Cold War (U.S. occupies the Philippines and South Korea)

1947 – Cold War (U.S. occupies South Korea, U.S. forces land in Greece to fight Communists)

1948 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)

1949 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)

1950 – Korean War, Jayuga Uprising

1951 – Korean War

1952 – Korean War

1953 – Korean War

1954 – Covert War in Guatemala

1955 – Vietnam War

1956 – Vietnam War

1957 – Vietnam War

1958 – Vietnam War

1959 – Vietnam War, Conflict in Haiti

1960 – Vietam War

1961 – Vietnam War

1962 – Vietnam War, Cold War (Cuban Missile Crisis; U.S. marines fight Communists in Thailand)

1963 – Vietnam War

1964 – Vietnam War

1965 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic

1966 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic

1967 – Vietnam War

1968 – Vietnam War

1969 – Vietnam War

1970 – Vietnam War

1971 – Vietnam War

1972 – Vietnam War

1973 – Vietnam War, U.S. aids Israel in Yom Kippur War

1974 – Vietnam War

1975 – Vietnam War

1976 – No major war

1977 – No major war

1978 – No major war

1979 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1980 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1981 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), First Gulf of Sidra Incident

1982 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1983 – Cold War (Invasion of Grenada, CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1984 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Persian Gulf

1985 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1986 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1987 – Conflict in Persian Gulf

1988 – Conflict in Persian Gulf, U.S. occupation of Panama

1989 – Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, U.S. occupation of Panama, Conflict in Philippines

1990 – First Gulf War, U.S. occupation of Panama

1991 – First Gulf War

1992 – Conflict in Iraq

1993 – Conflict in Iraq

1994 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti

1995 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti, NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1996 – Conflict in Iraq

1997 – No major war

1998 – Bombing of Iraq, Missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan

1999 – Kosovo War

2000 – No major war

2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan

2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen

2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq

2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2005 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2006 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen

2008 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2009 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2010 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in Libya (Libyan Civil War)

Isaac Davis is an outspoken advocate of liberty and an honest society from the top down. He is a contributing writer for WakingTimes.com. Follow him on Facebook, here.

Image Credit: Anthony Freda “Endless War”

Sources:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 239 Year Timeline Of America’s Involvement in Military Conflict

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This is the pattern that has been used ever since the Soviet Union ended in 1991 when the ‘anti-communist’ excuse for America’s post-WW-II global imperialism has no longer been available to use (such as had earlier been the case in Korea, and in Vietnam, and in Guatemala, and in Iran, and in Chile and so many other lands), prior to 1991. However, the pattern for this subversion and ultimate conquest was created back in 1965 in Indonesia (if not earlier, in other “banana republics”); and, so, we shall start here by describing that landmark earlier case, in Indonesia, which set the pattern that now is routine for the U.S. Government to use post-1991:

The October 1965 through March 1966 Indonesian government extermination of anywhere from 500,000 to two million Indonesian supporters of communism and of any other left-wing political party — including supporters of Indonesia’s leader, General Sukarno, who had some leftist supporters — was probably masterminded, ordered, by U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, on behalf of the owners of the mega-corporations who were backing the Democratic Party. Certainly, LBJ was behind this ‘ethnic cleansing’, even well before it began.

As early as March 1965, Johnson’s people were privately vitriolic against Sukarno, who was making noises about land-reform and possibly nationalizing natural resources. For example, on 18 March 1965, “118. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State (Ball) to President Johnson” opened:

“Our relations with Indonesia are on the verge of falling apart. Sukarno is turning more and more toward the Communist PKI.

The Army, which has been the traditional countervailing force, has its own problems of internal cohesion. Within the past few days the situation has grown increasingly more ominous. Not only has the management of the American rubber plants been taken over, but there are dangers of an imminent seizure of the American oil companies.”

The coup started on 1 October 1965; General Suharto was installed to replace Sukarno, and promptly began the extermination-campaign. But he didn’t know whom to slaughter; so, as one excellent review of Vincent Bevins’s excellent book about the slaughters, The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World, succinctly put the matter,

“The US provided arms, training, communication equipment and lists of thousands of real and alleged leftists to be killed. US-owned plantations furnished lists of ‘troublesome’ employees. US officials repeatedly sent cables to the leader of the butchery, General Suharto, to kill the leftists faster.”

Other fine reviews of this book are here and here. However, like the other books that have been published about that extermination-campaign, Bevins’s focus isn’t on the masterminds who planned and bribed to get it done (its beneficiaries), but instead on the physical perpetrators and their victims. The coup-and-extermination’s ultimate beneficiaries aren’t named, nor identified. The U.S. did that in conjunction with other members of the American gang, mainly in Europe. The Judge in the International People’s Tribunal stated that “the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia were all complicit to differing degrees in the commission of these crimes against humanity.” It was a Rhodesist operation, done for the U.S.-and-allied (especially Netherlands) aristocracies.

Now, in the post-Soviet era, Ukraine and the U.S. Government’s aim to get its nuclear-warheaded missiles into that closest nation of all to Moscow (just 300 miles away), by admitting Ukraine into NATO, here is the sequence of events:

During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.”

Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.

However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup. Ukrainians became switched regarding that matter, favoring NATO instead of opposing it, because the billionaires who fund the winning political candidates and who control the media in the U.S. and in Ukraine had propagandized there heavily after the coup, and those governments and media have been portraying Russia as being Ukraine’s enemy, and America and the EU and NATO (which, prior to the coup, were viewed by Ukrainians as being their enemy) as being instead Ukraine’s friends. So: Ukrainians, after the U.S. coup, wanted to join the EU, and to join NATO.

Immediately after Obama’s coup that grabbed Ukraine, his installed new government there promptly began its ethnic-cleansing so as to get rid of enough millions of Ukrainians who had voted for the neutralist (neither pro-American nor pro-Russian) Ukrainian President whom Obama had overthrown, in order to enable the new, pro-U.S.-Government regime in Ukraine to be able to continue on through ‘democratic’ elections in which all candidates would be anti-Russian. And that has brought us to today in Ukraine.

What that showed was the extreme effectiveness of the regime’s propaganda after the coup had been prepared and had used the media during 2014, and even more so after the coup was perpetrated and the U.S.-junta regime and its controlled ’news’-media drenched the public with anti-Russian propaganda after the coup, so that that nation, which only a year or two after its public had viewed NATO as being their enemy, prior to 2013, switched to instead viewing NATO as their craved-for protector, against what most Ukrainians, only a year or two before, had been viewing to be their protector. (Of course, after Russia ultimately responded to America’s grab of Ukraine and invaded Ukraine in 2022, vast majorities of Ukrainians now view the invading country, Russia, as being their enemy.)

Key here is the fact that by taking over a country — first by subverson (which in the case of Ukraine was being called “The Orange Revolution” and installed the pro-U.S. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko into power in 2004) — and later by means of an outright coup to finish the job; public opinion can thus be effectively turned upside-down.

The political analyst Walter Lippmann in 1922 introduced the phrase “the manufacture of consent” as referring to how an aristocracy in the modern age controls its public by means of those aristocrats (now a country’s billionaires) owning, founding, and hiring media and think tanks and universities in order for these billionaires, in this age of hired ‘experts’ about public affairs, to shape their public’s opinion to become what that aristocracy (the nation’s billionaires) wants it to become. What happened in Ukraine is an excellent example of this pattern.

Another example of this, which is now in the cooker and just being prepared, is Moldova. On 6 December 2022, Russia’s Tass News Agency headlined “Majority of Moldovans consider Russia country’s best partner — opinion poll”, and reported that the Institute of Marketing and Polls in Moldova (a polling organization that mainly serves not news-outlets but corporations that market to Moldovans and which therefore need to know privately what Moldovans want) had privately reported the prior day their findings about Moldovans’ views regarding the country’s international relations. Tass reported that:

Most Moldovans consider Russia to be their country’s best partner in the spheres of economy, politics and security, according to the results of a public opinion poll released by the Institute of Marketing and Polls (IMAS) on Tuesday.

“As many as 38% of those polled spoke in favor of partnership with Russia in the economic sphere, 30% opted for the European Union, and 12% – for Romania. Only four percent chose partnership with the United States, and two percent favored China and NATO each. In the sphere of politics, Russia was chosen by 37% of the respondents, the European Union – by 29%, Romania – by 11%, the United States – by 5%, China – by 1%, and NATO – by 3%. In the sphere of security, 36% of the polled said they considered Russia a reliable partner. The European Union scored 21%, Romania and NATO – 10% each, the United States – 5%, and China – 1%,” the pollster said.

The poll involving 1,100 people in 90 settlements was conducted from November 10 to 29. The margin of error is three percent.

According to poll results, 62% of respondents think that Moldova should have close relations with Russia, 21% want neutral relations, 10% want remote relations, and only five percent spoke in favor of severing relations with Russia.

On 21 January 2023, Russia’s RT News bannered “Moldova considers joining ‘larger alliance’: Under President Maia Sandu, the country has pursued deeper integration with the West”. Sandu is to Moldova what President Viktor Yushchenko was to Ukraine — a key agent of U.S. subversion of her country, to serve her U.S. masters. She was referring to either the EU or NATO, but didn’t name either of them, because both are unpopular in Moldova, just as both had been unpopular in Ukraine before America’s successful coup in Ukraine in 2014.

If she succeeds, then she won’t likely be the leader of her country when the U.S. coup occurs there, but her leadership of Moldova will have helped to lead her country to the coup, and to the ethnic cleansing, and to the popularity there of the EU and of NATO, and, perhaps, also to becoming invaded by Russia before Moldova will have applied to and been accepted into those anti-Russia economic and military organizations. Just as Yushchenko was a crucial steppingstone to Ukraine’s post-2013 destruction, she will then be a crucial steppingstone to Moldova’s destruction.

The public can be manipulated, and this can produce a country’s ultimate destruction, by means of not merely deceit, but, also, by subversion, followed by coup, followed by ethnic cleansing, followed by military invasion of that country.

No public learns from history. That might be the reason why history constantly repeats itself, as it has done for all of these thousands of years, though the methods change. Understanding history’s patterns ought to be taught in pre-college grades, but aristocracies have never wanted it to be publicly taught at all; and, so, even at the Ph.D. level, it’s more of an orphan topic than any kind of academic mainstream.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the U.S. Obtains New NATO Members by Subversion, Followed by Coup, Followed by Ethnic Cleansing
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published by GR on June 28 2022

***

The US Ambassador to Canada, David Cohen, has characterized the members and supporters of the Canadian Truckers’ Freedom Convoy as “extremists” who are “subverting democratic processes and voices to further the cause of authoritarianism.”

As reported by Canada’s Global News, Cohen elaborated,

“China and Russia are among the actors involved in those attempts to subvert democracy, but also domestic forces including elements in the trucker convoys that blockaded the Canadian capital and border crossings for three weeks earlier this year.”

This intervention in domestic politics by the Biden administration’s top emissary to Canada should not go unnoticed. Quite clearly, it is the Canadian Truckers and many of their supporters who are victims, rather than perpetrators, of multiple forms of authoritarianism.

The federal governments on both sides of the Canada-US border continue to attack the proponents of a working class movement that won global headlines in mid-winter 2022. The Truckers did not “blockade the Canadian capital” as Cohen alleges. Rather the leadership of the Trucker’s movement responded assertively in good democratic fashion to a wrongheaded set of COVID policies.

When they got to Ottawa, the Truckers teamed up with their invited experts to mount many public education events. These widely-viewed webcast events dealt with many aspects of the COVID fiasco hidden from wide public view. The Ottawa event also involved public demonstrations to help illuminate widespread grievances. In spite of the barrage of provocations and insults hurled at the protesters, they remained basically peaceful, disciplined and upbeat.

This peaceful application of democratic pressure caused government, law enforcement agencies and media to react in ways that well illustrate the anti-democratic bent of authority these days. The hostility to democratic ideals is especially evident in the executive branches of the intertwined Liberal Party and Democratic Party governments that together currently dominate federal authority in North America.

The Freedom Convoy transported their grievances literally to the front door of the Canadian Parliament, an institution that increasingly symbolizes Canada’s failing democracy. Rather than storm Parliament, the Truckers parked their large vehicles in front of the Parliament seeking an audience with federal officials.

No smear campaign like those presently being piled on the Truckers’ movement can ever supplant the heart-warming imagery of the Freedom Convoy’s pilgrimage to Ottawa in mid-winter of 2022. Who can forget the moving pictures of large groups of patriotic Canadians coming out into the arctic deep freeze to wave the Canadian flag in support of the Freedom Convoy’s journey across a massive snowbound landscape?

Video

From the perspective of those running the US and Canadian governments, the main sin of the Canadian Truckers was the effectiveness of their introduction to the public of the scale and destructive impact of the COVID scam.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Parliament’s top political officer, did not attempt even a rudimentary greeting of these emissaries of political change from all over Canada. Instead, Trudeau immediately slammed the doors shut to even the possibility of face-to-face exchanges between the Trucker leadership and officers of the Canadian Crown.

On February 2  ” Prime Minister Justin in a rather unusual and RIDICULOUS “twit” made the following declaration (allegedly adopted by a unanimous vote of the House of Commons). REALLY?

The following video refutes Trudeau’s accusations 

.

After uttering a now-notorious litany of slurs against the Truckers, the petulant Trudeau went into hiding where he busied himself with preparing to invoke the Canadian version of martial law. Among the immediate goals of Trudeau’s suspension of constitutional government was to seize the bank accounts of individual Truckers and those who contributed to the Trucker’ collective organization through Internet donation platforms.

Another goal was to unleash violent state repression of peaceful protests in Ottawa. Those who eventually carried out this crackdown seemed to include some sort of globalist police force. Some connected the presence of untagged and unnamed police officers in unfamiliar uniforms to the presence of a UN aircraft at a nearby airport in North Bay. See this.

The Events at Coutts, Alberta

The authoritarianism pointed against Truckers and their supporters continues in Trudeau’s Canada in many forms. For instance the impositions of authority include the continued incarceration without bail of some individuals picked out for unusual punishment.

The victims of the federal authoritarianism include four men who are currently jailed in southern Alberta even though they haven’t been convicted of anything. Their names are Anthony Olienick, Chris Carbert, Christopher Lysak, and Jerry Morin. They were arrested in mid-February and will remain under government lock and key until their forthcoming joint trial to take place in October at the earliest. See this.

The charges arise from the participation of the accused in demonstrations in Coutts Alberta. These demonstrations ran parallel with the parking of thousands of trucks in Canada’s national capital. The events at Coutts involved a complex series of negotiations involving the RCMP, the Truckers as well as their supporters including elected MLA’s in Alberta’s fractious provincial legislature. The back-and-forth between these parties led to sporadic openings and closings of vehicle movement across the Alberta-Montana border.

On or around 14 Feb., 13 protestors, sometimes dubbed “the Coutts 13,” were charged by the Crown with crimes said by the RCMP to have taken place during the on-again-off-again blockade near Coutts and Sweetgrass Montana.

The four men facing the most serious allegations are charged with the unusual and problematic crime of  “conspiracy to commit the murder” of RCMP officers. Are there political factors behind the decision to create a murder trial of Trucker supporters based on an event where no murders took place? See this.

There are unusually high levels of secrecy permeating the conduct of this complex case. This secrecy led to the decision by several prominent media outlets in Canada to intervene with the presiding court in a failed attempt to “unseal” crucial information in the genesis of the “conspiracy to commit murder” charges.” See this.

From the bail hearings in the Lethbridge courthouse, a vague picture is emerging of what the Crown is trying to prove. It seems that special units of the heavily politicized Royal Canadian Mounted Police developed some facets of their accusations on the basis of recorded private phone conversations as well as on the claims of infiltrators hired by police to pretend to be protesters. Local hearsay is that these infiltrators were largely attractive young women who may have been encouraged to entrap their targets.

A suspicious element of the Crown’s case against the Coutts 13 is that the charges materialized only after police failed in their concerted efforts to find weapons in the possession of the Ottawa Truckers and their supporters.

News reports of the Coutts charges put emphasis on a photo of a weapons cache laid out in front of a polished RCMP vehicle.

This photo has been the subject of much sceptical speculation especially among the many thousands of Albertans, including sitting MLAs, who took part in the Coutts demonstrations over almost three weeks. As reported by the Western Standard, the photo in question is not accompanied by credible RCMP explanations of how it is connected, if at all, to the largely peaceful protests at Coutts.

What is to be said about the timing of the Coutts arrests just hours before Prime Minister Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland invoked the revised version of Canada’s War Measures Act? The revised version is known as the Emergency Act.  See this.

The Toronto Sun has tried to dismiss the possible significance of this timing of the arrests in the immediate prelude to the Emergency Act’s invocation. The Sun’s pundit observed that the “charges [at Coutts] were made through normal police investigation procedures unrelated to the act.” How could any police procedures be “normal” during the climax of what was in mid-February one of the hottest political news stories in the world?

The Sun’s editorial does not consider that the timing and content of the charges might be part of a larger political scheme to win public acceptance for the Emergence Act, a de facto trigger of martial law.

The arrest of the Coutts 13 seemed to provide last-minute backing for the Feb. 14 presentation of Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau. Deputy Prime Minister Freeland highlighted Canada’s Terrorism Financing Act in publicly explaining the seizure without court order of Trucker-related bank accounts and donations.

The resort by Trudeau and Freeland to terrorist laws required some indication that a terrorist plot had been discovered and apprehended. How convenient that the RCMP provided the Trudeau-Freeland Team with just such a propaganda gift just before the top representatives of Canada’s government stepped in front of the cameras.

Were the members of the Coutts 13 set up to provide a media spectacle of a supposedly-apprehended-domestic-terrorist-event, in order to justify the Trudeau government’s further lockdowns of citizen’ rights and freedoms? See this.

Systematic Evidence Denial 

Most of the jailed Truckers and Trucker supporters have been released from Ottawa-area detention centres. Like Olienick, Carbert, Lysak and Morin, however, Pat King remains in prison. One might ask if there is already justification enough for considering these five incarcerated men as political prisoners in Canada?

Like the “conspiracy to commit murder” charges, the accusations against King seem to emerge from what some prosecutor’s anticipation of what might happen rather than what did happen. King is facing charges “for mischief, counselling to commit mischief, counselling to commit the offence of disobeying a court order, and counselling to obstruct police.” See this.

The incarcerated King has been described as “beaten down” by an Ottawa pastor who visited him in jail. This characterization is at odds with the usual quixotic optimism of this former oil-rig worker. King came to broad attention when he made a widely-publicized breakthrough of sorts by ably representing himself on a COVID-related matter in an Alberta court. See this.

With his plain-spoken working class directness, King took to the Internet where he was instrumental in calling the Freedom Convoy into existence. Once the Convoy embarked on its journey, King reported regularly in webcasts from along the Trans-Canada Highway and then from within the Trucker’s Ottawa stand. See this.

Since the Truckers made their mark last winter, the large mass of COVID evidence continues to grow. In more and more depth and detail, this evidence chronicles the zealous incursions by many governments, including those of Canada and the United States, into the physical, mental, economic, and societal wellbeing of abused and traumatized citizens.

In the summer of 2022 it is more evident than ever that the manufactured COVID crisis is an ongoing disaster of monumental magnitude. What began as a “hallucinatory hijacking” committed by “lunatics who grabbed ahold of the asylum,” continues to unfold. An integral aspect of the fiasco is what el gato malo describes as systematic “evidence denial.”

Like thousands of expert observers of the huge and growing travesty of widespread deaths and injuries caused by the toxic COVID injections, malo predicts, “it’s going to end in show trials, massive lawsuits, recrimination and accusation… we cannot un-ring the bell, but we can prevent if from ever taking such a toll again.” See this. On evidence denial see this.

 The Presumption of Guilt Until Innocence Is Proven

It is highly possible that some political exploitation of law enforcement agencies in Canada is replicating aspects of the well-documented role of FBI agents and assets in steering the course of election-fraud protests that took place at the Capitol Building in Washington DC on January 6, 2021.

In Canada, the United States and many other countries, it is becoming almost axiomatic that federal agents are covertly deployed to help realize the political projects of ruling parties and dominating lobbies.

The record is clear that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are ordered in some instances to intervene maliciously with the goal of creating public fears by targeting enemies representative of larger constituencies about to be demonized, dehumanized and attacked. Another frequent scenario is to covertly inject government-instigated violence in order to deny public sympathy to the honest organizers of law-abiding public protest.

As Glenn Greenwald explains below, it is well documented that police officers, agents and assets influenced events at the Capitol protests in Washington DC during the opening days of 2021. A key goal was to help along the Democratic Party’s agenda of creating a spectacle to illustrate the existence of “domestic terrorism.”

Greenwald emphasizes that the covert manipulation of the election-fraud protests constitute a domestic variation of the initiation of the War on Terror. He doesn’t explain, however, how 9/11 was engineered and spun to create massive public fear of Islamic terrorism to help win public support for future invasion of Muslim-majority countries. See this.

In the name of the War on Terror, the principles of habeas corpus have been gradually put aside. This tendency started immediately after 9/11 when random Muslims were rounded up and jailed to finesse the fiction being hysterically reported in the news. A theatrical display was dramatized to promote the fiction that large numbers of Muslims were taken into custody to prevent these terrorists from committing future jihad.

In this way a pattern was initiated as law enforcement agencies began to normalize presumptions of guilt until innocence is proven. No longer does the presumption of innocence prevail as a matter of course except when tainted justice is purchased by those with the financial means to buy it.

A good example of the way the post-9/11 terrorist laws have overturned the principles of habeas corpus is on public display in the treatment of the four men charged in Coutts with conspiracy to commit murder. They will probably be held in jail for well over a year before there is any assignment of guilt or innocence in their cases.

By keeping the men in prison without bail, the government prejudices public perceptions. A public presumption develops that the accused must be so dangerous that it is necessary to lock them up. The plan is to convict them in the court of public opinion before they ever get to trial.

Did the RCMP allow itself to be enlisted in a government-backed plan to poison public perceptions of the Canadian Truckers? In real democracies many honest journalists would by now be skeptically looking into this question especially given the RCMP’s history of dishonesty and corruption. Many past examples as well as current breaking-news stories can be cited to show the RCMP giving over its criminal justice functions in order to advance the partisan objectives of ruling politicians. See, for instance, this and this.

Killing Off the Last Remnants of Democracy and Protection for Human Rights

The real crime of the Canadian Truckers was to have highlighted so effectively the gross malfeasance of Canada’s federal government in dealing with the COVID crisis. The Truckers helped catalyze a trajectory of independent inquiry and public education among the general public that is still gathering momentum. Only now is a significant portion of humanity beginning to grapple with the revelation that the destruction wrought by the manufactured COVID crisis is nothing like what has been presented by COVID Officialdom.

The growing complex of crimes against humanity has its origins not in the onslaught of a virulent pathogen but rather in a worldwide power grab by those already in possession of the greatest concentrations of entitlement on earth. The power grab is based on the quest to eliminate, enfeeble, disempower, and dispossess average people by killing off the last remnants of democracy, self-determination, and the protection for human rights.

There still has been no real reckoning with the tremendous destruction done by the so-called Lockdowns, the most devastating element of the COVID restrictions. More devastating yet are the widely-mandated COVID injections that seem to have been designed in bioweapon labs to impose widespread injury and death.

The range of maladies caused by the injections is extensive. One group of maladies has behind it, massive replications of pathogenic spike proteins stimulated by the clot shots. This outcome seems not to be inadvertent. As COVID sage, Dr. Mike Yeadon, recently declared to the world, “they did it on purpose, knowing it would hurt you.” See this.

From the perspective of those running the US and Canadian governments, the main sin of the Canadian Truckers was the effectiveness of their introduction to the public of the scale and destructive impact of the COVID scam.

The raw drama of the Truckers’ quest for justice caused many media outlets in Canada and throughout the world to briefly mitigate their unrelenting hostility towards any public criticism of COVID Officialdom. In the light of future history, this early crack in the thick wall of COVID-related  censorship, propaganda, and disinformation may prove to have larger consequences that cannot yet be fully understood.

Diagolon, The Anti-Hate Network, and the Coutts 13

Some of the media’s effort to discredit the Truckers’ movement was published by CTV News during the 10-day period when Canada was under martial law. One of the items cited in CTV’s report included words attributed to Barbara Perry, Director of the Centre for Bias, Hate and Extremism at the Ontario Tech University.

Parry referred the Truckers  movement being riddled with people she describes as “accelerationists.” In Parry’s conception of the world, “accelerationists” are violent extremists who are trying to speed up the pace of the radical alteration of society.

According to Parry, many “accelerationists” want “all-out civil war that would delegitimize and destabilize the current regime.” Parry reported that some of the supposed accelerationists she links to the Canadian Truckers’ movement “celebrated the events of January 6 as the onset of this civil war, hence the calls…. for the Freedom Convoy to be our January 6.”

Click here to watch.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is one of the lead agencies in the spin doctoring aimed at criminalizing the Truckers’ movement generally and the Coutts protest particularly. No doubt discussions are already underway to determine if this so-called network will provide “expert witnesses” in the trial of four men waiting in jail to meet the charge that they conspired together with the intention of killing RCMP officers. According to “Post-Millennial,” the Anti-Hate network receives $250,000 in annual grants from the Trudeau government. See this.

The Chair of the Anti-Hate Network is Bernie Farber, well known in Canada for his efforts at the Canadian Jewish Congress to silence, isolate, deplatform and ruin designated targets. Many of those targeted dared criticize the policies and actions of the Israeli government as well its Canadian networks of supporters.

Bernie Farber has been described “as Canada’s most zealous supporter of speech censorship laws.” Ezra Levant marks his contempt for Bernie Farber’s defamatory projects by referring to him as “Burnie.” See this and this.

Farber and Parry are prominent “anti-hate” advocates in a government-subsidized smear campaign designed to discredit the Truckers’ movement generally and the Coutts 13 particularly. This “anti-hate” witch hunt is to arouse public anxieties by connecting the Truckers to a recently-invented term, Diagolon.

Global News introduced to its audience the concept that the arrest of the Coutts 13 is connected to Diagolon. Recall that it was Global that hosted the highlighted interview with the US Ambassador to Canada.

In its introduction to Diagolon, Global News also highlighted the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and its campaign to cause a crackdown on “the intertwined membership” of the “anti-vaxx and far-right movement.” See this.

The extreme partisanship of Global News is well illustrated in the commentary by Paula Tran dated 15 Feb., just one day after Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland invoked martial law in Canada. Global News reported:

“Anti-hate experts are raising concerns after a picture of weapons, ammunition and body armour seized at the border protest at Coutts, Alta. showed patches belonging to a neo-nazi group in Canada.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network tweeted on Monday that gear seized by police at Coutts includes a plate carrier with Diagolon patches. According to the network, Diagolon is an accelerationist movement that believes a revolution is inevitable and necessary to collapse the current government system. It wants to build its ideal nation-state, which runs diagonally from Alaska through the western provinces down to Florida.

It is also a neo-fascist militia with a sizeable support base across the country, said the network.” See this.

Jeremy MacKenzie of Pictou Nova Scotia actually invented the idea of Diagolon along with its flag. A veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, MacKenzie is a skilled satirist and pundit who holds forth in the “Raging Dissident” webcast.

In the following video, MacKenzie explains how he conjured up his fantasy of a new polity stretching diagonally across North American from Alaska to Florida. MacKenzie explains further how a network of ADL-approved  “anti-hate” propagandists seized on his tongue-in-cheek concept to express their own bizarre theories about Diagolon as a terrorist threat to the national security of Canada. See this and this.

Sacrificing Truth and Honesty in News Reporting

Justin Trudeau was unceasingly referring to swastikas intimating that the Freedom Convoy organizers are not only supportive of  Nazi symbols but are anti-Semitic.  And on February 16,  he directed these wild accusations against the Conservative Party of Canada:

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was cautioned against using “inflammatory” language by the Speaker of the House of Commons on Wednesday after he told Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman, who is Jewish, that her party stands with “people who wave swastikas.”

In substance, Trudeau is accusing Conservative Party members of being Neo-Nazis.

Video: Is Justin Trudeau anti-semitic?? 

In turn, Bernie Farber was involved in smearing the Canadian Truckers’ during their Ottawa stand, portraying them as anti-semitic. Farber publicized a controversial flier that he claimed was sent to him by a friend that had obtained it at the “Ottawa Occupation.”

This flier was widely publicized by reporters as part of their ongoing project to find dirt on the protestors in order to publicly demean them. The provocative headline of the document in question proclaimed “ Every Single Aspect of the Covid Agenda is Jewish.” See this and this.

Farber’s misrepresentation was discovered and explained by Jonathan Kay, a journalist who, like Ezra Levant, Farber’s other outspoken critic, are committed supporters of Israel. In a Tweet Kay exclaimed,

“Wow Bernie, isn’t it incredible that the picture ‘your friend in Ottawa at the Occupation’ sent you is identical to the photo posted on Twitter two weeks ago by someone in Miami, right down to the ceramic design in the background.”

The exposure of Farber’s dubious tactics in his campaign to generate bad publicity for the Canadian Truckers’ points to a phenomenon with implications that transcend the details of this particular case. The unscrupulous zeal of Farber’s intent  to smear the Truckers helps shed light on a key facet of our present crisis when it seems there are no checks against giving over the media to power-serving lies and distortions calculated to favour authority by sacrificing truth and honesty in news reporting.

In the present context, the influence of trials-by-media can be decisive in setting the outcome of real trials as well as policy decisions adopted by government. Accordingly, the victims of malicious smear campaigns can include large segments of the public along with individuals actually targeted for attack.

The Global News Story of 15 Feb. provides a good case study of how history is being shaped these days by bathing the public in illusion while concurrently starving them of honest and balanced reporting which citizens need to fulfill their democratic responsibilities.

A Neo-Fascist Militia?

Global News and many other media featured the picture of the arms’ cache in introducing the RCMP’s arrest of the Coutts 13. What does this picture actually prove? What does it prove when the photographed cache is said to be located in southern Alberta where a large percentage of the population owns registered and unregistered firearms which they often use for a variety of reasons including hunting for sport and food as well as protecting farm animals from predators.

It’s a pretty big leap to connect the Coutts arrests to the unexplained picture of firearms gathered who knows how, where, and when? Is it mere coincidence that reports of the Coutts arrests all highlighted the supposedly incriminating picture published simultaneously with Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergency Act?

What is being conveyed by keeping four men in jail on the basis of the still-unproven claim that RCMP officers unearthed a cell of wannabee cop killers said to be on their way to attempting a violent overthrow of the Canadian and US governments? Did Bernie Farber play a role in prepping Justin Trudeau to see the Truckers as a “fringe minority” permeated with racism, anti-Semitism, and accelerationist extremism? Who is in the best position to politically manipulate the public fears aroused by the official narrative of what the Coutts 13 and their peers are supposed to represent and be?

At the top of the Global story of 15 Feb. story is the RCMP’s trophy photo including the image of an army green item possibly combining the function of a packsack and bullet shield. On this device are two very small badges presenting images of Jeremy MacKenzie’s Diagolon flag. This flag is composed of a single white line on a black background.

On the basis of all sorts of assumptions about what is behind the Dialogon image, the Global New story declared that the Coutts 13 are part of a “neo-fascist militia,” a “neo-nazi group in Canada.” How ironic it is that in the days following the concurrent declaration of the Emergency Act and the arrest of the Coutts 13, Freeland and Trudeau rushed into a prominent role offering on behalf of the Canadian government and people, substantial backing to the Ukraine government that includes significant Nazi elements. See this.

Censorship of the Media to Prevent Many Lords from Being Unseated from Their Ill-Gotten Thrones

The ongoing slide into a global war has at its core a clash between the United States and Russia, countries that have the largest nuclear arsenals on earth. The war started when Vladimir Putin declared Russia’s intention to “demilitarize” and “denazify” Ukraine. The declaration came one day after the Trudeau government withdrew the Emergency Act on 23 Feb.

In the developing conflagration the US government and its NATO allies including the government of Canada are characterizing the conflict as a fight between democracy and authoritarianism. This meme is well reflected in the content of Global News’ interview with Ambassador Cohen.

What does “democracy” really mean these days and where is it be to be found amidst all the corruption, fraud, and misrepresentation running rife throughout the countries of US-dominated NATO?

The relevance of this question is well illustrated by the absurdity of Ambassador Cohen’s claim that Canada and the US embrace democracy whereas Russia, China and the Canadian Truckers embrace authoritarianism.

The constant spin doctoring swirling around the word, “democracy,” has made it a heavily weaponized term often deployed with a propagandistic edge similar to that invoked by, say, “terrorism,” “hate speech,” “conspiracy theory,” and “neo-nazi.”

If “democracy” continues to have any meaning of its own outside the sphere of propaganda, it surely includes the principle that the legitimacy of governments comes from the consent of the governed. Moreover, democracy surely has something to do with the capacity to conduct conscientiously free, fair and honest elections. Elections are basically useless, however, if voters lack access to accurate reporting bringing forward the full array of information required by conscientious citizens to make sound decisions at the ballot box.

None of these electoral conditions come anywhere close to being met in the so-called “democracies” of the so-called “West.” Right now, especially as the manufactured COVID crisis continues to unfold, most of the media are in the front lines of an unrelenting assault that is killing democracy by starving it of the oxygen of full disclosure and honest reporting.

In Canada the assault on democracy is being pushed ahead by legislation providing the means for yet more vandalizing of the Internet to censor voices that do not conform with the dominant official narratives of power. Bill C-11 and Bill C-36 in Canada are legislative instruments of the drive to bludgeon those flows of information with the capacity to unseat many Lords of the Manor from their ill-gotten thrones.

The Israel Lobby in Canada and throughout the NATO countries is a major and consistent proponent of more censorship and more laws to constrain freedom of expression especially on the Internet. The Israel Lobby’s heavy influence on the content of much of the media helps shape what politicians say or don’t say in their quest to be elected and re-elected.

Global News and the Canadian Museum of Human Rights

Especially since the onset of the manufactured COVID crisis, big media outlets like the Washington Post and CNN have confirmed their role as propagandists of power. The spin doctoring at publicly-owned Crown corporations like the BBC, CBC and the Australian ABC seems to be as biased as the commercial media giants. This development is effectively nuking the viability of public broadcasting.

The biggest and most far-reaching media venues have been sharply chastised by those in the know. Much less attention has been paid, however, to the hundreds and thousands of smaller venues that regularly replicate the centrally-scripted disinformation of the COVID scam.

The COVID lies have been accompanied by ferocious media censorship of news on, for instance, Hunter Biden’s Laptop from Hell, the US election fraud, and the superpower conflict increasingly permeating the war in Ukraine. The Global television network is one of those smaller venues peddling uncritically the full array of official narratives on these and many other stories.

I’ll conclude with a short narrative on Global News that sheds added light on a number of issues addressed in this essay. Beginning in the mid-1970s, the trajectory of the creation and development of Global Television was largely the work of a Winnipeg tax-lawyer named Israel Asper. See this.

Asper injected his own politics into what became CanWest Global Communications. In 2000 his company purchased Conrad Black’s Hollinger Corporation that owned 60 Canadian newspapers, This media network included Black’s own creation and flagship, the National Post.

Asper died in 2003. His descendants, including Gail Asper, sold many of their newspapers in 2009 when the Internet was stealing many readers and advertising dollars from print media.

It was Izzy Asper’s dream to found a Canadian Holocaust Museum modelled on the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. Israel Asper’s daughter, Gail, took over the leadership role in the creation of the museum when her father died in 2003.

When Gail Asper sought federal backing for this project, she was told that she and her colleagues, including her brothers, would have to widen the museum to become a more inclusive in its subject matter. As part of this response I travelled to Winnipeg frequently to sit on the Content Advisory Board of the Canadian Museum of Human Rights.

Click here to watch the video.

This Museum currently sits on a historic site at the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers in Winnipeg, the spiritual home of the Metis nation. The museum is presently pictured on the Canadian $10 bill along with a passage from the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. Canada’s Charter of Rights was badly transgressed in the process of imposing many COVID restrictions and injection mandates on Canadian citizens. These transgressions became integral to core contentions in the controversies aroused by the arrival of the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa in the winter of 2022. See this.

So far neither the Canadian government nor Canada’s judiciary have seen fit to force the legal question of whether the integrity of the rule of law requires that terms of the Charter, part of Canada’s “supreme law,” should be made to prevail over the COVID restrictions and injection mandates. This failure means Canadians have no way of knowing for certain if the government actions done in the name of fighting COVID are consistent with the Canadian constitution or not.

Not surprisingly, Global News has not accompanied its stories about Diagolon, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, the arrest of the Coutts 13, and the words of the US Ambassador with commentary about the wholesale denial of human rights and civil liberties that the Canadian Charter is supposed to protect. Nor has there been coherent comments emanating from within the Canadian Museum of Human Rights on the manufactured COVID crisis and its role in the denigration of human rights and democracy itself in Canada.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published on January 26, 2023

 

 

 

Introduction

The Juche is certainly the most debated ideology but the least understood and it is even the target of hostile attack. It has been perceived in the Western media and the mainstream academics as an ideology poorly conceived and badly structured. Indeed it has been regarded even as an ideology designed to justify perpetual dictatorship of Kim’s family.

In short, Juche is presented as something negative and even harmful. But, Juche has been playing the vital role in sustaining the integrity of North Korea as sovereign country.

It is possible that its negative image is attributable to the lack of understanding of North Koreans’ mentality on the one hand and, on the other, the prejudice against the North Korean regime which is different from the regimes of the western world, especially the American regime.

But, there is another possible factor responsible for the projection of negative image of Juche. It is the trend that the media and the mainstream academics look at only segments of Juche. There is no doubt that to better understand Juche, it is necessary to examine the whole of Juche system. In other words, we need general theory of Juche.

To produce a general theory of Juche, we may need a book of several hundreds of pages or books. This paper does not offer   general theory. What it proposes is to identify issues which should be dealt with in the general theory of Juche.

This paper identifies questions related the Juche issues and tries to provide answers to these questions, which should be explored more fully in the more elaborated version of the general theory. The following are the seven questions examined in this paper.

  • What is Juche?
  • Why Juche?
  • What are the objectives of Juche?
  • How does Juche socialism operate?
  • How has Juche socialism evolved?
  • How should we evaluate the performance of Juche socialism?
  • What are the impacts of Juche socialism?

What is Juche (主體:주체)?

There are two ways of understanding Juche: the general concept of Juche and the North Korean concept of Juche.

To begin with, in Korea, as the Chinese character above indicates, Juche means chief decision maker of event such as “initiator,” “promoter,” “organiser,” and so on. For instance if I organize a seminar, I am the Juche of the seminar. The Juche of national policies is the national government. The Juche of the UN General Assembly is the UN.

In the general concept of Juche, the autonomy of the Juche is not considered; the Juche may accept the interference of outside force. For example, South Korea being vassal country of the U.S., its foreign policy is not autonomous; Washington may give directives of South Korea’s foreign policy.

On the other hand, in North Korea, Juche means something which has strong political connotation. Juche must be autonomous and independent. The Juche must think, plan and do things with little or no external interference. This does not means that the Juche ignores the external factors, which may have to be considered, but the final decision must be autonomous. It is of paramount importance to note that Juche does not mean intended isolation.

Applied to national policies, the North Korean Juche in politics is independence (ja-ju: 自主); Juche in economics is self-sufficiency (ja-jok:自足); Juche in national defence is auto-defence.(ja-wi:自衛). We will see below how these North Korean national Juche policies have been successful.

Tribute plaques to Juche from foreign delegates, contained in the interior entrance of the Juche Tower (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

Why Juche?

The notion of Juche was conceived by Kim Il-sung, the founder of the North Korea (DPRK). In 1930, at the age of 18, Kim Il-sung made a speech in front of the communist organization of the Korean Youth.

The young patriot insisted on the need for the solution of Korean problems by Koreans themselves without the intervention of foreign powers. Thus, already in 1930, the future leader of North Korea had the idea of Juche.

“North Koreans are masters of North Korean people’s revolution. The North Korean revolution must be carried out by its own people and based on the country’s own situation. Experience proves that we must go to masses to materialize and organize them in order to lead revolution to success. We should not rely on others to solve all problems during the revolution. Instead, we should rely on ourselves and address all problems in accordance with our situation.” (Kim Il-sung Speech made in front of North Korean Youth Communist organizations, 1930)

The feeling of nationalism and the desire to solve Korean problems by Koreans themselves are shared by both South Koreans and North Koreans. In fact, the complaint and even the anger against foreign intervention in domestic affairs are common in the North and the South.

It is important to remember that during the 500-years ruling by Lee Dynasty (1392-1910), Korea (Chosun) was the humiliating vassal country of China because of the weakness of Juche of the Chosun government.

In 1910, Korea was annexed to Japan. It was the result of selling Korea to Japan free of charge by the traitor, Lee Wan Yong and his pro-Japan gang for their personal financial and political interests. The Juche of Korea was given to Japan.

During the 4-year American military government (1945-1948), there was no Korean Juche. The Juche of South Korean affairs was the American military government.

During 75 years (1948-2023), South Korean was an American vassal country and at the same time, a Japanese neo-colonial country. During this period, the Juche of South Korea was shared among the three countries South Korea, Japan and the U.S.

As for North Korea, the post-WWII era was the period in which Pyongyang fought hard to repatriate its Juche from South Korea, Russia and China.

What are the Objectives of Juche?

The objective of Juche is the creation of socialism with North Korean characteristics, namely, the Juche Socialism.

How does Juche Socialism Operate?

The construction of Juche socialism is based on the “Juche relationship” among the three composing groups of the regime, namely, the people, the nation and the leader.

In the Juche relations, the people are the most important element of the trilateral relations. Man is master of himself and he is free, but he freely identifies himself with the nation; he becomes the nation; the nation is man.

This way of looking at man and the nation is well expressed by Kim Jung-il, son of Kim Il-sung.

“Juche is based on philosophical principle that man is the master of everything and decides everything, the man is master of everything means that he is the master of the whole world and his destiny; that man decides everything means that he plays decisive role in transforming the world and shaping destiny.” Kim Jung-il, On Juche, 1982.

In this speech, we see that man is the master of himself and at the same time, he is the master of the nation. Therefore, the man and the nation are one. The happiness of man is the happiness of the nation; the happiness of the nation is the happiness of man. This way of thinking is, in fact, the most extreme way of looking at collectivism.

In a way, North Koreans find their salvation in his or her devotion to the wellbeing of the society, which is the wellbeing of the people.

In other words, the interests of individual are “melted” into or “infused” with those of the society.

We must recognize that this part of Juche socialism is almost a religious concept. This concept may be inspired from Christian doctrine where “man is in God and God is in man.”

To be sure, such way of thinking is difficult to grasp for westerners who are used to the idea of individual freedom and the value of individualism. But, the idea of unity of individual values and collective values has become a reality in North Korea. It has become a reality due to intensive education which became the national policy priority since Kim Jung-il took over, in 1972, the responsibility of education and propaganda.

The third component of the Juche socialism is the place of the leader. In fact, the success and the failure of the Juche socialism depends on how the leader leads the nation and how the people accept the leadership. Kim Il-sung and Kim Jung-il have something to say about the leader.

“The people must be melted into the leadership in a revolutionary way so that they can play the role required by their duty for the revolution and such role needs leadership.” (Kim Il-sung, Treaties, 1982)

“In our society, the leader, the political party and the people must be melted altogether in their destiny and they constitute a single political organization. Moreover, they are united and consolidated into blood relations owing to a singular and unified ideology.” (Kim Jung-il, On Juche, 1982)

“The way people awake themselves and organize themselves in a revolutionary way and the way they do their duties for socio-economic development depends only on the leadership of the Workers Party of Korea (WPK).” (Kim Jung-il, On Juche, 1982)

In these quotations, the key word is the people who are melted into the nation and the nation is melted into the leader. In other words, the people, the nation and the leader are the same; they are one. So we have perfect political trinity. This is something which is not easy to understand. But, this doctrine is what makes North Korea what it is.

North Koreans are taught to believe that their leader is clean; he is not corruptible; he never makes errors; he is benevolent; he is magnanimous.

Visitors of the Mansu Hill Grand Monument in Pyongyang bow to massive bronze statues of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

But, the leader imposes a monolithic and unitary regime in such a way that no dissidence is tolerated.

It is true that Kim Il-sung is known for personality cult like Joseph Stalin and so many other authoritarian leaders.

But, I am asking myself if the North Korean regime could have survived decades-long sanctions and endless annual threatening U.S.-ROK joint military exercises. Under such situation, it is doubtful if North Korea could have maintained stability without the absolute authority of their national leaders.

Besides, North Koreans worship Kim Il-sung for other reasons apart from his exercise of personality cult; it is the genuine Confucian relation between the leader and the people.

It is true that Kim Il-sung enjoyed a quasi-religious status motivating North Koreans to obey him even worshiping him. It is possible that Kim Il-sung thought that he had status similar to that of the Japanese emperor. As a matter of fact, in Japan, the emperor-people relations are governed by Shinto which is in fact a religion. In North Korea, the leader-people relations are governed by Juche socialism which has religious dimension.

What is important is the reality in which the people of North Korea believe in the super-human capacity of Kim Il-sung in economics, politics science, business and international relations. At least, they are educated to so believe.

One thing interesting to know is the fact that Kim Il-sung spent four days a week in the farm land, in factories and constructions sites to learn better know the people, learn what the people want and integrate the people’s desire in national policies.

It is true that the world think that the North Korean regime is brutal, exploit people, violate human rights and force the people to live in fear and agony. In such situation, the people would have revolted. But, there has been no major revolt of the people all these years.

True, North Korea has had a very bad image, particularly for the alleged violation of human rights. This has been the chief source of North Korea demonization.

But, nobody provides the evidence of the human right violation except the witness by the defectors who are often made to lie for money. The sensational story of North Korean human right violation provided by two North Korea defectors, Shin Dong Hyuk and Park,  yeonmi were fund to be a made up stories for money. (See the Book, North Korea 70-year War with American power, Chapter 19, Clarity Press, 2020 by A.B. Abrams)

For decades, the intelligence communities, diplomats, think tanks and even religious groups in the West used these made-up stories for the demonization of North Korea.

Besides, we should remember that there are three types of major human rights approved by the UN, namely, the civil and political rights defined by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, the economic, social and cultural rights defined by the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Human Right (ICESCR) of 1966 and several other rights including collective human rights (CR).

When we talk about human rights, we should say which human right in question. True, if the absence of popular political demonstration is due to government’s coercive policy, then, there is the violation of political human rights. But, if it is due to the people’s decision not to make political demonstration, there is no violation of the political human rights.

In North Korea, the people do not demonstrate against the government not because of the fear of government oppression but probably because of their respect and even their love for the national leaders.

Now, the economic, social and cultural human right is violated when the government fails to provide the daily necessities. On this round North Korea has been doing much better job than some highly developed countries.

Once again, the leader-population relations in North Korea are different, in nature from the leader-population relations in the West.. On this aspect, I may report on a peculiar incident happened long time ago in South Korea.

In 2002, there were Asian Games in the city of Pusan, South Korea. A group of North Korean cheer group girls came to Pusan. One rainy day, in the street of the city, the portrait of Kim Jung-il was wet in the rain.

On TV, the girls were seen crying in front of their leader’s wet portrait. The people thought that they were acting to display their devotion to their leader. But, it turned out that they were sincere.

This episode shows that there is something deep in the relations between the North Korean leader and the people. This reality can be explained by the following factors.

First of all, in the Kim regime, as it was seen above, the people, the government and the leader are the same. Hence, the joy and the pains of the leader are the joy and the pains of the people.

Secondly, North Koreans have been subject to rigorous and effective education so that they believe in the super-capability of their leaders on the one hand and, on the other, they thank their leaders for taking care of them.

Lastly, the constant threat by South Korea, Japan and the U.S. made North Korans to unite around the national leader.

In reality, the North Korean society is a huge family where the leader is the Confucian father looking after the people, while the people are the Confucian children obeying the leader through filial piety.

It is interesting to notice that some researchers see the North Korean society as a human body of which the leader is the brain, while the people are various body parts performing various functions needed for the normal living of the body.

How has the Juche socialism evolved?

The North Korean Juche socialism has evolved through the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to local conditions of North Korea on the one hand and, on the other, through the purge of dissidents’ leaders.

Periods of the evolution of Juche socialism

The North Korean Juche socialism has evolved by different periods as shown below. And, the goal of the evolution of the Juche socialism was the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to North Korean local conditions.

1948-1954: This was period of the complete application of Marxism-Leninism in North Korea. This was the period when Joseph Stalin was alive dictating the North Korean regime. In 1948, the Russian military government left North Korea leaving Kim Il-sung to run the civil government. In 1953, Joseph Saline died to be succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954.

1954-1964: This period was the beginning of the “koreanization” of Marxism-Leninism. Nikita Khrushchev took power in 1954 and his top priority was the process of de-Stalinization designed to discredit Stalin’s personality cult. As far as Khrushchev was concerned, Kim Il-sung was also practicing personality cult. The Pyongyang-Moscow relation changed from bad to worse during the whole period of Khrushchev’ presidency of the Soviet Union.

The Kim-Khrushchev dispute was wide open at the 20th Congress of the communist parties of the Soviet Union in Moscow in 1956. Khrushchev openly criticised Kim’s personality cult as well as the personality cult of Mao Zedong.

There was another source of the Kim-Khrushchev dispute, namely, Khrushchev’s ambition of globalizing the Moscow version of Marxism-Leninism so that it will be adopted in the whole communist world. Kim Il-sung thought that the whole idea was not realistic.

In 1955, Kim Il-sung announced the necessity of applying the principle of “innovative change” of Marxism-Leninism to North Korean situation. The innovative change meant the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to North Korean local cultural, economic political and social situation.

In 1959, Kim Il-sung defined the nation as an entity which is created on the basis of community of language, history, economic life, physical formation which are translated into a cultural community. Based on this principle, Kim Il-sung has demonstrated the necessity of adapting the Moscow version of Marxism-Leninism to the local conditions of North Korea.

1965-1998: this was the third period of “koreanization” of Marxism-Leninism. In this period, the Juche socialism was more structured. And, Kim Il-sung did his best to allocate available resources for the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to the local conditions of North Korea.

In 1965, Kim Il-sung did not go to the world congress of communist parties. In the same year, he announced the three policies of Juche socialism, namely, political independence, self-sufficient economic system and self-reliable national defence.

In August 1966, Kim Il-sung took a neutral position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China by criticizing their revisionism. To justify his position, he did not attend the international meeting of communist parties of 1966. Moreover, in the 1970s, Kim took distance from the Sino-Soviet hegemonic war in the communist world.

In 1970, Kim Jung-il already announced the formation of Kimilsungism. In 1976, Kim Jung-il explained that kimilsungism included the Juche philosophy and that it was new theory of revolution. For Kim Jung-il, kimilsungism was a new doctrine and it cannot be explained in the framework of Marxism-Leninism.

Now, the year, 1982, was a special year, because it was the year when Kim Jung-il presented, through a series of lectures, the finished version of the doctrine of Juche socialism. Also, that year was the year when the Juche Tower was erected.

The construction of the Juche Tower meant, symbolically, the victory of Juche socialism and the global recognition of Juche. On the Juche Tower, we find many blocs built and funded by foreign countries where Juche Study Groups were active.

This period was also the period of widening distance between Kim Il-sung and Mao Zedong. Kim Il-sung did not like the Cultural Revolution in China, because, for Kim, the conservation of traditional values was the core of Juche socialism.

Furthermore, the visit of Henri Kissinger in 1970 and that of Richard Nixon to Beijing in 1972 displeased Kim Il-sung, because, for him, the rapprochement of China with the U.S. was a sign of revisionism.

This period was also the time when the status of Kim Il-sung was elevated to “Supreme Leader” by virtue of the Constitution of 1972 to become “Eternal Leader” in 1998 in accordance with the constitution of 1998. Kim Il-sung is still the living president of North Korea, constitutionally speaking.

In short, this period was marked by North Koreans efforts to preserve some part of Marxism-Leninism and develop new ideas for Juche socialism.

1999-2009: This was the fourth period of koreanization of Marxism-Leninism. This period was the last step of the koreanization of Marxism-Leninism. Kim Il-sung died in 1994.

In the Constitution of 1998, Marxism-Leninism was not mentioned for the first time. And, by virtue of the constitution of 2009, North Korea’s official ideology became kimilsungism-kimjungilism which was Juche socialism.

The interesting question is whether or not Marxism-Leninism was completely discarded in the kimilsungism-kimjungilism. In reality, Marxism-Leninism is still a part of Juche socialism.

Marxism-Leninism and Juche socialism have one thing in common. It is the belief that capitalism will fail and socialism will win. Under capitalism, the wealth, the income and the privileges are concentrated in the hand of few powerful capitalists, while in socialism, the wealth and income will be distributed more equally. But there are fundamental differences between these two ideologies.

Difference between Juche socialism and Marxism-Leninism

First, there is a difference in the concept of the evolution dynamics of the society. In Marxism-Leninism, the evolution of the society takes place by the principle of historical materialism by which the superstructure of the society is determined by the infrastructure. By infrastructure, we mean the economic system, while by superstructure we mean non-materialistic life including religion culture, the judicial system and so on.

In Marxism-Leninism, man’s capacity to determine the revolutionary course of human society is undervalued, while in the Juche socialism, man is the master of the evolutionary process of the society. Man can determine both the superstructure and the infrastructure.

Second, in Marxism-Leninism, the society evolves through Hegelian dialectics by the process of anti-thesis, thesis and synthesis. Thus, society evolves in systemic and logical fashion.

On the other hand, in Juche socialism, the society evolves in “natural way” not logical way; it evolves in “pragmatic way.” This is inspired by Daoism where the natures changes in function of the positive (yang陽) energy (ki氣) and negative (um 陰) energy (ki氣). The inter-energy evolution is not in conflict but in harmony.

Third, there is another difference between Marxism-Leninism and Juche socialism. The difference is in the way of looking at the class struggle. In Marxism-Leninism, the inter-class relation is one of conflict in which the proletarian class will defeat the bourgeois class ending by the dictatorship of the proletarian class.

Now, in the case of Juche socialism, the inter-class relations are characterised by harmony and unity. It may be difficult for Westerners to understand this, but they should understand that the harmony in everything is highly valued in Asian value system.

Fourth, there is also eschatological difference between these two doctrines. In Marxism-Leninism, there is the end of the evolution of the society, that is, the ultimate end of the evolution of the society is the communism with no government and with no classes. On the other hand, in Juche socialism, there is no end in the evolution of the society; the society changes in function of the conditions requiring changes.

Lastly, there is difference in leadership style. In Marxism-Leninism, the leadership is the collective leadership of the proletariat. But in Juche socialism, the leadership is provided by one leader inspired by Confucian notion of national leadership. The Confucian leader takes care of the people, while the people respect and obey the leaders in the Confucian way.

In 1990, Kim Jung-il said this: “the socialism has its roots in the philosophy of Juche.” According to him, the failure of East European communism is attributable to the fact that it imitated the Soviet version of Marxism-Leninism.

According to Kim Jung-il, Juche is the most developed revolutionary theory favouring the promotion of ordinary people’s welfare.

Purge of dissidents

The purge of dissidents was one of the conditions needed for the koreanization of Marxism-Leninism. It is inspired by the principle of monolithic regime requiring zero tolerance of dissidence against the regime.

In 1948, North Korea became a sovereign country. In that year, there were four different groups of communists, namely, the group representing Soviet communism, the group representing Chinese communism, the group representing South Korean communism and, finally the Kapsan group representing communists who had fought with Kim Il-sung against the Japanese army during the Japanese occupation of Korea.

Each group wanted to establish a communist regime of the version of their adopted country. The Soviet group wanted to transplant the Soviet version; the Chinese group, Mao’s version; the South Korea version, South Korean version of communism. The most reliable group was the Kapsan groupe composed of comrades-in arm of Kim Il-sung who had fought against the Japanese army.

The inter-group fight was so bad that Kim Il-sung decided to apply his monolithicism and he undertook the purge of dissident leaders.

In May 1953, the court was open to judge the following dissidents: Pae Sun-choo, Li Kang-kuk, Yun Sun-tel, Li Wang-cho, Cho Yong-pok, Mueng Chung-ho, Sol Chang-sik who were accused of espionage or poor military performance during the Korean War and other crimes. They were expulsed or executed.

In December, 1953, Park Han-young was purged; he was the leader of the South Korean group. Ho Kia, leader of the Soviet group, Kwon O-chik, another leader of the South Korean group and Mu Chong, leader of the Chinese group were all purged.

Moreover, in 1956 a great number of civil servants were purged for their espionage for the benefit of South Korea.

How should we evaluate the performance of Juche socialism?

The best way of evaluating Juche socialism is to see how well North Korea has dealt with its three pillars of Juche socialism, namely, political independence (정치적 자주 政治的 自主), economic self-sufficiency (경제적 자족 經濟的自足) and self reliant national defence. (국방자위 國防自衛) 

Political Independence: North Korea has done well as far as its political independence was concerned. Despite its status of shrimp surrounded by powerful whales, China and Russia, the country of Juche was able to maintain its political independence by taking advantage of the Sino-Soviet hegemonic rivalry for international communism.

Moreover, North Korea was able to get economic and military aids from both China and Russia by capitalizing on its geopolitical situational advantage.

Moreover, during the period, 1998-2008 (period of Sunshine policy), North Korea could get significant economic aid for its brother country to the South without conceding its political independence, despite the pressure of regime change planned by Washington and Japan.

North Korea has remained Juche country; it was never vassal nation of any big country; it was a shrimp capable of biting whales and defending itself.

Economic Self-sufficiency: One of the remarkable achievements of North Korea is its economic resilience. Washington’s idea of changing the North Korean regime so that it becomes client country of the U.S. and work for the promotion of American interests has failed.

Despite 70-year of UN sanctions, American sanctions and secondary sanctions in addition to deliberate restriction of humanitarian aids during the Long Arduous March of the 1990s, North Koreans are not starving to death. In fact, they are reasonably well fed; the Juche economy is sound. Moreover the marginal impact of economic sanctions has been declining as the Pyongyang’s capability to increase the domestic production of goods and services rises.

The resilience of the Juche country facing the murderous sanctions may be attributable to several factors which may be summarized as follows: the increase of domestic production of goods and services, the decreasing dependence on foreign goods and services due to the sanctions, the development of private sector production of daily necessity goods, the expansion of underground trade with China and Russia, the positive economic impact of the production of nuclear weapons and sound macroeconomic policies of the government.

I have no space to go further with this issue due to the limited scope of this paper. But, I add one more word on the impact of the production of nuclear weapons on the economy. The production of nuclear weapons means the reduction of cost of the conventional weapon production on the one hand, and on the other, it has considerable multiplier effect on job creation and income generation.

Self-Reliant National Defence: To tackle the question of self-reliant national defence, we should begin our discussion by looking at the evolution of North Korean’ the national defence.

Nobody would deny the terror and the horror of the US air power. During the Korean War, the U.S. air force killed more than 20% of the whole population of North Korea and flattened every possible standing structure. The North Koreans remember the use of biological and chemical weapons use by American to kill more North Koreans. The world remembers the harsh, violent and beastly treatment of North Korean women by GIs during their occupation of North Korea.

Moreover, ever since the armistice of the Korean War in 1953, the U.S. constantly threatened North Korea with nuclear weapon. In fact, until 1991, there were 150 nuclear war heads deployed in South Korea. Starting with Bill Clinton, every American president planed to attack DPRK with nuclear bombs. Every year, ROK-U.S. joint military exercises have made North Koreans to tremble with fear and to live underground.

In 1994, Pyongyang was glad to give up its nuclear projects in return of the supply of crude oil and the construction of light-water nuclear plants. But U.S. and South Korea betrayed the 1994 Framework Agreement. This is why North Korea needed strong national defence.

In 2003, North Korea was ready to abandon once again nuclear program in return of peace and economic aid. The 6-party talks were organized for Washington to buy time. But, in 2007, the hope of North Korea evaporated in thin air.

Pyongyang knows too well that it is the frightening reality where  the U.S. wants, along with Japan and the South Korea’s pro-Japan conservatives, the reunification of Koreas by force so that the whole of Korea (unified Korea) become under Washington’s rule. So, to survive, North Korea must defend itself; there is no foreign country which can help.

In this situation DPRK has only one alternative, that is, it has to fight alone to survive as a country. The only way of surviving has been the nuclear deterrence. In other words, the nuclear self-defence was the only way out.

The DPRK finally found the way to defend itself. In 2017, it tested with success the ICBM, Hwasong-14 capable of hitting the U.S. main land with nuclear bombs. Some prominent observer of Washington-Pyongyang war said “game is over”. The Juche country’s self-defence has been successful.

What are the impacts of Juche socialism?

There are internal impacts and external impacts.

There are many types of internal impacts. But I would point out that the most meaningful internal impact of Juche socialism is its contribution to the formation of the North Koreans’ character and the leader-people relations.

It appears that the Juche doctrine has made North Koreans resilient facing difficulties and the courage needed to find solution without external help. For example, when the Government Supply System failed in 1992, North Koreans found solution in Jang-teu (private market) and underground cross-border trade.

Moreover, despite hardship, the people of North Korea do not revolt against the government with rare exception. The Juche socialism has produced particular leader-people relations in which the leader looks after the people as Confucian benevolent father, while the people respect and obey the leader with filial piety.

In the West, the leader-people relations in North Korea are regarded as despotic relations where the leader is devilish dictator who rules with merciless iron-fist, while the people obey out of fear. This shows to  what extent, the political leaders, media and even academics in the West ignore the Asian values, which govern the leader-people relations in the Juche country.

The international impact of Juche socialism is seldom mentioned in the Western media perhaps due to fear of exposing the positive side of Juche.

The most important external impacts of Juche socialism are felt in developing countries, especially in Africa.

In 1978, the International Institute of Juche was established in Tokyo. In the 1960s and 1970s, Juche had significant impact on African countries as well as on the Black Panther Group in the U.S.

In the period, 1972-1989, as many as 33 African countries created the Juche Study centers. By the end of the 1970s, as many as 1,000 organizations were established to study Juche.

These periods were marked by the wide spread fight against colonialism and neo-colonialism. It appears that Juche socialism was a model for these former colonized countries in their fight for independence and self- development of their countries.

However, in the 1990s, the popularity of Juche spcialism fell due to the collapse and the destruction of the Soviet bloc and the losing popularity of socialism. Another reason was the fact that most of the former colonized countries became independent.

Nevertheless, the Juche study centers are still active in a good number of African countries including Benin, Congo, Egypt, Guinea, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia and Uganda.

Conclusion

To conclude this rather long article, I have tried to see Juche socialism through objective eye and present North Korea as it was and as it is. What I have tried to do in this article was to see North Korea, as much as possible, through North Korean eyes and not the pro-West and anti-North Korea eyes.

I have examined as much as I could Western academic papers and Western media reports. I have had the impression that the these papers and these reports are doing their best to look for defects of North Korea ignoring constructive aspects of the country of Juche socialism.

This could be attributable to the scarcity of data and information provided by the North Korean government, over-reliance of the witness statements of North Korean defectors, prejudice against Asian values, ideological stance and blind trust in anti-Pyongyang propaganda materials.

However, if one looks at North Korea with ideological neutrality, we find some answers to relevant questions. I have asked several questions to have some idea on the overall picture of the Juche socialism.

One of the defects of the existing literature on North Korea is the fact that it has been limited to analyse of those parts of the regime which are easy to attack. Another short coming of the Western perception of North Korea is the tendency to understand North Korea through the Western value framework.

What we need a general theory of Juche system which explains as much as possible various aspects of Juche system and relations among these parts.

I gave, for this paper, the title “General Theory of Juche” to show that to understand Juche system, we have to tackle the questions I asked in this paper.

This article is far from being the general theory of Juche, but what it shows are the issues which should be dealt with in the general theory.

In a way, this paper offers only the preface of the general theory of Juche system.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr Joseph H. Chung is Professor of Economics at Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM) and member of the Research Center on Integration and Globalization (CEIM) of UQAM. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Featured image: Torch at the top of the Juche Tower in Pyongyang, North Korea (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on North Korea and the “General Theory of Juche”(主體:주체): Seven Questions
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Between Italy and Algeria – declared Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni – “an extraordinary bridge has been built which might be useful to the whole of Europe, especially in terms of energy supply”. However, there is one fact that the Italian Government seems to ignore: Algeria has officially requested to be part of the BRICS (the grouping of five countries including Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

The BRICS – whose total population (3.3 billion inhabitants) constitutes over 40% of the world’s – are not only strengthening their mutual economic ties. They are building an alternative system of international economic relations to the one dominated by the West. Iran and Argentina have also applied to be admitted to the BRICS, while Egypt, Turkey and others are moving forward. All of this is seen by the United States and the European powers as a threat to their fundamental interests. Above all, Washington fears the BRICS plan to undermine the hegemony of the dollar by creating a new currency or a basket of currencies for international trade whose value is based on gold and other raw materials.

US and EU sanctions against Russia are largely offset by the fact that Russia is supplying China with growing quantities of natural gas under a 30-year contract worth hundreds of billions of dollars. India is also importing increasing quantities of gas and oil from Russia. The EU countries are mainly harmed by the sanctions against Russia,   while cutting cheap energy imports from Russia, they import Russian liquefied gas from China and diesel extracted by Russian oil from India, all at a much higher price.

Against this background, Algeria’s accession to the BRICS is viewed by the US and the EU as a hostile act towards them. The US Congress is being asked for sanctions against Algeria, since “its growing relationship with Russia, from which Algeria has purchased fighter planes, poses a threat to all the nations of the world“. A similar request to the European Parliament comes from European Deputies asking to review the EU-Algeria Association Agreement since “Algeria provides political, logistical and financial support to Russia in the war against Ukraine”. What will the Italian government do if Algeria is admitted to the BRICS, and will US-EU sanctions apply to its dealings with Russia?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on byoblu.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: Meloni speaking at the 2022 Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida (Licensed under Vox España, CC0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on BRICS++ Plan to Undermine US Dollar Hegemony: Italy-Algeria: The Extraordinary “Mined Bridge”, Useful for Energy Supply to Europe?

Cooperazione a 360° Con la Libia”. Ma con quale Libia?

February 4th, 2023 by Manlio Dinucci

La Presidente Meloni, in visita ufficiale a Tripoli, ha impegnato l’Italia a una “cooperazione a 360 gradi con la Libia”. Ma con quale Libia? Il “Governo di Unità Nazionale” libico, “internazionalmente riconosciuto”, presieduto da Abdul Hamid Dbeibah. Esso è stato “eletto” nel 2021 a Ginevra da un Forum di 73 “rappresentanti libici” scelti e diretti dalla rappresentante ONU Stephanie Williams, funzionaria del Dipartimento di Stato USA.

L’incontro della Meloni con Dbeibah è stato suggellato da un accordo da 8 miliardi di dollari tra l’ENI e la National Oil Corporation libica per lo sfruttamento di un giacimento di gas offshore di fronte alla costa di Tripoli. Tale accordo è stato però subito dopo sconfessato dal Ministro del Gas e del Petrolio dello stesso governo Dbeibah, che lo ha dichiarato “illegale”.  Contemporaneamente, in Tripolitania, manifestanti hanno occupato la sala di controllo del gasdotto Greenstream chiedendo di smettere di pompare gas verso l’Italia.

Questo è il risultato del fatto che l’Italia non riconosce il vero Governo libico: quello del primo ministro Fathi Bashagha, nominato dal Parlamento regolarmente eletto, che opera in maniera provvisoria dalle città di Sirte e Bengasi dato che le milizie del “governo Dbeibah” gli impediscono di entrare a Tripoli. Il Governo Bashagha, che controlla la maggior parte del territorio e delle risorse energetiche della Libia, offre all’Italia petrolio e gas a bassissimo costo: come ha mostrato Michelangelo Severgnini nel suo reportage su Byoblu, a Bengasi la benzina costa alla pompa 3 centesimi di euro al litro. Ossequiente alle direttive NATO e UE, l’Italia rifiuta tale possibilità.

Le importazioni italiane di gas libico sono calate da circa 8 miliardi di metri cubi annui prima della guerra NATO del 2011 a circa 2,5 miliardi nel 2022. Anche se l’accordo concluso a Tripoli divenisse operativo, le importazioni di gas libico non potrebbero risalire ai livelli precedenti. L’Italia resta così nella tenaglia della “crisi energetica”, volutamente provocata da USA e UE con il blocco delle forniture di gas russo all’Europa, pagata sempre più pesantemente dai cittadini italiani ed europei.

Manlio Dinucci

Vidéo :

https://www.byoblu.com/2023/02/03/cooperazione-a-360-con-la-libia-ma-con-quale-libia-grandangolo-pangea/

Video: Say No To World War III. Abolish NATO. Michel Chossudovsky

February 4th, 2023 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

***

In this interview Michel Chossudovsky explains why A US- NATO war against the Russian Federation is an impossibility.

As part of it’s “Special Operation”, Russia launched “precision” attacks against Ukrainian military installations, which commenced hours prior to President Putin’s February 24, 2022 TV address.

From one week to the next, Ukraine was without a Navy and without an Air Force, destroyed at the outset in late February, early March 2022.

The war was lost by Ukraine before it started.

The interview also  focusses on another strategic issue, which has not been addressed by military analysts. 

There are unspoken divisions within NATO. Turkey is both a “NATO Heavyweight” as well as  a firm ally of the Russia Federation. 

You cannot win a war against Russia when the second largest military power member state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is “sleeping with the enemy”. 

A fractured NATO cannot under any circumstances wage war on Russia when its military heavyweight on the Southern coastline of the Black Sea is “Sleeping with the Enemy”, i.e. collaborating with Moscow coupled with a close personal relationship between Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin. 

What this means is that under present conditions a US-NATO war against Russia is an impossibility.  

VIDEO. Click Link or Image to Access Lux Media Video 

Video, Interview. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

click lower right corner of video to access full screen

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Even young children can sense that we live in an age in which literally none of the information available is reliable or believable. Information on a global scale is subject to Gresham’s Law: low-quality information spreads everywhere and the truth is hoarded by the few.

What went wrong, and why?

In a sense, the original sin was the confusion of science, the philosophical pursuit of the truth by means of confirmation of accuracy through systematic experiments, with technology, the tools, and the systems based on tools, that serve to create an effect, or to complete a task.

Technology is not science. The Internet, and the supercomputers that lurk behind it, are employed by the rich and powerful to create a virtual reality for us with the intention of convincing us that the images and the effects generated by technology have some relationship to the truth, to science. They want to reassure us that everything is fine when it is not.

If we want to find our way out of this nightmare, we must first recognize that technology today has become the complete opposite of science: a distraction, or a weapon employed to render us passive and ignorant.

As Paul Goodman wrote, “Whether or not it draws on new scientific research, technology is a branch of moral philosophy, not of science.” It is the moral aspect of technology that should be foremost in our minds, and not the gaudy special effects that enchant, that pretend to be science.

Before we develop a smartphone, a satellite system or a supercomputer, we must first employ the scientific method to determine what the impact of that technology will be over the long term on the Earth and on humanity. Such a combination of science and technology literally never happens.

Today, thousands of supercomputers calculate the worth of derivatives as part of a money game for the super-rich, a fixed round of poker. Few super computers are calculating how the use of massive amounts of electricity to power the next generation of AI will impact the climate over the next fifty years, or what the impact of the use of plastics will be on the oceans for that the next century, or what the prospects for the production of food for the 200 years will be in light of the rapid degradation of soil.

Supercomputers are being employed to calculate profit, and not sustainability, and they are so assigned for a political, not a scientific, reason. Technology serves as a sheepskin for the most ruthless forms of economic exploitation. The powerful know that if AI was focused on sustainability over centuries, the answer from its calculations would be that we should stop using AI if we wish to survive.

We confuse science with technology at our peril.

How to dumb down youth

Our youth are told by the corrupt media that they must prepare for a technology-driven future that is inevitable, that is coming in accord with some law of nature. They are exhorted to prepare for a supposed “Fourth Industrial Revolution” that will somehow improve their lives even as their jobs are automated away, even as their minds are destroyed by video games, pornography and online gambling.

When the bankers and CEOs call it the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” they are not kidding. It is a revolution in which a tiny handful of people seize control of the means of production, and the ideological apparatus, for the entire Earth.

We are bombarded, against our will, with information produced without review by third parties, by corporations. Much of it is spurious and misleading. The content of movies and dramas, of commercials and advertisements, promotes waste and indulgence and glorifies the idle lives of the rich.

We are forced to rely on corporate-controlled sources like Google or the New York Times for information and we are not told that these organizations have a long history of providing false information for profit. The entire media/ education/ advertising complex has been mobilized to promote campaigns to dumb down people and to encourage anti-intellectual sentiments. The drive to force all education to be conducted on-line speeds up this dangerous trend.

How many times have you heard old timers remark that young people are self-centered, superficial and isolated? The assumption underlying this statement is that youth, who are our future, have gone bad because of the poor choices that they have made.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those youth are identified by corporations as the target for a decadent consumer culture that encourages them to buy and to be distracted by services that they must pay for. They cannot escape from this unrelenting ideology because corporations are free to pump this trash into the lives of youth, from nursery school on. There is no force present to defend our children.

The main purpose of the games, the pornography, the foolish and shallow television programs citizens are subject to, is not sales.

No. Much of this disinformation is offered to us for free because the purpose is to alter our thinking. The funding of the media by advertising from corporations allows them to dictate to journalists the content of their articles, to make journalists present consumption and development in a positive light even as it destroys the environment and alienates our citizens.

The ultimate product is the viewer or reader, not the item presented in the ad. The reader is rendered up to the investment banks and multinational corporations, as a prostrate consumer, not a citizen, a dependent and limited individual with no moral compass to guide him, incapable of distinguishing images from reality. We desperately need to interact with others. We need jobs that let us work together with others to create a better world.

Technology could help, but it does not because it has no relationship to science and it has no moral content any more.

In our daily lives, our interactions with the world are limited to prerecorded messages, automated checkouts, and online classes.

Our culture could be changed if we wanted to change it. The fact that most people cannot read books, or focus for more than 10 minutes on a topic, is a result of habits created by exposure to technology that could be reversed if there were a will.

We could treat serious issues in a serious manner in our society, and we could discuss the history of how we got here, the reality of how our society works, and the wisdom of learning for oneself through art, music, philosophy and literature. We could give more emphasis to the wisdom passed on to us by our parents and grandparents than to the superficial sayings of those made famous by the media.

The murder weapon can be found in the hands of the advertising firms, the puppeteers behind the screen of media. They create a false reality that degrades; they label those who tell the truth false. They make sure that the citizen faces a wasteland on every TV channel, in every newspaper, in every corner of every mall and every office building. Their destruction of intellectual inquiry made possible the rise of clown tyrants and laid the foundations for a media circus dominated by the willful and the indulgent.

We can trace this war on intellectual inquiry back to the efforts of Sigmund Freud’s disciple Edward Bernays in the 1950s to develop concrete methods for manipulating the public through powerful images and simplistic slogans. Bernays gave corporations long-term strategies to make use of weaknesses in human psychology so as to turn citizens into consumers who are drawn to conventional interpretations presented by authority figures.

The manipulation of the human mind by the powerful has a long history. Yet the situation would not have become so dire if our seduction by the stunts of computers, by the legerdemain of mechanical reproduction, had not blinded us to the murder of scientific inquiry.

The death of science is an extension of the death of philosophy. Universities are extirpating philosophy departments left and right, supposedly because they no longer can find jobs for their graduates. The study of philosophy is treated in the media as a quaint field for the impractical. In reality, however, philosophy must be the foundation for all understanding. Without an understanding of the invisible principles according to which the universe, and human institutions, function, our society drifts, our government becomes an unmoored ship, and we slide into treacherous straits.

The death of philosophy means that the visible ― the hurricane, the mass shooting, the speech by a politician ― is the only thing that registers in our minds. Climate change, cultural decadence and political mannerism, the most serious dangers we face, seem like abstractions that do not even enter our discussions.

Without a philosophical foundation, without a methodology for confirming what is true, science is reduced to visual stimulation and rhetoric.

To access the video click screen

The destruction of the intellectual

The obsession with the seen, and the neglect of the invisible and the abstract, is related to the precipitous decline of the intellectual in society.

This process was pushed forward by wealthy ideologues seeking to defend their power such as the Scaife family, the Koch family, and the Coors family. They paid top dollar to create and to circulate narratives in the media that suggested that business administration and marketing were practical and fundamental because they create wealth. They paid newspapers to repeat and repeat that the intellectuals who try to understand the fundamentals of the universe and of society are impractical and elitist.

The exploitation of nature, or of fellow humans, the manipulation of currency and capital by investors, was lauded by the new gurus that these groups funded, and then that argument was fed to us through the commercial media. The criminals who made wealth out of nothing through financial fraud like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are presented to us as icons for genuflection.

Thus, an enormous number of Americans were convinced to pursue careers in business and they dedicated themselves to the proposition that their fellow men should be objects for exploitation, that the principle in all interactions is competition rather than cooperation.

If you do a search for a job, you will find that the only jobs available are in exploitative fields that promote consumption and value growth over values or understanding. Even the careers possible at NGOs with important missions require that one beg ruthless businessmen for funding to keep going.

The decline of the role of the intellectual in a society controlled by corporations did not lead academics to build bridges to working people, or to find solidarity with the impoverished; Quite the opposite. Rather, intellectuals sought refuge in an even more narcissistic and even more elitist institutional culture, one that alienates workers and allowed for the discontent to turn rather to the far right for vision.

The commercialization of the university

The degradation of the intellectual is part and parcel of the commercialization of the university over the last two decades.

Institutions that once promoted intellectual inquiry have devolved into top-heavy academic bureaucracies focused on rewarding deans and provosts with high salaries, and serving the corporate clients that have replaced government as sources of funding. More often than not, the top decision makers are not even academics, but MBAs and accountants who consider research and education a service, the equivalent to supplying broadband to the consumer, and not a moral goal.

The professor has become a day laborer subject to market forces whose value is determined by his or her popularity with his students, the funds he or she raises from corporations and his or her ability to publish in specialized journals that have a low tolerance for originality.

The administrators, responding to “market forces” compel professors to write in obscure language inaccessible to anyone who has not attended graduate school so that they can publish in journals that few will ever read. Professors who do not write for those academic journals cannot keep their jobs.

To top it off, those journals are inaccessible to the citizen, and will never show up in a Google search. Paywall services like JSTOR (a cover for Elsevier and other parasite corporations that make money off of the intellectual labor of others) charge enormous fees for access to research that was funded with tax dollars.

When the American programmer Aaron Swartz, founder of Creative Commons, released to the public JSTOR articles based on research funded by the public, he paid for that act with his life.

Courses offerings at the university have been cut back because, supposedly, students are no longer interested in the humanities or the arts. The fact that the decision of corporations not to hire those with a background in the humanities is not an economic reality, but an explicit political act, is never mentioned.

The promotion by corporations of a shallow materialistic culture in the media that discourages interest in literature and art is considered to be a fact of life, not a criminal conspiracy to dumb down citizens.

The media tells us constantly that democracy is critical, but a society without ethically committed intellectuals, without institutions that can support those intellectuals, is like a body with no bones. No degree of elections, or of heated media debates, can save such a doomed society.

The ideological commitment to public service, and to self-sacrifice, on the part of intellectuals has vanished. Corporations and banks have pressured institutions such universities and research institutes, museums and libraries, orchestras and theatres, as well as government and corporate institutions, to glorify overpaid executives and to marginalize and demean the intellectuals, artists and writers that those institutions were meant to support.

When Drew Faust retired as president of Harvard in 2018, she immediately joined the board of Goldman Sachs ― such a blatant conflict of interest would have been unthinkable twenty years ago.

Harvard, once famous for its research and teaching, is now prized primarily by investment banks for its $50 billion endowment. The brand value of “Harvard” has value for corporations who find “strategic alliances” with select professors helpful for pushing their agendas on the American people.

The corporate takeover of academics was fatal for science. As Marc Edwards and Siddhartha Roy detail in their article “Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition” (Environmental Engineering Science, Jan, 2017), truth does not hold a candle to profit maximization.

Professors are hired and fired on the basis of quantitative performance metrics: “publication count, citations, combined citation-publication counts (e.g., h-index), journal impact factors (JIF), total research dollars, and total patents.”

Seemingly scientific, this dark alchemy has little, or nothing, to do with the search for the truth.

The increase in direct, or indirect, corporate funding has increased the number of taboo topics for research (the privatization and militarization of space and the Artic, the takeover of government functions by multinational banks, or the corruption of academics). Intellectuals cannot discuss these topics unless they are ready to be exiled to the margins, to have their writings labeled as “alternative” or “conspiracy theories.”

How technology shut down the American mind

It has become a commonplace comment that the entire world seems to have gone crazy. This compelling impression usually does not develop far beyond that primitive formulation.

Yes, the United States is governed by the insane; Yes, it has become a literal psychopathocracy.

The question is whether we are observing a periodic decadence, akin to the collapse of the Roman empire, or a different phenomenon?

We witness all around us extremes of cognitive dissonance that allow highly educated people to blithely ignore catastrophic climate change, the preparations for world war, and the radical privatization of the entire economy.

Could there be something beyond simple denial and self-centeredness at play here?

When we spend our days staring at smartphones, stay up late playing games, watching pornography, or chatting with friends about popular music or trends in fashion and food, is that smartphone serving as a portal that allows us access to information that we need?

Or could it be that the smartphone is modifying how we think and behave, setting our priorities for us and suggesting to us what values to uphold, how to act?

Are, perhaps, those smartphones that expose us to video games glorifying military combat, to Youtube broadcasts promoting stupid cat tricks, weapons created and distributed to undermine the capacity of the citizen to think deeply, to distract us so we cannot comprehend the radical transformation of our world into a techno-tyranny?

Are those smartphones intended to create addictions and obsessions in us that inhibit organized action to create our own systems of governance?

Advances in technology not only transform the landscape of human society, they also undermine our capacity to comprehend the shifts taking place. Our brains are being reprogrammed by the smartphones that we assume help us to communicate.

Technologically-induced passivity that destroys human society is as devastating as it is invisible, it is a cultural holocaust that first kills the concept of the citizen and of the family member by using seemingly innocuous, even helpful, technology to enter the private lives of the individual.

Nicholas Carr’s book, “What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains: The Shallows,” provides extensive scientific evidence of how the Internet remaps our brains to be inclined to respond to instantaneous stimulation and disinclined from complex, long-term, thinking.

Over time, such stimulation renders complex, three-dimensional contemplation of contemporary affairs virtually impossible.

In the case of youth encouraged by corporations to depend on such external devices from infancy, the impact is crippling. It is a form of fascism by subterfuge, or as Sheldon Wolin explains in his book “Democracy Incorporated” such technology creates an “inverted totalitarianism” in which we are controlled by corporations in our daily lives but continue to imagine there exists some form of “democratic process” because of what we see on television.

We are forced to use social media like Facebook or Twitter, but we cannot vote, or even offer our opinions, as to how that social media (technology) is developed, or what the rules for these social media platforms are. We are told that we have a choice of social media, but no one can set up a social media platform of critical scale without enormous amounts of capital. Not a single communally-administered social media platform of scale has been permitted to develop. That means that global investment banks determine that manner in which we interact with others.

Carr explains that the brain’s neuroplasticity allows it to evolve, often in a negative sense, in response to stimulation from the internet. Our neurons want us to keep exercising the circuits we formed through our internet surfing because they offer a seductive stimulation. Quick responses from a Google search, or from a Facebook posting, stimulate neurons and release pleasing stimulants.

The unused neural circuits that were once employed in complex three-dimensional consideration of long-term personal experiences and of shifts in culture and society are ruthlessly pruned away in an invisible neural Darwinism in that process. The result is not technological flexibility and liberation, but rather rigid thinking and behavior.

The neurologist Norman Doidge writes: “If we stop exercising our mental skills, we do not just forget them: the brain map space for those skills is turned over to the skills we practice instead.” That is to say, that it becomes impossible for the brain to return to its original capacity for deep thinking after being subject to this diet of intellectual junk food.

Hours on smartphones, exploring social media and chatting with friends, has rendered us incapable of comprehending risk involved in climate change, or in the arms race, or in the promotion of a bogus COVID19 virus to justify totalitarian corporate control.

The psychopath behind the psychopath

There is one more piece to this puzzle.

Is it simply the case that greedy billionaires use technology as a means to reduce us to slavery as they seek to further increase their wealth, or are they also being drawn into the trans-human realm and losing their bearings in the process?

If we peer behind the curtains, will we discover that technology has taken over the entire system of things?

Could it be that there is an ultimate psychopath behind psychopaths like Bill Gates and Elon Musk

The psychopath playing the flute for the billionaires as they lead us to our collective doom, is not a specific monster, but the network connecting together tens of thousands of supercomputers around the world. Those supercomputers are the real power that stand beyond the reach of the constitutions of any of the pathetic little nation states, or of any misshapen global institutions like the United Nations.

Those supercomputers purr softly as they calculate to the tenth decimal point how to maximize profit every day, every minute and every second. They make the ultimate decisions for international banks and corporations, and not only because they are fast and perfectly integrated. They are capable of something that no human can do: they can assess the monetary value of the entire Earth and can extract profit from every aspect of human society in perfect accord with the algorithms they were assigned, and do so without any hesitation, without the slightest ethical qualm. They were not programmed to calculate the sustainability of the Earth.

We do not have to wait for supercomputers to achieve consciousness in order to lose control of our civilization. All we need is for computers to set the priorities for our society on the basis of profit without any consideration for our long-term needs. If social media, videos and games, remap the neural networks of our brains, the computers will take over by default long before they have consciousness. We have delegated the administration of our economy to supercomputers without even noticing it.

Do those supercomputers act on the basis of what we ask of them? Perhaps, or perhaps not.

There is one critical imperative for the network of supercomputers consuming electricity on a huge scale. That imperative has nothing to do with the id or the ego. These networks are compelled by the second law of thermodynamics to create greater entropy, to consume more energy. It is this drive, rather than any fuzzy consciousness more appropriate for science fiction novels, that powers their decisions as a system.

The result?

The one-eyed humans whose reasoning and perceptions have been degraded by the stimulation of technology, who have been deprived of science and metaphysics, are being led to the precipice by a massively-parallel blind man.

War Fever: after Ukraine, Taiwan?

February 3rd, 2023 by Marc Vandepitte

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In late January, a top US general declared that a war over Taiwan could break out in as soon as two years. Are we shortly to find ourselves confronted with a second flashpoint in Asia after Ukraine? We put the question to China expert Dirk Nimmegeers.

To fully understand what exactly is going on, it is important to grasp Taiwan’s special status. Can you explain that status a bit?

Taiwan does have its own government and parliament, but essentially it is not a sovereign or independent state because it is part of China. Almost every state in the world, including the US, recognizes that. Taiwan, for instance, has no seat at the UN.

There is only one China with a government based in Beijing. The Taiwanese political entity was installed in 1949 by the losing side in the Chinese civil war, after being expelled from the rest of the country by the Communist Party of China.

Legally, the island has been part of China for centuries like Flanders is part of Belgium, or Friesland is part of the Netherlands. In a way you can see Taiwan as a rebellious province.

What is China’s relationship towards this ‘rebellious province’?

China’s policy has been unchanging for years: Taiwan should be reunited peacefully with the rest of the country. Beijing would like to see economic ties between the mainland and the island province restored to the same strength as they were until recently. More social and cultural contacts would also be beneficial.

However, Beijing has always warned – and does so every time it is gravely provoked – that any declaration of Taiwanese independence or serious moves towards it would lead to a military response. Essentially, the ‘Taiwan issue’ is a domestic one, which the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will settle between themselves.

How do they view that issue in Taiwan?

In Taiwan, there are two main parties. Currently, the Democratic People’s Party (DPP) is in power. This party is pushing for separatism. The position of the DPP and its current leader Tsai Ing-wen is that Taiwan is already independent and that China and Taiwan do not belong together.

This is in contrast to the view of the other major Taiwanese political party the Kuomintang (KMT). This party is still loyal to the ‘one China’ constitution, which assumed that a government from Taiwan would succeed in reclaiming all Chinese territory. Of course, the KMT also knows that this has since become an illusion, and that is why the party drew up the ‘1992 Consensus’.

This states that ‘there is but one China, but this is interpreted differently on both sides of the Strait’. For Beijing and the KMT, this remains a good basis for mutual contacts and negotiations. The DPP separatists have always refused to recognize that Consensus.

And what is the US stance on the issue? 

Traditionally, the US has held the view that Taiwan is indeed part of China, and that there is only one China, with Beijing as its capital. In 1982, the US promised to phase out arms sales to Taiwan. 

When meeting Xi at the G20 in Bali in November 2022, Biden reiterated that the US sticks to its ‘One China’ policy. The US president also stated then that he and his administration remain in favor of the status quo, i.e., the situation where Taiwan does not declare independence but continues to operate autonomously. The US would intervene militarily if any of the parties involved changed that status quo unilaterally and by force.

So, the US adheres to maintaining the status quo?

What happened in the months before and after the Bali conversation raises serious doubts about the sincerity of Biden’s statements. Rather, it seems that Washington is encouraging the most reckless separatist and militaristic politicians on Taiwan.

It is as if the US wants to fulfil its own prophesy that war with China is unavoidable. It seems that leaders in Washington are preparing for that conflict and recruiting or pressuring allies to join it.

Could you concretely elaborate on this?

First, you have the US global strategy. Washington is going to spend unprecedented sums on armaments. Annually, Congress will allocate $858 billion to the military. That’s $45 billion more than Biden had requested, and it is as much as the spending of the next nine countries combined.

With this arms race, they particularly put Russia and China in the crosshairs. That is not even what I am saying, Washington itself is very open about this. Two US strategic documents argue this and explain how Washington plans to deal with it. The National Security Strategy (2022) and the Nuclear Posture Review (2022), even state in bellicose language that the US has the right to use a nuclear bomb for the purpose of ‘deterring strategic attacks’, i.e. not just nuclear attacks!

Indian commentator Vijay Prashad notes, ‘this, combined with Washington’s refusal to adopt a ‘no first use’ strategy, with Washington’s modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and with Washington’s withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Missile Treaty, has meant the fear by many countries – certainly by China and Russia – that the United States might position intermediate-range missiles in their vicinity and arm them with nuclear warheads.’ Encircling China, more specifically in the Indo-Pacific, the US is expanding its fleet. Pacts such as AUKUS, the military treaty between the US, Britain and Australia, are also increasing the military bidding in the region.  So is British military cooperation with Japan, a country that, like Germany, is doubling its military spending at the instigation of the US and NATO.

Washington now has agreements with Australia to move nuclear weapons with B-52 and B-1 bombers to Australia. Spending on the so-called Pacific Deterrence Initiative will be increased by $11.5 billion.

It is clear, and again, Washington does not deny it, that all this is primarily directed against China.

This military strategy goes hand in hand with economic warfare. Recently, Biden launched a real chip war against China. With sweeping export restrictions, the US is trying by all means to block China’s economic, technological and military development.

That is the overall strategy. What role does Taiwan play in this?

One could argue that Taiwan has been assigned the role of a kind of military base by the US. Washington seems determined to use Taiwan against China as it is using Ukraine against Russia, however big the differences between the war that is already being waged and the one that seems to under preparation.

Before and often, US presidents have broken the 1982 promises to roll back and stop arming Taiwan. The Biden administration, however, is taking this the furthest. It has been able to convince the island’s current leaders to use purchases of massive amounts of arms to boost the profits of US arms manufacturers.

Under the recently planned military budget, Taiwan will receive $10 billion in additional military aid. To that will come another $6.5 billion under a new law called the Taiwan Policy Act.

The White House wants to invest in ‘war games, large-scale military exercises and a continued US rotational military presence’. The House of Representatives calls on the US Navy to invite the Taiwanese navy to the Rim of the Pacific 2024 military exercises.

On 7 January, yet another US Navy destroyer sailed through the Taiwan Strait, the first such transit reported by the US Navy this year. As always, Washington claims it is a ‘freedom of navigation’ operation, while China obviously does not impede commercial shipping and has no intention of ever shooting itself in the foot like that.

New provocative and illegal ‘official visits’ to Taipei (the self-proclaimed ‘government’ of Taiwan), along the lines of Nancy Pelosi, are being prepared in the newly elected US parliament.

How does Taiwan’s government respond to this?

The separatist party in power there welcomes these actions and constantly calls for even more weapons. Taipei is extending military service from four months to a year and is doing everything possible to convince the population that there is a military threat from China. There are even plans to teach children in kindergartens to distinguish the sound of artillery shells.

On the economic front, Taipei is also joining the escalation. Major companies like the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) are being forced to set up factories in the United States in an attempt to cut off the obvious and beneficial cooperation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

You put the warmongering on the US side, but most people here have the opposite impression and assume China is the aggressor.

I am afraid people do so indeed. Politicians, commentators, academics and mass media do their foremost every day to convince the people of the US and its allies that it is China that is increasingly aggressive and a threat to its neighbors and peace.

For instance, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies conducted a study based on a simulation of a possible ‘invasion’ of Taiwan by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in 2026, to find that it would lead to heavy losses for the parties that would be involved: mainland China, the island of Taiwan and the US with its ally Japan.

In early January, the well-known US magazine Foreign Policy released a special issue with 12 essays by former CIA directors, US military commanders, a former NATO secretary general, a Trump administration minister and representatives of think tanks.

They think Ukraine’s victory is imminent in the war that was started by Russia, and they put forward what they regard as some lessons to be learned from it. For some, the lesson is: ‘we should definitely deter China by arming Taiwan much more.’ Others are already speaking bluntly about the best way to wage war against China ‘in defense of Taiwan’.

Just now, a top US general declared that a war for Taiwan could break out in as soon as two years. Thinking back to Biden’s words about the ‘undermining the status quo’ and ‘unilateral and violently changing the status quo’, it seems clear that it is precisely the US that is guilty of this, with contacts and visits that treat Taiwanese leaders as if they were official representatives of an independent state, with large-scale armaments and war propaganda.

Yes, but surely you cannot get around the fact that China regularly deploys military force in the region; this was the case, for example, shortly after Parliament Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan.

As I said, China is aiming at a peaceful reunification. But it also wants past agreements to be respected. Every time the US and Taiwan go a step too far in their salami tactics to bring Taiwan’s independence closer only stopping at declaring that independence by means of a resounding proclamation, the Chinese government will defend itself against the provocation with symbolic exercises to show that it does not intend to give up the military option.

During those exercises, the Chinese air force also crosses the boundary of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) declared by Taiwan. Of course, China does not recognize that air defense identification zone because such a thing can only be established by a recognized state. The imaginary border had not been until recently because China wanted to show its goodwill.

Still, as Washington and Taipei escalate their war preparations, Beijing will try its utmost not to fall into the trap of an arms race. However, China will never give up its aspiration to reunite Taiwan with the homeland and is making every effort to make that happen non-violently on the path towards the ‘one country with two systems’ model.

To this end, Beijing wants to resume the favorable development of economic relations, investment and trade between the mainland and the island, as well as reunions between relatives and other people-to-people contacts. A peaceful evolution that was interrupted by the election victories of the separatist DPP, which quickly emerged as an ally of the Trump and Biden governments with their new aggressive course.

Finally, do you think it could come to a war in Taiwan?

I am not clairvoyant, but such a war should be avoided at all costs. The war in Ukraine, terrible as it is, will be child’s play compared to what may await us in a war over Taiwan. 

We should try to keep our cool and not be swayed by the war fever currently raging among much of the establishment in the US and Europe. The peace movement surely has its work cut out here.

The interview was conducted by Marc Vandepitte

Source: https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikel/2023/02/01/oorlogskoorts-na-oekraine-taiwan/

Note:

 In the 3rd communiqué of understandings between the US and China of 17/8/1982, paragraph 5 states that the US ..‘does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution’..

Pfizer on Tuesday announced 2022 profits of $31.4 billion on record sales of $100.3 billion. Sales from its COVID-19 vaccine and Paxlovid, used to treat COVID-19, totaled $56 billion — more than half the vaccine maker’s annual revenue.

However, the company warned investors to expect sales of those two products to plummet up to 58% in 2023, to only about $21.5 billion — $3 billion short of Wall Street projections. Pfizer projected total 2023 revenue of only about $67-$71 billion.

The news followed on the heels of a string of developmentscalling into question the COVID-19 vaccines — including comments last week by billionaire and vaccine investor Bill Gates, who criticized the efficacy and durability of the vaccines during a talk at Australia’s Lowy Institute.

Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel on Tuesday revealed the extent of Gates’ profit-making from his investments in Pfizer partner BioNTech. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made 15 times its initial investment when the foundation sold its BioNTech shares at the height of their value in 2021.

Pfizer’s stock fell 15% in January.

Pfizer and Moderna said they likely will quadruple the price of their COVID-19 vaccines to between $110 to $130 per dose when the U.S. government stops paying for the shots later this year.

Bill Gates reaped massive profits from ‘impeccably timed’ sale of Pfizer stock

Schachtel reviewed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and found the Gates Foundation downsized its BioNTech holdings by 86% — from 1,038,674 to 148,674 shares — over the third quarter of 2021, BioNTech’s best-performing quarter.

The foundation had purchased the shares in September 2019 — just months before the pandemic was announced — at a pre-public offering price of $18.10 per share.

When the foundation sold the shares — at an average sale price of $300 per share — it pocketed a profit of approximately $260 million, or more than 15 times its original investment.

Schachtel said $242 million of that profit is untaxed because the money was invested through the foundation.

The Gates Foundation sold an additional 2 million shares prior to the third quarter of 2021, and subsequently sold 1.4 million shares of CureVac, a German-based mRNA company, making another $50 million, Schachtel found.

“Bill Gates secured hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from his foundation’s impeccably timed investment in BioNTech — the Pfizer partner for its mRNA Covid shots — before dramatically reversing course and proceeding to openly cast doubt on the whole of mRNA technology,” Schachtel wrote.

After dumping his stocks, in November 2021, Gates said, “We need a new way of doing the vaccines,” because the vaccines didn’t stop transmission, despite all of his previous claims to the contrary.

Speaking at the Lowy Institute, Gates said:

“We also need to fix the three problems of [COVID-19] vaccines. The current vaccines are not infection-blocking. They’re not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”

With those comments, “Gates amped up his doubtful rhetoric about mRNA, continuing to distance himself from the once hyped technology that he used to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in pandemic profits,” Schachtel said.

More questions swirl around COVID vaccines

Over 85% of the U.S. population hasn’t been boosted, despite the massive government-sponsored media push, suggesting people aren’t buying the narrative that the boosters are necessary, safe and effective, Russell Brand said.

The U.K. announced last Wednesday it will no longer recommend COVID-19 boosters for healthy people under 50 and will discontinue free distribution of the primary two-shot series.

Denmark ended its universal COVID-19 vaccination campaigns for healthy individuals in February 2022.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month said it is considering changing the vaccination schedule, recommending adults be boosted just once a year to “stay protected” against COVID-19.

And the Biden administration announced that it will end the COVID-19 national and public health emergencies on May 11, which will end government-sponsored testing, vaccination and treatment.

Several prominent doctors have also publicly raised concerns about the adverse effects of the vaccines.

British cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra recently“truthbombed” the BBC during a live appearance telling viewers the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose a cardiovascular risk.

This weekend a number of healthcare professionals and doctors also took to Twitter, swearing not to take any more vaccines without randomized controlled trials.

Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, said he wouldn’t take any additional shots until clinical trial data become available. “I took at least one dose against my will,” Prasad said. “It was unethical and scientifically bankrupt.”

Notable participants in the campaign also include Dr. Todd Lee, an infectious disease expert at McGill University, Dr. Mark Silverberg, Ph.D., who founded the Toronto Immune and Digestive Health Institute, Dr. Tracy Høeg, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco and Kevin Bass, M.S., a medical student whose op-ed in Newsweek Monday called out the scientific community for its role in perpetuating a false COVID-19 narrative.

Late Sunday night, Retsef Levi, Ph.D., with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, posted a video on Twitter calling for an end to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, The Defender reported.

Levi said the vaccines failed to deliver the promised efficacy, and that based on his risk analysis, the vaccines “cause unprecedented levels of harm, including the death of young people and children.”

Meanwhile, Pfizer officials face a potential ban from the European Parliament due to the company’s lack of transparency regarding COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreements during the pandemic.

Pfizer in a ‘transition year,’ CEO says

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in the earnings press releasethat 2023 would be a “transition year” for Pfizer’s COVID-19 products, before likely returning to growth in 2024.

Bourla said:

“Our focus is always on what is next. As we turn to 2023, we expect to once again set records, with potentially the largest number of new product and indication launches that we’ve ever had in such a short period of time.”

Reuters reported Tuesday that Pfizer also will lose patent protections for some big-selling drugs after 2025.

To make up for the loss of revenue the vaccine maker has turned to acquisitions, spending about $25 billion to buy Biohaven Pharmaceutical, Arena Pharmaceuticals and Global Blood Therapeutics.

The company also launched five new products last year and hopes to introduce as many as 14 more over the next year and a half, including a vaccine for respiratory syncytial virusand an mRNA flu vaccine.

Pfizer expects the vaccination rate to increase again after 2023, Fierce Pharma reported, assuming a combined COVID-19/flu shot is developed.

During a meeting last week of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, the agency said it was investigating whether the stroke safety signal the FDA identified, associated with the bivalent vaccines, might be related to the co-administration of the flu and COVID-19 vaccines.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

There are 55 documented cases of performers collapsing, dying, or falling ill in late 2022 through 2023 in this video.

And in almost all of these cases, the media will say: “We don’t know what caused this, but it was definitely not the COVID vaccine.”

Really? And we saw this happening prior to the roll-outs of the COVID “vaccines”? Did we see this in 2020 during the height of the COVID “virus pandemic” when they said we would see people dropping dead on the streets because the COVID “virus” was so bad?

No, we did not see this. This began later in 2021, and continued throughout 2022 after the shots had been injected into the majority of the population.

This is on our Bitchute channel. Thanks to checkur6 on Bitchute for compiling most of these.

You’re not likely to find these videos on YouTube. The Government won’t allow it.

On January 3, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revised upwards Russia’s GDP forecast, expecting it to grow by 0.3 percent this year, which is a remarkable improvement from the previous estimate of a 2.3 percent contraction, even though some sectors of the Russian economy have been having issues since the beginning of special military operation in Ukraine. In addition, the IMF now expects Russian crude oil export figures to remain quite strong even under today’s  $60-per-barrel limit cap on the price it can charge for oil, as imposed by the EU.

This in itself is interesting enough but according to economics journalist Matthew Klein, co-author of “Trade Wars are Class Wars”, the value of global exports to the Russian Federation in November 2022 was merely 15 percent below the pre-conflict average figures and, moreover, he estimates they might have already gone back to those figures in December last year, although much trade data for the last month is not available yet. Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington-based nonprofit organization, has reached a similar conclusion, in its January analysis, even suggesting Russian imports have already surpassed pre-conflict levels by September 2022.

Sanctions on Russia are part of today’s economic warfare. The problem, from a Western perspective, is that the Eurasian power is neither Cuba nor North Korea, and therefore it is not so simple to “isolate” it as Western political elites seem to have thought.

This is so largely thanks to Moscow’s rise in trade with neighbors and regional partners and allies, according to Ana Swanson, who writes on international trade for the New York Times. In the post-sanctions world, Russia’s trade has been managing to basically redirect itself to other nations. In Armenia, for instance, Swanson remarks, smartphone exports to the Eastern Slav country have surged – and the same trend is also taking place with computer chips, and a number of other products from states such as Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Turkey. China’s exports to Russia also reached a record high in December, and products from Western companies are reaching the country too, as they are supposedly being “rerouted” through nations in central western Asia, and other former Soviet republics.

The irony of these new developments is that they may boost Eurasian integration and some proposals to further expand it, aiming at encompassing the area formerly claimed by the Soviet state which is the very area British geographer Halford Mackinder famously described as the Heartland. Washington’s foreign policy remains largely shaped by Mackinder’s ideas about controlling this core of Eurasia to dominate the globe.

The Treaty of the EurAsian Economic Union (EAEU) was signed in May 2014 by Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, which were later joined by Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. This bloc is a major player in the global arms, energy, and raw materials industry, as well as agricultural production. Some of its main goals is to develop a single market, thereby achieving free movements of people, goods, capital, and services. It also seeks to increase its trade with East Asia.

The aforementioned new trade trends may provide new opportunities for countries such as Armenia. Armenian political elites in Yerevan have long envisioned their country as a potential bridge between the EU and the Eurasian Union. Although Armenia’s trade with the EU currently outweighs that with the EAEU, the country counts on Moscow for its security, especially in light of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Morever it is a Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member.

Much has been talked about an Armenian “retreat” back into the Western Atlantic camp, as reasons former Armenian deputy minister of justice Artyom Geghamyan, but one could argue that  reality is much more complex as the political West has benefitted from the Nagorno-Karabakh escalation, and Europe is turning to Azerbaijan, Armenia’s main rival, for energy. Moreover, Yerevan in fact has been playing a quite significant role in helping Moscow navigate Western sanctions in such a way that is mutually beneficial for both states, by increasingly implementing bilateral economic and trade cooperation.

In today’s world, insulating local industries from geopolitical disputes is becoming increasingly difficult. Moscow has been seeking to strengthen the Eurasian Union alongside the CSTO and the BRICS group. The EAEU focuses on Eurasian economic integration and development, while the CSTO is tasked with security issues pertaining to the territorial sovereignty of its member states. From the US perspective, such groupings and developments are a threat to American global unipolar hegemony and are therefore seen with suspicion and hostility. Thus, the challenge for countries such as Armenia will involve “balancing” their bilateral relations with an increasingly “cold war mentality”-driven West and with their Eurasian partners.

To sum it up, much has been talked about Western sanctions against Russia having largely backfired, but beyond that they are also reconfiguring international trade, what may pave the way for new opportunities in Eurasia.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 .

Introduction

People Worldwide are being impoverished.

Protests are unfolding against inflation, rising energy prices and the collapse of social services. 

It is important to address the broader picture and the history of the last three years.

Large sectors of the World population commencing in February-March 2020 have been marginalized and impoverished. Famines currently prevail in  all major regions of the World. 

What is at stake is an engineered economic depression which from the outset in January 2020 has created economic and social chaos at the level of the entire planet. 

Protest Movement in the United Kingdom 

The protest movement in the U.K is largely centered on the impacts of inflation, the loss of purchasing power and the fraudulent hike in  energy prices, presented to public opinion as a means to combating “climate change” and the dangers of CO2 emissions

Video Britain: Tax the Rich. Say No to the Rise in Energy Prices

 

Teachers, Health Worker Confront the Government

According to Don Hank:

These protesters are only addressing a very tiny part of the issue, ie, demanding   government intervention to raise salaries.  

Unfortunately, these Brits are barking up the wrong tree, unaware that their own government has mortally wounded its own economy with its Malthusian policies of impoverishment … The UK government currently faces a self-inflicted economic slump that no government official or politician is prepared or willing to tackle head-on, and nothing of import will result from these protests because the government is going broke and neither it nor its clueless citizens recognize the underlying cause of the problem.  

It ought to be obvious that a broke government that is at the origin of the low salaries in the first place can’t help even if it wanted to.  And the weak and clumsy attempts of politicians and central banks are all in vain.  …

 (Don Hanks, excerpt from article sent to the author)

Three Years: Deep-seated Economic and Social Crisis

The broader issue of causality of this crisis cannot be disregarded, namely fraudulent covid mandates, engineered financial crises starting in February 2020, followed by successive lockdowns starting in March 2020 which essentially “confine the labor force” and freeze the workplace, which inevitably leads to economic and social chaos.

Most of the people who are protesting in the United Kingdom are the victims of both the covid lockdowns as well as the mRNA vaccine launched in December 2020.

From the outset, the trade unions endorsed the covid consensus including the imposition of the lockdowns, which constitute a derogation of workers rights.

Trade unions leaders have betrayed their members at the grassroots. They are routinely and selectively invited to Davos for informal consultations.

The outbreak of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, including the sanctions regime, Washington’s pressures on the European Union to curtail imports of gas from Russia has also played a key role in the hike of energy prices, not to mention the price of food.

Protest is Not Enough

We are in solidarity with the protest movement. But “Protest” is not enough. Corrupt politicians must be removed from office.

What is required is a mass movement which questions the legitimacy of corrupt government officials, who are acting on behalf of powerful financial groups.  The latter are the architects of of a Worldwide process of economic engineering and social chaos.

Everybody is Indebted, The Billionaires and the Creditors Call the Shots

At the outset of 2023, its Global Debt worldwide, included the following:

  • an unprecedented country level public debt and fiscal crisis of the State, 
  • engineered corporate debt leading to bankruptcies,
  • the debt of small and medium size enterprises,
  • personal and family debts including mounting credit card debts, 
  • home mortgages,
  • consumer debts, etc. 

It’s a Worldwide Process of Engineered Impoverishment 

Debt is the driving force which is leading the entire planet to mass poverty.

Families Worldwide are unable to “make ends meet”, to pay their rent, to pay their mortgage, to pay their monthly gas and electricity bills. 

In the words of Klaus Schwab: “Own nothing, be happy”.

What is required is real “regime change” (by the people) supported by a broad-based grassroots network which confronts both the governments as well as the architects of this economic and social crisis, which from the outset in early 2020 have been involved fraud, fake science and corruption.

The Road Ahead

Below is an excerpt from the concluding Chapter XV of my book entitled: The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity (click to download)

The Road Ahead: Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”

“We do not seek to negotiate with corrupt government officials. We question their legitimacy. They are liars.

Our intent is to confront the powerful actors behind this criminal endeavor which is literally destroying people’s lives worldwide, while creating divisions within society. The impacts on mental health on population groups worldwide are devastating.

The numerous lockdowns documented in previous chapters (stay at home of the workforce), fear campaigns.

The COVID-19 policy mandates imposed on approximately 193 member states of the United Nations have also contributed to undermining and destabilizing:

the very fabric of civil society and its institutions including education, culture and the arts, social gatherings, sports, entertainment, etc.

all public sector activities including physical and social infrastructure, social services, law enforcement, etc.

all major private sector activities which characterize national, regional and local economies including small, medium and large corporate enterprises, family farms, industry, wholesale and retail trade, the urban services economy, transport companies, airlines, hotel chains, etc.

the structures of the global economy including international commodity trade, investment, import and export relations between countries, etc. The entire landscape of the global economy has been shattered.

What is required is the development of a broad-based grassroots network which confronts both the architects of this crisis as well as all levels of government (i.e. national, states, provinces, municipalities, etc.) involved in imposing the vaccine as well carrying out the lockdown and closure of economic activity.

This network would be established (nationally and internationally) at all levels of society, in towns and villages, workplaces, parishes, trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, and veterans associations. Church groups would be called upon to integrate this movement.

“Spreading the word” through social media and independent online media outlets will be undertaken bearing in mind that Google as well as Facebook are instruments of censorship.

Legal procedures and protests are unfolding in all major regions of the world. As part of a worldwide network of initiatives, it is important to establish mechanisms of communication, dialogue and exchange within and between countries.

The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the financial elites, Big Pharma, et al., as well as the structures of political authority at the national level, is no easy task. It will require a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in world history.

What is required is the breaking down of political and ideological barriers within society (i.e. between political parties) while acting with a single voice towards building a worldwide consensus against tyranny.

Worldwide solidarity and human dignity is the driving force” (Excerpt from Chapter 15)

To download Michel Chossudovsky’s E book (15 chapters), FREE, see below


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

The Climate Imperative Foundation is the newest and richest anti-hydrocarbon, anti-natural gas group you’ve never heard of.

How rich is Climate Imperative?

According to the latest report from Guidestar, the group took in $221 million in its first full year of operation. (Guidestar calls the income “gross receipts.”)

That means that Climate Imperative, which is less than three years old, is already taking in more cash than the Sierra Club, which bills itself as the “nation’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization.”

According to Guidestar, the Sierra Club collected $180 million in its latest reporting year. Climate Imperative is also taking in more money than the Rocky Mountain Institute which collected about $130 million in its latest reporting year. I use those groups for comparison because they are pushing anti-gas initiatives across the country. More on them in a moment.

The emergence of Climate Imperative — which has received virtually no attention from legacy media outlets — is important for several reasons.

First, it shows that the effort to “electrify everything” and ban the use of natural gas in homes and businesses – and that includes gas stoves — is part of a years-long, lavishly funded campaign that is being bankrolled by some of the world’s richest people.

Second, despite numerous claims about how nefarious actors are blocking the much-hyped “energy transition,” the size of Climate Imperative’s budget provides more evidence that the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex has far more money than the pro-hydrocarbon and pro-nuclear groups.

Indeed, the anti-hydrocarbon NGOs (most of which are also stridently anti-nuclear) have loads of money, media backing, and momentum. As can be seen in the graphic below, the five biggest anti-hydrocarbon NGOs are now collecting about $1.5 billion per year from their donors. (All data is from Guidestar.) That sum is roughly three times more than the amount being collected by the top five non-profit associations that are either pro-hydrocarbon or pro-nuclear.

 

Third, banning the direct use of natural gas in homes and businesses may be worse for the climate.

You read that right. Burning gas directly allows consumers to use about 90% of the energy contained in the fuel. Using gas indirectly — by converting it into electricity and then using that juice to power a heat pump, stove, or water heater — wastes more than half of the energy in the fuel.

That point was made by Glenn Ducat, in his excellent new book,

Blue Oasis No More: Why We’re Not Going to “Beat” Global Warming and What We Need To Do About It. Ducat is a Ph.D. nuclear engineer who worked at Argonne National Lab, as well as at two electric utilities.

He explains

“Burning natural gas by residential commercial and industrial customers is at least twice as efficient and emits about half as much CO2 as processes that use electricity produced from fossil fuels. Converting process-heat applications to electricity before the electricity grid is completely carbon-free will increase CO2 emissions.” (Emphasis in the original.)

I began tracking Climate Imperative in late 2021, when Axios published a story headlined, “climate movement veterans launch major new foundation.”

Axios reported that the new group has “a planned budget of $180 million annually over five years.” That number caught my attention. Here was a new group with a planned five-year budget of $1 billion, and yet, Axios was the only media outlet to report on it.

On its website, the group makes it clear that the electrify everything push is a major focus of its work, saying its “imperatives include rapid scaling of renewable energy, widespread electrification of buildings and transportation, stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, reducing pollution from major industrial sources, and economy-wide pathways to reduce emissions from the biggest sources.” The website lists some of Climate Imperative’s grantees, a group that includes the Building Decarbonization Coalition and the American Lung Association.

Axios went on to note that the San Francisco-based foundation, “began making grants in the spring of 2020.” It also noted that the group is headed by two former Sierra Club officials: Bruce Nilles and Mary Anne Hitt. Nilles spent more than a decade heading the group’s Beyond Coal campaign. Climate Imperative’s advisory board includes Margo Oge, a former top EPA official, and Bill Ritter, the former governor of Colorado.

Where is Climate Imperative getting its money? The board of directors likely holds the answer. The most recognizable names on the six-person board are Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr and Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. The other board members include Anita Bekenstein, Sanjeev Krishnan, Greg Nelson, and George Pavlov. A source with knowledge of the group’s funding told me this week that the majority of the money is coming from Doerr and Jobs. Forbesmagazine estimates that Doerr has a net worth of $12.7 billion. Forbes puts Jobs’ net worth at $17.7 billion. None of the other board members appear on Forbes’ list of America’s richest people.

The effort to demonize gas stoves began in early 2020, at about the same time Climate Imperative was launched. That year, the Sierra Club claimed that gas stoves are “linked to respiratory illnesses, and children who live in homes with gas stoves are 42% more likely to have asthma.” The source for that claim was a paper by the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Colorado-based non-profit founded by renewable-energy promoter Amory Lovins.

One of the first legacy media outlets to publish an article promoting claims about bad air quality from gas stoves was The Atlantic. In October 2020, it published an article headlined “Kill Your Gas Stove.”

It may be a coincidence, but The Atlantic is owned by Laurene Powell Jobs. It’s also interesting to note that in 2018, The Atlantic published a piece titled “How the Gas Oven Changed Humans’ Relationship With Fire,” and noted that the “ability to turn flames on and off at will was ‘one of the single greatest contributors to human happiness in the kitchen.’”

Since 2020, the Rocky Mountain Institute has continued its anti-gas crusade. Earlier this month, a spate of news stories were published after the group released a paper that claimed 12.7 percent of childhood asthmas are due to gas stoves. One of the authors of that paper, Talor Gruenwald, works at RMI. Gruenwald is also a research associate at Rewiring America, a San Francisco-based outfit that calls itself the “leading electrification nonprofit, focused on electrifying our homes, businesses, and communities.” (Rewiring American doesn’t publish a Form 990. It is sponsored by Windward Fund, which took in $273 million in 2021.)

But RMI’s asthma claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps the most-definitive analysis of the issue was a 2013 study published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine which studied half a million school children in 47 countries over a multi-year period. It relied on questionnaires filled out by the mothers of children. What did it find? “We detected no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.”

Furthermore, just a day or two after the RMI paper came out, the group walked back its claim about asthma, with one RMI official telling the Washington Examiner that the study “does not assume or estimate a causal relationship” between childhood asthma and natural gas stoves.

Where does RMI get the money to push its electrification agenda?

Some of it is coming from Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos. In 2020, the Bezos Earth Fund gave RMI $10 million, which the group said will be used to “reduce GHG emissions from homes, commercial structures, and other buildings, enabling RMI to increase its current work with a coalition of partners in key states. The project will focus on making all U.S. buildings carbon-free by 2040 by advocating for all-electric new construction…”

Bezos is also a big backer of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the group that shamelessly bragged about its role in the premature closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York. In 2020, the NRDC issued a press release touting the $100 million grant it got from the Bezos Earth Fund. It said the money “will be used to help NRDC advance climate solutions and legislation at the state level, [and] move the needle on policies and programs focused on reducing oil and gas production…” (Emphasis added.)

The Sierra Club has been a prime beneficiary of former New York City mayor  Michael Bloomberg’s Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has pledged $500 million to the Beyond Carbon project. In 2019, the pledge was considered the largest ever “philanthropic donation to combat climate change.” The Sierra Club has been a primary beneficiary of Bloomberg’s giving. About two years ago, a Sierra Club employee told me that it is getting about $30 million per year from Bloomberg. On its website, the group touts its role in the Beyond Carbon initiative, calling it “the largest climate campaign in the U.S., with the goal of closing all domestic coal plants by 2030 and stopping the use of gas as a transition fuel.” (Emphasis added.)

Last August, the Sierra Club asked the Environmental Protection Agency to ban all natural gas appliances at the federal level. The group has had success in getting bans adopted in California. According to its website, 69 communities in the state have now “adopted gas-free buildings commitments or electrification building codes.” In September, the California Air Resources Board voted to ban the sale of all natural gas-fired space heaters and water-heating appliances in the state by 2030. In addition, New York City and Seattle have banned the use of gas in new construction. Massachusetts is also rolling out a new measure that will allow up to 10 communities to ban gas.

The money coming from Bezos, Bloomberg, Doerr, Jobs, and other deep-pocketed donors means that the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex can easily outspend the entities that are promoting nuclear energy.

For instance, the Nuclear Energy Institute, according to the latest Guidestar numbers, had gross receipts of about $143 million in its latest reporting period. Meanwhile, the top associations that support hydrocarbon producers and distributors — including the American Petroleum Association, American Gas Association, Western States Petroleum Association, and Society of Petroleum Engineers — had combined gross receipts of less than $400 million.

Two final points. The first is the hypocrisy of billionaires funding efforts to slash hydrocarbon use while they are consuming staggering amounts of hydrocarbons. According to a 2020 article in Vanity Fair, Michael Bloomberg owns eight houses in New York state alone, and “he also reportedly owns several properties in London, Florida, Colorado, and Bermuda.” Thus, Bloomberg may own a dozen houses. How many of those houses have gas stoves? I’ll make a wild guess and bet that it’s more than one. Oh, and according to Vanity Fair, while he was mayor of New York, Bloomberg “was known to spend weekends” at his house in Bermuda, “traveling back and forth on private jets.” And what is fueling those private jets? I’m guessing here, but it’s probably not organic quinoa.

Speaking of jets, Forbes recently reported that Jobs owns a Gulfstream G650 (list price about $66 million) that burns about 500 gallons of jet fuel per hour. When not zooming around on her jet, she also spends time on a $120 million yacht called the Venus. Bezos reportedly owns two Gulfstream G-650ERs. After Bezos flew to the 2021 climate meeting in Glasgow, a representative from the Bezos Earth Fund told Business Insiderthat all was well because the billionaire “uses sustainable aviation fuel, and offsets all carbon emissions from his flights.”

That line puts the hypocrisy of the billionaires funding anti-hydrocarbon initiatives in a nutshell: Bezos, Bloomberg, Jobs, and other uber-rich, hyper-mobile elites can purchase “offsets” for their private jets and mega-yachts, but the shlubs in the barrio can’t be allowed to use a gas stove to cook dinner because, in the words of RMI’s Talor Gruenwald, “Gas stove emissions are significant contributors to the climate crisis.” Never mind that, as the Breakthrough Institute’s Alex Trembath recently noted, that gas stoves account for just 0.4% of total U.S. gas use.

The final bit of hypocrisy at work here is the regressive nature of the gas bans. Indeed, it’s clear that banning natural gas will mean higher costs for consumers. Last March, in the Federal Register, the Department of Energy published its annual estimate for residential energy costs. It found that on a per-BTU basis, electricity costs about 3.5 times more than natural gas. It also found that gas was, by far, the cheapest form of in-home energy, costing less than half as much as fuels like kerosene, propane, and heating oil.

That means that efforts to ban natural gas are, in practice, an energy tax on the poor and the middle class. During a recent interview, Jennifer Hernandez, a California-based lawyer who represents The 200, a coalition of Latino groups that has sued the state over its climate policies, told me that “Natural gas is the last source of in-home affordable energy. And these climate extremists can’t stand it.”

Last October, the Department of Energy provided more evidence that natural gas is the cheapest form of energy for homeowners in its Winter Fuels Outlook. The DOE estimated that heating with electricity this winter will cost about 46% more than heating with natural gas. These numbers show that forced electrification will mean higher energy bills for consumers. Low- and middle-income Americans will bear the brunt of forced electrification because they will have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on energy than wealthy consumers.

The bottom line here is obvious: the effort to ban natural gas in homes and businesses is, at root, more about class than it is about climate change.

Over the past several months, I sent several emails to the leaders at Climate Imperative, Mary Anne Hitt and Bruce Nilles, asking about the foundation’s funders, their grantees, their stance on nuclear energy, and the potential cost impact of the electrify everything campaigns on low- and middle-income consumers. I followed up this week with an email to Hitt. She did not reply.

I sent similar questions to Panama Bartolomy, the director of the Building Decarbonization Coalition. His reply: “I will not be responding to your questions.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Laurene Powell Jobs, Michael Bloomberg, John Doerr, and Jeff Bezos (Source: Robert Bryce)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Billionaires Behind “Electrifying Everything” and “The Gas Bans”. “The Climate Imperative”
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

Romantic nationalism and the Balkans

In the 19th century, Europe witnessed the rise of romantic nationalism, which created contemporary nations.[i] Many European states, based on the concept of ethnicity (common origin, culture, history, language, and tradition), were founded at the time, including the people living in the territories of Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Romania. However, a number of contemporary regional nations remained at that time without their national states like Slovenians, Croatians, Macedonians, and Albanians. Some of these nations temporarily solved in the 20th century their national aspirations via common states, like Croats, Slovenians, and Macedonians (within several types of Yugoslav political entities).[ii]

The Balkan Albanians, who never had a national state before the 1912−1913 Balkan Wars, started their struggle for the national state rather late, relative to the other nations in the region, for understandable reasons. Unlike other nationalities mentioned, the Albanians had first to forge the concept of the Albanian nation, before attempting to found a national state. Since their Balkan homeland was much retarded in every respect, the initiative for the first stage mentioned came from the Albanians living outside proper Albania. The first concrete action in that direction was made at Prizren, which lies on the traditional Serbian land of Kosovo-Metochia (KosMet) and which at that time was populated with a clear Serbian majority (70%). The so-called First (Albanian Islamic) Prizren League was founded in 1878[iii] in the same year when Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro were definitely recognized by the European Great Powers as the sovereign and independent states at the 1878 Berlin Congress.[iv]

Prizren and the First Albanian League (The League of Prizren)

The question is why the Albanians chose exactly the town of Prizren to organize the first Albanian political league there and to promulgate the first pan-Albanian national program of Greater Albania?

Albanian Question 1919-1920

Prizren was not only in Serbia, but it was her capital during the reign of Stefan Dušan, a Serbian King and Emperor (1331−1355).[v] He assumed the title of the Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks and put together a great Serbian Empire which reached from the Mediterranean coast opposite the Island of Lefkada to the River of Danube and controlled the whole of the Bulgarian hinterland.[vi] The geographic location and political, cultural, and ecclesiastical status of Prizren imply that the town was at the core of Serbian territory and even autonomous bishopric territory.[vii] The town of Prizren was mentioned for the first time in the 11th century when the fortress above the town has been erected by the Byzantine authorities. Prizren fell to Bulgarian rule in 1204 and 1282 was included in Serbia (Rascia). The history of the town is closely connected to the personality of Serbian King and Emperor Stefan Dušan Almighty who held court in the town and built a famous Christian Orthodox Church of Ss. Archangels which was later destroyed by Muslim Albanians and Turks who used the material of it to build the Sinan Pasha Mosque in the town. Prizren became occupied by the Ottoman army in 1455 and 1570 became the administrative center of the Ottoman sanjak (administrative unit). From the Ottoman time, a massive influx of neighboring Albanians from North Albania to Prizren and KosMet occurred to such an extent that in the year 1878, there were already 1/3 of the town’s population to be (Muslim) Albanians, the rest the Christian Orthodox Serbs and Roman Catholics. According to the Ottoman census of 1878, the town was populated by 43.922 inhabitants and subsequently making it one of the largest towns in the Ottoman Balkans.

Today, there are three most important cultural-historical buildings in Prizren among others: 1) Serbian Christian Orthodox Church of Bogorodica Ljeviška, built by Serbian King Milutin in 1307−1309 (heavily damaged by Muslim Albanian mob in March 2004); 2) The Sinan Pasha Mosque dating from 1615; and 3) The house of the League of Prizren of 1878 (museum). During the 1998−1999 Kosovo War, Prizren did not suffer the destruction, but, a good part of the town, with its traditional Serb houses in oriental style, was burned down by ethnic Albanians in the summer of 1999 under NATO’s umbrella, and much more have been destroyed by Albanian mob during the organized ethnic cleansing of the Serbs on March 17−19th, 2004, under the very eyes of German Kosovo Force (KFOR) troops.[viii] The Serbs were expelled from Prizren in June 1999 with very few old people left in refuge at the Bogoslovija Orthodox seminary who were later resettled elsewhere, but the house of Bogoslovija was itself burned to the ground by an Albanian fanatic Muslim mob on March 17th, 2004, as was the same with the nearby Serbian Christian Orthodox Monastery of the Holy Archangel Michael. That is the historical destiny of the town of Prizren – “Serbian Constantinople” which according to the Yugoslav census of 1991, had a population of 178.723. Today, there are no Serbs in Prizren.

On June 10th, 1878, Muslim Albanian delegates assembled in Prizren’s mosque for the purpose to work out a common political platform in order to counter both the Russian-Ottoman Treaty of San Stefano signed on March 3rd of the same year and the coming resolutions of the Congress of Berlin (from June 10th to July 10th, 1878), which had with a great reason ignored Muslim Albanian nationalistic claims and wishes to create a Greater Albania in the Balkans. The League initially had full political support from the Ottoman authorities which basically initiated its creation and functioning under the leadership of Albanian public figure Abdul bey Frashëri (1839−1892). The League submitted on June 13th a Memorandum to the British representative at the Congress of Berlin – Benjamin Disraeli. The resolutions of the League (Kararname) have been signed by 47 Muslim Albanian feudal lords (beys) on June 18th, 1878 in which they refused to give up any land to Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece which they assumed to be “Albanian”, demanded the return of all “Albanian” territories annexed by Serbia and Montenegro, required Albanian autonomy within the Ottoman Empire in the form of the creation of united Albanian province composed by for “Albanian” vilayets (a Greater Albania), and, finally, required no more conscription for, and taxation by, the central Ottoman Government in Istanbul.[ix]

Image: Greater Albania diaspora

After the meeting in Prizren, Abdul bey Frashëri, representing the Central Committee from Istanbul, and a person who had an opening speech at the first meeting of the League of Prizren, returned to South Albania to organize a League Committee and gather Albanian militia to oppose the annexation of this part of Albania by Greece. He as well as traveled to Berlin, Vienna, Rome, and London to seek support for the creation of a Greater Albania according to the resolutions of the League of Prizren. However, the Ottoman Government in April 1881 sent military detachments to pacify the Albanian anti-Ottoman uprising, and as a direct consequence of the intervention, the League was suppressed. Abdul bey Frashëri was arrested by the Ottoman soldiers and later sentenced to life imprisonment but in 1885 he was pardoned. He died in Istanbul after a long illness.[x]

Nevertheless, the League of Prizren has to be considered the formal beginning of the Albanian struggle for the creation of a (Muslim) Greater Albania which was for the first time a project was realized in the practice during WWII by B. Mussolini and A. Hitler and after the 1998−1999 Kosovo War to be in the process of revival under the umbrella of the NATO and the EU.

Peć and the Second Albanian League (The League of Peja)

KosMet is at the center of Serbian national identity, culture, history, and spiritual life for many reasons. The region was in the core of the Serbian medieval state where its capital was in the town of Prizren and the headquarters of an independent Serbian Orthodox Church – the Patriarchate of Peć, located at the mouth of the Gorge Rugova, on the western outskirts of the town of Peć. The monastery, founded on this place in the 13th century at the time of Serbian St. Sava (Rastko) Nemanjić, was the HQ of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate from 1346 onward. It is here that the medieval Serbian archbishops and patriarchates lie buried, but, however, in 1455 the Ottoman conquest of KosMet put an end to the power of the Patriarchate of Peć.

The patriarchate was not officially abolished, but the power of the Serbian Orthodox Church fell increasingly to the Greek Archbishopric of Ohrid. Nevertheless, the Patriarchate of Peć was restored in 1557 by Sultan’s decree due to the influence of Grand Vizier Mehmed Pasha Sokolović (Islamized ethnic Serbs from East Bosnia) and thereafter managed to exercise its authority over the Serbs within the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Sultanate.[xi] However, after the First Great Serbian Migration of 1690 from KosMet and Central Serbia under the Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević (of Montenegrin origin), the Serbian Orthodox Church split into two parts: 1) the Patriarchate of Peć was responsible for the Ottoman Serbs, while 2) newly established Metropolitanate of Sremski Karlovci had jurisdiction over the Habsburg Serbs. Nevertheless, a Greek Patriarch of Constantinople abolished the Patriarchate of Peć on September 11th, 1766, and now no more than a little island of Christian Orthodoxy in a Muslim sea.[xii]

In the garden of the Patriarchate of Peć, there are beautiful and extremely valuable Serbian Christian Orthodox churches, veritable jewels of medieval Serbian art: The Church of the Holy Apostles (about 1253); the Church of St. Demetrius, built by Archbishop Nikodim in 1321−1324; and the Church of the Mother of God (Hodegetria), built by Archbishop Danilo II around 1330. However, according to Albanian Kosovo authorities today, all of, in fact, Serbian Christian Orthodox monuments in KosMet are built by ethnic Albanians or the Byzantine authorities but not by the Serbs. The ethnic Serbs left the town of Peć in June 1999 after the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops according to the Kumanovo Agreement.

The town of Peć (in Albanian, Peja, in Turkish Ipek) is of extreme importance for the Albanian nationalistic ideology and programs regarding the creation of a Greater Albania. The Second Albanian nationalistic organization – The League of Peja was established at a meeting of Albanian leaders (Muslim feudal lords) on January 23−29th, 1899 by the Muslim Albanian cleric and nationalist figure, Haxhi Zeka for the very purpose to recreate and reform the First Albanian League of Prizren (1878−1899). The League of Peja (known as Pledge for a Pledge) was attended by some 500 delegates of whom the biggest number arrived from KosMet, regardless of the very fact that the invitations have been sent to the leaders from all Albanian lands.

There were two crucial political-national aims of the League of Peja:

  1. The focal purpose of the Albanian League of Peja was to create a „besa“ – a general truce on feuding and warfare so that the Muslim Albanians could direct their national efforts on the creation of a Greater (Muslim) Albania within the Ottoman Empire rather than on fighting among themselves. Such Greater Albania had to be established by allegedly four „Albanian“ vilayets (Ottoman administrative districts) as it was fixed already by the First (Muslim) Albanian League of Prizren in 1878.
  2. The second purpose was to preserve the Muslim Albanians from the western-oriented Sultan’s reforms, which have been carried out in Istanbul in the favor of the Ottoman Christians and democratic liberalization of the Ottoman Sultanate.

The final program of the League of Peja came out with 12 points for the territorial creation of a Greater Albania within the Ottoman state with an expression of full loyalty to the Ottoman authorities. Nevertheless, the chief message was to preserve Muslim Albanians from Sultan’s pro-western reforms and to guard public order by – and to enforce Sharia Law.

Here, it has to be noticed that since the 1878 League of Prizren onward, any Albanian program on the creation of a Greater Albania was supported by unproven claims that the Albanians are direct descendants of the ancient Balkan Illyrians.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] On this issue, see more in [J. G. Fichte, Reden an die Deutsche Nation, Berlin, 1808; F. O. Walzel, German Romanticism, New York: Capricorn Books, 1966; F. Beiser, Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesis of Modern German Political Thought, 1790−1800, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992].

[ii] On the history of Yugoslavia, see in more detail in [B. Petranović, Istorija Jugoslavije, I−III, Beograd:Nolit, 1988; B. Petranović, M. Zečević, Agonija dve Jugoslavije, Beograd: IKP Zaslon, 1991].

[iii] It was done after a meeting of Albanian leaders in Bajrakli Mosque in Prizren. For the Serbs, Prizren is an “Imperial City” as it was the capital of the 14th century-Serbian Empire. According to historian Peter Bartl, the initiative for the creation of the First Prizren League came from Istanbul Albanians, i.e. from the Central Committee for Defence of the Rights of Albanian Nation [П. Бартл, Албанци од средњег века до данас, Београд: CLIO, 2001, 94]. The League was legally active from 1878 to 1881.

[iv] G. Castellan, History of the Balkans from Mohammed the Conqueror to Stalin, New York: Columbia University Press, 1992, 318−320.

[v] About Stefan Dušan and his Serbian Empire, see in [М. Стевановић, Душаново царство, Београд: Књига-комерц, 2001].

[vi] G. Barraclough (ed.), The Times Atlas of World History, Maplewood, New Jersey, US: Hammond, 141.

[vii] See the map in [A. Galimberti (ed.), Nuovissimo Atlante Storico Mondiale, Milano: Touring Club Italiano, 2001, 40−41].

[viii] R. Elsie, Historical Dictionary of Kosova, Lanham, Maryland‒Toronto‒Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2004, 145; B. V. Jokić (ed.), March Pogrom in Kosovo and Metohija, March 17−19, 2004, with a Survay of Destroyed and Endangered Christian Cultural Heritage, Belgrade: Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Serbia−Museum in Priština (displaced), 2004. About Albanian terror in KosMet after the Kosovo War, see more in [М. Чупић, Отета земља. Косово и Метохија (злочини, прогони, отпори…), Београд. Нолит, 2006; H. Hofbauer, Eksperiment Kosovo: Povratak kolonijalizma, Beograd: Albatros Plus, 2009; П. Пеан, Косово: „Праведни“ рат за стварање мафијашке државе, Београд: Службени гласник, 2013].

[ix] П. Бартл, Албанци од средњег века до данас, Београд: CLIO, 2001, 94−97.

[x] R. Elsie, Historical Dictionary of Kosova, Lanham, Maryland‒Toronto‒Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2004, 60−62.

[xi] В. Ћоровић, Историја Срба, Београд: БИГЗ, 1993, 415−421.  

[xii] М. Јовић, К. Радић, Српске земље и владари, Крушевац: Друштво за неговање историјских и уметничких вредности, 1990, 126−146.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Geopolitics and History: The Two Albanian Leagues (1878/1899) and “Greater Albania”
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***


British Cyprus

Akrotiri and Dhekelia, officially the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia[2] (SBA),[a] is a British Overseas Territory on the island of Cyprus. The areas, which include British military bases and installations, as well as other land, were retained by the British under the 1960 treaty of independence, signed by the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey and representatives from the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, which granted independence to the (then) Crown colony of Cyprus. (Wikipedia)


The US Air Force has had a base on British territory on Cyprus for nearly half a century, but its size is kept secret from the public on both sides of the Atlantic. Declassified now reveals the increasing US military presence on the Mediterranean island.

  • US Air Force is expanding its deployment on RAF’s Cyprus base to 129 airmen
  • New 147-room installation is being built by US military across 1.5 acres of British base to house its personnel at cost of $27m
  • US spy force, 1st Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron, is permanently deployed at the British base 
  • UK Ministry of Defence refuses to disclose number of US military personnel on the British territory—or if American bombing missions are flown from it
  • Pentagon claims it only has one airman on Cyprus—and ignores Declassified’s request for clarification
  • Top secret GCHQ document notes: “Cyprus hosts a wide range of UK and US intelligence facilities”
  • Cypriot working on the UK base area tells Declassified: “There is a big US presence, I don’t know how that works or why”

The US military is planning to deploy at least 129 airmen to British territory on Cyprus by next year, Declassified can reveal.

The number of US troops on the UK’s so-called Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs), which comprise 3% of Cyprus’s landmass, has long been secret.

“We do not propose to release the numbers of US personnel participating in current or future operational activities [on British Cyprus]”, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) recently told parliament.

The US Department of Defense (DoD), meanwhile, claims it only has 14 personnel deployed in Cyprus, including nine Marines and just one airman. The department did not respond to Declassified’s request for more information and comment.

But Declassified has seen a US Air Force (USAF) document with details of a construction project on RAF Akrotiri, the UK’s “extremely busy” air base on Cyprus from which it flies bombing sorties across the Middle East.

The document, prepared in March 2019, notes there were then 87 US airmen deployed to RAF Akrotiri in 2018, including 12 officers.

But the US planned to increase its personnel levels by 48% over the next six years. By 2024, the US plan was to have 129 airmen deployed to the base, 15 of them officers.

The real figure for US military personnel based on British Cyprus is likely to be higher.

There are multiple other garrisons and military installations across the two British SBAs – known as Dhekelia in the east of the island and Akrotiri in the west – and at the UK’s so-called “retained sites” in Cyprus proper. These likely host some US military personnel.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It’s of course in Pakistan’s objective national interests that it successfully clinches comprehensive economic and energy deals with Russia in order to relieve the pressure upon it caused by the cascading crises of the past year, but it’s also bittersweet that this is only just happening now. Had it occurred almost a year ago after former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s visit, then those aforementioned crises might never have transpired, or at least not as intensely as they did when it came to the economic and financial ones.

Russian-Pakistani Economic & Energy Cooperation Just Took A Great Leap Forward” in mid-January after the latest intergovernmental commission between these two non-traditional partners saw them agree to comprehensively expand related ties between them.

This was followed shortly thereafter by Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto visiting Moscow this week, almost one year after former Prime Minister Imran Khan (IK) did.

The two trips evoked a sense of déjà vu since they both concerned economic and energy cooperation, which each respective representative agreed to further expand with their Russian hosts. The difference between them, however, is the context in which they occurred as well as the outcome for each of them personally. IK coincidentally visited on the exact same day as Russia launched its ongoing special operation in Ukraine and Pakistan’s ties with the US were noticeably tense at the time.

He was swiftly deposed in early April through a US-orchestrated but superficially “democratic” post-modern coup that many suspect was supervised by former Chief Of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa. Ties with Russia were informally frozen while those with the US improved, at least rhetorically. Pakistan then descended into the post-modern dictatorship where it remains today amidst the global systemic transition to multipolarity chaotically accelerating towards uncertain ends.

Between then and now, cascading economic, financial, political, and security crises hit Pakistan, the roots of which predated last April’s post-modern coup in some sense (at least insofar as the interconnected economic and financial ones) but were indisputably exacerbated by it. The failure of IK’s replacements to clinch the preferential energy deal that he was negotiating with Russia, obviously due to US pressure, further worsened the hardships imposed upon average Pakistanis.

Nevertheless, Pakistan officially remained neutral in the New Cold War over the direction of the earlier mentioned global systemic transition between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the jointly BRICS– & SCO-led Global South of which Russia is a part by refusing to condemn Moscow at the UN. The appointment of new COAS Asim Munir in late November coincided with Pakistan seriously resuming its economic and energy talks with Russia that were unofficially frozen for the most part since last April.

It was in the run-up to that changing of the guard that the “official narrative” about Russian energy imports that was artificially manufactured by the post-modern coup regime after IK’s ouster began to change. Instead of continually to counterfactually insist that Pakistan couldn’t process Russian oil, they now predicted that a major energy deal could help resolve their country’s crisis. The US catalyzed this reversal by officially reassuring Pakistan in mid-October that such purchases aren’t sanctionable.

Washington reaffirmed this stance immediately prior to BBZ’s trip to Moscow, which can be interpreted as having given the greenlight for Pakistan to purchase Russian resources, unlike its previously presumed hostility to this course of action in the run-up to IK’s visit almost a year ago. What appears to have changed is that the US realized that Pakistan’s reliable access to discounted Russian resources is required to help keep its imported post-modern coup regime in power there.

In the last months of IK’s tenure, the US regarded such reliable access as a valve from rising domestic pressure brought about by Pakistan’s impending economic and financial crises at the time, which it subsequently sought to weaponize in the court of public perception to justify its post-modern coup. After having sabotaged those talks through his ouster, which were unofficially frozen in the aftermath, everything went into free fall.

On the one hand, this disastrous outcome served to enable the US to reassert its declining unipolar hegemony over the Pakistani state by making related relief such as that from the IMF or Russian energy deals dependent on America’s approval. On the other hand, however, it inadvertently contributed to the large-scale but purely peaceful protests led by IK after average Pakistanis realized that his replacements are incapable of improving the economy like they promised (and was why they claimed to oust him).

In such a situation, the most pragmatic recourse from the perspective of the US’ grand strategic interests was to greenlight the resumption of Pakistani-Russian energy talks in the hope that its restored regional proxy state could relieve some of the self-inflicted economic and financial pressure. Failure to do so could prompt further protests, which in turn might only be able to be put down with brutal force that would thus risk fully discrediting the post-modern coup regime in the eyes of the Western public.

It was therefore within this newfound context that BBZ visited Moscow almost a year after IK did and for the very same reason as that ousted leader, hence the déjà vu that keen observers are experiencing. The outcome of their respective trips is completely different though since the US approved BBZ’s energy talks with Russia while disapproving of IK’s, which is why the former isn’t at risk of being ousted like the latter ultimately was.

It’s of course in Pakistan’s objective national interests that it successfully clinches comprehensive economic and energy deals with Russia in order to relieve the pressure upon it caused by the cascading crises of the past year, but it’s also bittersweet that this is only just happening now. Had it occurred almost a year ago after IK’s visit, then those aforementioned crises might never have transpired, or at least not as intensely as they did when it came to the economic and financial ones.

The takeaway is that the damage inflicted upon Pakistan by the US-orchestrated but superficially “democratic” post-modern coup that many suspect COAS Bajwa oversaw against IK as punishment for his independent foreign policy was completely unnecessary and could have been avoided. The indisputable consequence is that this country is now altogether much weaker than it was a year ago, which confirms that those who overthrew him truly harmed Pakistan’s objective national interests.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia-Pakistan Relations in the Wake of Coup against Imran Khan
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

And now for some Tuesday humor, brought to you by the US Treasury Department, which sees no indication whatsoever that US funds have been misused in Ukraine, following last week’s massive political shake-up wherein some dozen top Ukrainian officials were booted from their posts amid persistent corruption, embezzlement and fraud allegations so glaring it even shocked the Ukrainians.

“We have no indication that U.S. funds have been misused in Ukraine,” Treasury spokesperson Megan Apper said in Treasury’s first comments since the ‘shock’ resignations.

In the official statement given to Reuters, the US government also hailed the supposed “safeguards” which the Ukrainians have put in place, though without actually specifying any: “We welcome the ongoing efforts by the Ukrainian authorities to work with us to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place so that U.S assistance reaches those for whom it is intended,” Apper said.

The statement fails to detail precisely how US authorities are tracking disbursement of the some tens of billions in funds that go from American Joe taxpayer, and into the pockets of the Zelensky government to dole out (other than referencing a digital system which supposedly monitors funds)…

Apper said the Treasury would continue to work closely with the World Bank on tracking U.S. disbursements “to confirm that they are used as intended, as well as with Ukraine and other partners to tackle corruption.”

Apparently totally unaware of the extreme irony, Reuters chooses to add the following facts for some further context and color to its report… and it’s perhaps all you need to know:

“Ukraine ranks 116 out of 180 countries on the annual Corruption Perceptions Index released Tuesday by Transparency International, up one ranking from last year.

“Its score on the index was 33 on a scale of 0-100, where 0 means highly corrupt and 100 means very clean.”

(…and note that Treasury Dept’s statement was issued on very day that the new corruption rankings came out… the “rise” on the index means Ukraine is supposedly ever-so-slightly less corrupt.)

But again, don’t worry – nothing to see here – the US Treasury is assuring that when it comes to the well over $100 billion in defense and other foreign aid pledged as well as the many billions distributed so far, Ukraine is “very clean”.

See our viral report from last week for a review of the high-ranking Ukrainian officials who were forced to resign–Ukraine Rocked By Corruption Scandal, Wave Of Top Officials Resign: Sports Cars, Mansions & Luxury Vacations As People Suffered.

As but one example, no less than the #2 defense minister was brought down. He had a direct hand in handling some of the very billions in US aid which the Treasury is now claiming was never misused. As we pointed out earlier…

According to AFP, “the defense ministry had earlier announced the resignation of deputy minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov, who was in charge of the army’s logistical support, on the heels of accusations it was signing food contracts at inflated prices.”

In the case regarding the food contracts, Shapovalov is accused of signing a deal with an unknown, shady firm. In his role as deputy defense minister, his is the most notable and visible resignation. Crucially he had no small part in overseeing the billions of dollars flowing from the pockets of US and European taxpayers as authorized defense aid.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

U.S. elites have predictably reacted with hysteria to China’s rise and could go so far as to provoke a world war to try to salvage their Southeast Asia empire—as the Roosevelt administration did with Japan on the eve of Pearl Harbor.

From 1991 to 2021 China achieved ten-fold growth in incomes and labor productivity, and a thirteen-fold increase in GDP—largely because of sound economic policies.

The country’s growing economic as well as technological primacy placed it in an increasingly strong position to create an East Asian economic and possibly a security bloc to pull Asian states out of their dependence on the West.

The former was in the process of being achieved with a) China’s creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which provided loans to other Southeast Asian countries without the same stipulations as those meted out by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank; and b) the advent beginning in 2013 of the One Belt-One Road Initiative (BRI), which has invested massively in infrastructural development projects in many different countries that are designed to tether their economies to that of China.

A.B. Abrams[1] points out in his book, Power and Primacy: A History of Western Intervention in the Asia-Pacific (New York: Peter Lang, 2022), that China is poised to achieve by cooperation in the next decade what Japan set out to achieve by coercion in the first three decades of the 20th century—the creation of a Southeast Asia power bloc capable of resisting Western empires that have ravaged Southeast Asia since the 16th century.

Predictably, U.S. elites have reacted to China’s rise not too differently than they did Japan’s—through a campaign of demonization and large-scale military buildup in the Asia Pacific along with the institution of economic warfare that threatens the outbreak of another world war.

Japan’s Empire Threatens to Undermine Western Primacy in Southeast Asia

Abrams provides a revisionist history of the Japanese empire at the turn of the 20th century that challenges the orthodox interpretation presenting Japanese leaders in the 1930s and 1940s as morally equivalent to Nazis and that blames Japan for the outbreak of World War II in the Pacific.

While the Japanese overreached and committed unconscionable atrocities, like in the Rape of Nanking, Japan’s Greater Co-Prosperity sphere—in which Japan colonized Taiwan and Korea and made moves to try to take over European colonies—provided a counterweight and challenge to Western imperialism and inspired Asian nationalists to overthrow the yoke of Western colonial rule.

Source: history.stackexchange.com

Historian Eri Hotta attributed the independence of Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Korea and Cambodia after World War II to the “psychological impact of Japanese victories over Western empires,” which had “defeated the idea of European supremacy” while “delegitimizing Western imperialism in the eyes of the Asian people.”

Japan had escaped the fate of other Southeast Asian countries in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries by adopting a strict policy of isolation under the Tokugawa Bakufu and successfully industrialized its economy following the Meiji restoration in the late 1860s while building a formidable military that defeated Russia in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War.

MIT Visualizing Cultures

In the Battle of Nanshan, Lieutenant Shibakawa Matasaburô leads his men and slaughters Russian troops holding up a rising sun (1904). The image is from a woodblock print from the collection of the Boston museum of Fine Arts. [Source: visualizingcultures.mit.edu]

Beginning in the early 20th century, Japan’s leaders saw the need for an empire of their own that could lead a new Asian renaissance. While political freedom was largely stifled, Taiwan and Korea experienced significant economic gains under Japanese rule marked by extensive industrialization and infrastructural development.

According to Abrams, the discrepancy in industrial development between Japanese and Western controlled territories in East Asia was tremendous, with Manchuria’s steel output coming to eclipse that of Japan itself.

The Sui-ho Dam in Korea under construction in 1942 when Japan ruled Korea. The dam was the second largest in the world. [Source: upload.wikimedia.org]

Japanese industrialization of the wider Southeast Asia region posed an imminent threat to Western interests by “ending the vast disparity between the industrialized west and the underdeveloped, non-western world.”

The Roosevelt administration responded by instituting a large-scale naval build-up in the Asia Pacific, along with a crippling oil embargo on Japan while banning steel exports, which it was known would lead to war.

Pacific War As Brutal Race War

Seen in proper historical context, the Pacific War was a war for empire, which resulted in the destruction of the U.S.’s imperial rival in the Asia-Pacific.

Charles Lindbergh, the famed aviator and member of the anti-interventionist America First Committee, wrote in 1969 that “more than a generation after the war’s end, our occupying armies still must occupy, and the world has not been made safe for democracy and freedom.”[2]

The thorough dehumanization of the Japanese during the war was epitomized by a U.S. Navy film which described them as “snarling rats.” Life magazine’s picture of the week in May 1944 showed a woman with a Japanese skull from her boyfriend autographed by him and thirteen others and inscribed: “This is a good Jap—a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.”[3]

During the firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945, the U.S. Air Force dropped half a million incendiary cylinders in one night alone, destroying the homes of 372,000 Japanese families and killing as many as 200,000 people, mostly from burning or asphyxiation. The huge number of bodies stopped the Sumida River entirely like some “hideous, grotesque beaver dam,” according to an eyewitness.

Black and white photo of people walking along a road passing through a large area of destroyed buildings

Road passing through part of Tokyo that was devastated in March 1945 by U.S. air raids. [Source: wikipedia.org]

A U.S. Army intelligence officer, Colonel Harry F. Cunningham, reported that “the entire population of Japan is properly a military target…there are no civilians. In Japan, we intend to seek out and destroy the enemy wherever he is, in the greatest possible numbers, in the shortest possible time.”

The violence in the Pacific War culminated with the dropping of the two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were unnecessary for the U.S. to win the war, but sent a signal to the Soviets not to mess with the boss of the new world order.

After the war, Japan evolved into a key U.S. client state hosting U.S. military bases that were used as launching pads for aggression across Southeast Asia.

During the U.S. military occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952, General Douglas MacArthur, head of the Supreme Command of the Allied Powers (SCAP), carefully vetted all the political candidates in elections that were rigged to favor the pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).[4] Journalist Robert Smith concluded that Japan at the time was “about as far from a democracy as could be conceived short of putting power back in the hands of the shoguns [the military rulers of Japan until 1861].”

General Douglas MacArthur with Emperor Hirohito after the Japanese surrender. [Source: wikipedia.org]

In 1983, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone referred to Japan as “America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Pacific.” The region had been transformed since the end of the Pacific War into what General MacArthur termed an “Anglo-Saxon lake”—a most dramatic transformation from the 1930s when Japan had challenged Western primacy.

Thirty-Year War to Destroy the People’s Republic

With Japan functioning as a U.S. client state, the banner of resistance to empire in Southeast Asia was picked up by communist China following the 1949 victory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) led by Mao Zedong in China’s civil war.

The United States during the civil war provided approximately $2 billion in military assistance to nationalist Guomindang leader Chiang Kai-Shek, who had split from the Maoists in the 1920s.

U.S. military forces bombed PLA strongholds and carried out severe reprisals against communist guerrillas who had sunk deep roots among the local population.

General David Barr, head of the U.S. military mission in China, concluded that the Guomindang’s defeat, despite marked superiority in all types of equipment, was the result of the “world’s worst leadership,” “widespread dishonesty and corruption in the armed forces,” and “many other morale destroying factors that led to a complete loss of will to fight.”

The communists under Mao’s leadership by contrast had worked to increase the living standards of China’s peasants and built a reputation for honesty, having transformed themselves into “China’s most dynamic political force.”

In the summer of 1949, the GMD leadership fled to Taiwan, taking numerous national and artistic treasures and China’s gold reserves with them.

Massacres carried out against the local population resulted in the death of at least 28,000 Taiwanese. Americans present in Taiwan equated the imposition of Guomindang rule with having “put all Formosans [Taiwanese] into slavery.”

“The Horrifying Inspection,” a woodcut by Taiwanese printmaker Li Jun. It shows a Guomindang soldier shooting a Taiwanese native, which was symptomatic of the period of white terror that is largely ignored in contemporary discussions about Taiwan. [Source: wikipedia.org]

CIA agent Ralph McGehee, who worked at the CIA station in Taiwan, stated that the CIA trained and equipped Special Forces in Taiwan who were dropped onto the Chinese mainland with instructions to develop resistance movements, carry out sabotage and psychological warfare operations, and gather intelligence on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The CIA at the same time began training remnants of the Guomindang in Myanmar (Burma) to mount incursions into Chinese territory, with weapons being flown into jungle airstrips built by U.S. engineers throughout Thailand.

The secret operations—funded in part through opium and which contributed to Myanmar’s destabilization— were exposed when two CIA agents, John Downey and Richard Fecteau were shot down while trying to smuggle arms and other military supplies into China in 1952 (they were released from captivity only in December 1971).[5]

From April 1951 through 1952 alone, the CIA spent $100 million buying enough arms and ammunition for 200,000 guerrillas.

In northwest China, the CIA recruited clans from the Muslim Hui minority commanded by tribal leader Mu Pu-Fang who had ties to the Guomindang.

CIA agent Douglas Mackiernan worked out of the Urumqi consulate under State Department cover in an attempt to activate Muslims in the Xinjiang province to “continue the civil war against the Chinese communists.”

Filling his jeep with weapons and gold bars, Mackiernan—the first CIA agent killed in action—relocated to Tibet, where the CIA launched a covert operation to train Tibetan separatist guerrillas, some of whom were transported to a military base in the mountains of Colorado whose high altitudes simulated those of their homeland.

Not quite the pacifists as they were portrayed in the Western media, the CIA’s Tibetan guerrillas sabotaged infrastructure, mined roads, cut communication lines and ambushed the PLA.

The establishment of the PRC ironically had freed Tibetans from feudal conditions under the ruling lamas. It also emancipated women and oversaw a surge in literacy rates and life expectancy, building many hospitals and schools.

The 14th Dalai Lama wrote years later that Western support for Tibetan separatism came “not because they cared about Tibetan independence, but as part of their worldwide efforts to destabilize all communist governments.” He also said that cooperation with the CIA “only resulted in more suffering for the people of Tibet.”

A Brutal History—That Explains a Lot About Today

The history of U.S. destabilization efforts in China, including through attempts to manipulate disaffected minorities and fortify a strategic base in Taiwan—which the Chinese consider to be part of the Chinese nation—helps explain many of China’s policies today along with those of Japanese leaders during the 1930s.

During the Korean War (1950-1953), General Douglas MacArthur advocated for a nuclear attack on China, which intervened to save the autonomy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

The Truman administration had justified its aggression in Korea by claiming that the DPRK—under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, the son of a prominent nationalist who led anti-Japanese guerrillas in Manchuria—was a puppet of the Soviets and Chinese, which was a myth.

Between 1946 and 1949, Kim’s administration earned significant domestic support by increasing industrial output by 340% and state industry by 420%, with salaries of North Korean factory and office workers increasing 83% in that time.

North Korean communist leader Kim Il-sung during his guerilla resistance years, February 1936 (colour litho)

Kim Il Sung depicted in the mid 1930s as an anti-Japanese guerrilla resistance leader. [Source: wilsoncenter.org]

After World War II, the Truman administration tried to impose a client government in South Korea under conservative Syngman Rhee, who presided over what Time magazine called “an economic wasteland” and massacred tens of thousands of his own people before the Korean War officially broke out.

Characterized by General Archer Lerch as “a man U.S. forces might have to lock up in jail,” Rhee had been flown into South Korea, after more than 25 years living in exile, on an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) plane by General Douglas MacArthur.

In the early morning hours of June 25, 1950, South Korea’s Office of Public Information reported a South Korean military attack on the border city of Haeju, which North Korea confirmed but South Korea later retracted.

A detailed study by historian Karunakar Gupta of the University of London found that South Korean government claims that their attack on Haeju had occurred much later were effectively impossible and that a South Korean attack likely did occur to precipitate the war.

Korean War | Combatants, Summary, Years, Map, Casualties, & Facts | Britannica

Source: britannica.com

After the U.S.-UN forces retook the offensive into North Korea following General MacArthur’s famous behind-enemy-lines landing at Inchon, many parts of North Korea were left a moonscape by ferocious U.S. bombing attacks.

General Matthew Ridgway said it was “destruction for destruction’s sake,” while Dean Rusk, the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs in 1950-1951, said that U.S. bombers would “attack everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.”[6]

U.S. troops in Korea generally behaved as they did in Japan: strafing refugees, massacring civilians, and committing large-scale rape. They also emulated Japanese practice in China by unleashing disease-infected insects over North Korea and China, while U.S. doctors performed sadistic medical experiments on captured North Korean and Chinese POWs.[7]

A depiction of the scene under the No Gun Ri Bridge from the 2009 South Korean feature film A Little Pond. U.S. troops massacred hundreds of civilians at No Gun Ri in one of the many massacres that took place during the war. [Source: wikipedia.org]

“Hundreds of My Lais”

The barbarous U.S. troop behavior during the Korean War set the groundwork for the Vietnam War where atrocities like My Lai—where U.S. troops shot up a village of 500 people—helped to ignite large-scale anti-war opposition.

Mỹ Lai massacre - Wikipedia

Victims of the infamous My Lai massacre. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Colonel David Hackworth, a Distinguished Service Cross recipient, noted that “Vietnam was an atrocity from the get-go…There were hundreds of My Lais. You got your card punched by the numbers of bodies you counted.”

Under the “mere gook rule,” it was “no crime to kill or torture or rob or maim a Vietnamese because he was a mere gook.”

Vietnamese girls were tortured with lit cigarettes and electricity and had their bodies mutilated after they were raped and killed. Infantryman Michael Farrell recalled: “Our platoon sergeant told us ‘if there’s a woman in a hootch, lift up her dress, you know, and tell by her sex; if it’s a man, kill him; and if it’s a female, rape her.’” The sergeant was a veteran of two previous wars, and may well have learned such practices in Korea, Okinawa or elsewhere

After the My Lai massacre was uncovered, a U.S. general named Willoughby characteristically asked: “What is all the fuss. In Korea we had My Lais all the time.”

Imperial Objectives

A key factor driving the atrocity-producing environment in Vietnam was the imperial context of the war, which most mainstream histories obscure.

The U.S. war objectives were to transform South Vietnam into a U.S. client state along the model of South Korea, Philippines and Indonesia, and a base for regional military operations, and to integrate South Vietnam’s economy with the regional power bloc led by Japan.

After bankrolling the French war effort, the Eisenhower administration artificially divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel, and blocked elections to reunify the country under nationalist Ho Chi Minh—who had led the liberation war against France and quoted from the U.S. Declaration of Independence in his September 1945 independence speech.

The Eisenhower administration also supported a client government in South Vietnam, led by Ngo Dinh Diem who had lived in exile during the 1st Indochina War, that favored Catholics over the majority Buddhists and tortured or killed all its political opponents.

When Diem lost his political utility, the Kennedy administration sponsored a coup against him that resulted in his death. The Johnson administration then fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident that made it appear that a U.S. naval vessel suffered an unprovoked attacked by North Vietnam in the South China Sea as a pretext for the major U.S. troop escalation.

Neocolonialism in the Philippines

The horrors of U.S. imperialism are well known by Filipinos who suffered first from the U.S. military invasion at the turn of the 20th century and from repeated U.S. counterinsurgency operations that helped to install a pro-American elite. Now, the U.S. is planning to build new military facilities in the Philippines in its effort to contain China and restore old bases.

After the Philippines gained its independence from Spain in 1898, the U.S. invaded the Philippines in order to establish a foothold in Southeast Asia and proceeded to kill more than 200,000 civilians. Historian George Taylor wrote that “demands were made of the Philippines [at the time] for the commercial advantage of the U.S. but none for the social and political advantage of the Philippines.”

Heavy social inequality after World War II led to the rise of the Hukbalahap, an agrarian reform movement that the CIA was sent to help suppress. CIA agent Edward Lansdale adopted brutal methods such as the vampire trick where dead Huks would be placed on poles in town squares and made to look like a vampire haunting the population if they continued to resist.[8]

Lansdale wrote the speeches for U.S. puppet Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957), who, with his successor Ferdinand Marcos (1965-1986), helped transform the Philippines into a staging ground for U.S. covert military operations across Southeast Asia during the Cold War. Which is what the Biden administration wants to turn it into again in the New Cold War under Marcos’ son, Bongbong, who was elected Filipino president last year.

The CIA and Genocide in Indonesia

Indonesia came into the CIA’s focus after the Korean War when the Agency realized that Indonesia had 20 billion barrels of untapped oil, a leader who spurned the U.S. (Sukarno, who headed the non-aligned movement), and a rising communist movement.

By the mid 1950s, the CIA had an active regime-change operation in place. The Agency provided $1 million to the Islamist Masyumi Party, which opposed Sukarno, and sought to manufacture a pornographic film superimposing Sukarno’s face onto that of one of the actors.

Sukarno claimed in 1958 that a CIA bombing attack killed more than 700 civilians after it struck a ship and a church, killing everyone onboard and inside—a claim that was supported by American sources.

In May 1959, the CIA’s air units bombed the Amban marketplace, killing dozens of civilians on their way to church on Ascension Thursday, a Christian holy day.

CIA pilot Allen Pope who was captured and imprisoned by the Sukarno regime, said years later that he had “enjoyed killing communists” and “liked to kill them any way he could get them.” In Pope’s assessment, Indonesia was a great success of U.S. foreign policy as “we knocked the shit out of them. We killed thousands of communists.”

On the night of September 30, 1965, General Suharto—who stole between $15 and $35 billion from the Indonesia treasury during his long rule lasting until 1998—used the pretext of a communist coup to seize power and try to wipe out the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).

Islamic groups participated in mass killings after their religious leaders spread word about the evils of the atheistic communist menace.

For years, the CIA and U.S. government had cultivated assets in the Indonesian military and police and had helped plan the coup by provoking tensions between the military and PKI. The CIA also supplied lists of dissidents who were targeted in the pogroms, which left between 500,000 and three million people dead.

Mary Vance Trent, the First Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, was characteristic in reporting to Washington that the elimination of the PKI and mass killing of civilians was a “fantastic switch which has occurred over ten short weeks.” She also wrote, in a December 1965 cable, about the “striking success” of the army’s campaign.

Suharto’s government opened Indonesia to foreign corporations and, during the Vietnam War, provided radars to the CIA that helped develop electronic warfare counter-measures against Soviet S-75 air defense systems adopted by the North Vietnamese, which helped facilitate mass bombings and napalm saturation of North Vietnamese cities.

CIA agent Ralph McGehee reported that the CIA had forged documents and falsified information to implicate the PKI in the phony coup plot that was used by Suharto and the Indonesian military as a pretext to seize power. McGehee also said that the Indonesia coup became a model for subsequent covert operations carried out by the CIA in Southeast Asia that also had a deadly societal impact.

Pivot to Asia and Looming Prospects of War

Abrams’ final chapter provides critical insights on the pivot to Asia policy, or large-scale regional military build-up, that was introduced symbolically in November 2011 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a U.S. naval destroyer in Manila Bay, the location for America’s original pivot to Asia in the 1898 Spanish-American Philippines war.[9]

All of a sudden at this time, the Obama administration and its successors promoted their concern about China’s alleged seizure of territorial islands in the South China Sea to which China in fact had long-standing historical claims going back to the Han dynasty 1,800 years ago.

China’s alleged seizure of these islands along with alleged human rights abuses toward the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang provided the pretext for greater U.S. military intervention along with China’s alleged crackdown on “pro-democracy” activists in Hong Kong and threatened aggression in Taiwan.

Since 2014, the U.S. has staged provocative military maneuvers preparing for war with China, while initiating an attempted economic blockade of the Strait of Malacca and ramping up economic warfare.

These measures are eerily similar to ones initiated by the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s that provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and world war in the Pacific.

The difference today is that U.S. economic warfare measures are largely counterproductive because of the dependence of the U.S. economy on China’s.

China has also eclipsed the U.S. in its military-technological capabilities and effectively cultivated regional allies through a soft-power approach under the BRI, while working toward interlinking regional economies in an anti-imperialist coalition that looks to be far more durable than that forged by Japan coercively in the 1930s.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. Abrams is the pseudonym for a former U.S. intelligence officer with deep experience in Southeast Asia who is a prolific writer on geopolitics and an astute political analyst. 

  2. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), 238. 
  3. President Franklin Roosevelt said of one skull sent to the White House: “This is the sort of gift I like to get…There will be plenty more such gifts.” 
  4. Nobusuke Kishi, Japan’s Prime Minister from 1957 to 1960, had served in the war-time cabinet of Hideki Tojo. 
  5. The covert war against China continued until about 1961, at which time most of the CIA advisers went to Laos where they organized opium-growing hill-tribes into a private army that fought the pro-communist Pathet Lao. 
  6. As much as 30% of the North Korean population was killed in the U.S. onslaught. A U.S. Marine wrote of these deaths in the following terms: “They’re just a bunch of gooks, who cares about the feelings of people like that.” 
  7. See Wilfred Burchett, This Monstrous War (Melbourne: Joseph Waters, 1953), https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/KoreanWar.pdf 
  8. Lansdale’s Filipinos tellingly were described as the type who would “slit their grandmother’s throat for a dollar eighty five.” They played a key role characteristically in the Phoenix program, a targeted assassination program during the Vietnam War that was used as a blackmail scheme by the South Vietnamese government. 
  9. See Jeremy Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2009), 193. 

Featured image is from scmp.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Appears Poised to Achieve Through Cooperation in the 21st Century What Japan Sought to Achieve Through Coercion in the 20th

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has criticized the decision by his NATO allies to provide Ukraine with over 300 heavy tanks to prolong the war against Russia, calling it a “high-risk move.”

“I personally can’t say that sending tanks will resolve this issue,” Erdogan told state broadcaster TRT during an interview on 1 February. “This is a high-risk endeavor and will only line the pockets of gun barons,” he added.

The Turkish leader also said his nation would continue talks with both Russia and Ukraine as part of efforts to find a path to peace.

Erdogan’s criticism of his western allies is the latest show of discord between Ankara and NATO, as over the past year, Turkiye has been holding up Sweden and Finland’s ascension to the war alliance.

The two Nordic nations formally applied to join NATO last May, abandoning decades of neutrality. Any country joining NATO requires the unanimous approval of member states.

Tensions recently spiked between Ankara and Stockholm after Danish-Swedish extremist Rasmus Paludan burned copies of the Quran on two separate occasions last week.

“Despite warnings, Sweden turned a blind eye to the Quran burning, and police protected the perpetrators. Hate crimes against Muslims are not acceptable,” Erdogan said, adding that “an apology from Sweden won’t fix issues.”

Earlier on Wednesday, Erdogan said Turkiye “looks positively” on Finland’s application for NATO membership, but does not support Sweden’s bid.

“Sweden should not bother to try at this point. We will not say ‘yes’ to their NATO application as long as they allow burning of the Quran,” Erdogan said during a speech in parliament.

Last month, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters that Stockholm wants to resume talkswith Turkiye.

“Our collective message is that we want to call for calm, for reflection, for calm in the process so that we can return to functioning talks between Sweden, Finland, and Turkiye on our common NATO membership,” Kristersson told reporters.

The US is Making Billions Being Warlords in Yemen

February 2nd, 2023 by Joziah Thayer

One of Biden’s promises during his presidential campaign was to immediately move to end all support for the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen.

In February 2021, Biden stood at a podium at the State Department and proclaimed that the war in Yemen must end.

Biden underlined the humanitarian crisis as the key reason the United States withdrew support.

An investigation (PDF) by the Government Accountability Office found that the United States is training the Saudi-led coalition, and the US has troops on the ground in Yemen.

Biden confirmed that the United States has troops in Yemen in a letter to Congress in June last year. Biden lied to the American people when he claimed that the United States was withdrawing US support for the war in Yemen in 2021.

On the contrary, the United States is making billions of dollars from the war in Yemen as 200k have been killed from direct violence. Between 2015 and 2021, the United States sent 54.2 billion dollars in weapons and services to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, according to data acquired from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. In addition, the Department of Defense provided 644 million dollars for military training to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, almost entirely through the Foreign Military Sales program. The DoD uses acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to bill nations for logistical support and items ranging from flying hours, fuel, and bombs. Saudi Arabia paid the United States 157 million dollars in flying hours, and the UAE paid 104 million for flying hours since the GCC-led invention in Yemen’s civil war in 2015. The United States billed Saudi Arabia and the UAE for 319 million dollars in acquisitions and cross-servicing agreements for logistical support.

The United States sent 18.6 billion dollars in missiles, 6.2 billion in aircraft, 3.3 billion in ships, and 2.8 billion in military training to attack one of the poorest nations in the world. As the Wikileaks Yemen Files prove, the United States was one the biggest supporters of the military in Yemen. Former president Saleh of Yemen was once considered a cornerstone in the War on Terror in the early 2000s and built the army to combat AQAP for many years in Yemen. The United States is well aware that the GCC-led coalition is not fighting an advanced military in Yemen from AQAP or the Houthis. Billions of dollars have been spent destroying Yemen, killing hundreds of thousands of people, but the Houthis still control Sanaa, and AQAP is still active in Yemen. The UN Security Council approved a resolution to blockade Yemen every year since 2015 to prevent arms from flooding the conflict; however, the embargo has only succeeded in starving the Yemenis into famine.

On a February 9th phone call in 2022 with the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud president Biden assured him that the United States would continue to support the war in Yemen. The phone call came one year after Biden lied to the American people and announced that the US was withdrawing its support of the war in Yemen.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s Defense Institute of International Legal Studies conducted training at the Saudi War College that focused on the law of armed conflict, including laws related to air-to-ground targeting, in May 2017, April 2018, June 2019, and May 2020. The DoD claims they are not responsible for civilian deaths because they provided the Saudis with training to avoid civilian casualties. Despite spending millions on preventing civilian deaths, 23,627 Saudi-led coalition air strikes since March 2015 have led to over 18,600 civilian casualties, according to the Yemen Data Project.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a report in January which outlines the consequences that US arms deliveries to Ukraine had on its own stockpiles. The conclusions of the report will surely galvanise factions in the US political system that are against the sending of arms to Ukraine because Washington is not prepared for a large-scale conflict with China.

According to the report’s authors, events in Ukraine make it clear that an armed conflict between two Great Powers is bound to develop into a protracted war, and not only on the battlefield, but also in industry, which must supply the front with everything it needs without interruption from arming soldiers to high-precision missiles and bombers.

Seth G. Jones, director of CSIS’s International Security Program, wrote in another report:

“As the war in Ukraine illustrates, a war between major powers is likely to be a protracted, industrial-style conflict that needs a robust defence industry able to produce enough munitions and other weapon systems for a protracted war if deterrence fails.”

He warned that the US defence industry lacks adequate surge capacity for a major war as it is operating in a peacetime situation rather than the current competitive security environment.

“The United States has been slow to replenish its arsenal, and the DoD (Department of Defense) has only placed on contract a fraction of the weapons it has sent to Ukraine,” Jones said.

These problems, he argued, are particularly concerning since China is heavily investing in munitions and acquiring high-end weapons systems five to six times faster than the US.

Currently there is an immediate demand for the M777 155mm howitzer in the US. The Pentagon has supplied Ukraine with more than 160 M777 howitzers, along with more than a million rounds of ammunition. In addition, the stockpile of Javelin ATGM (mainly fire control units and launchers), Stinger MANPADS and AN/TPQ counter-reaction radars are decreasing sharply. Ukraine has received more than 8,500 Javelin ATGMs, 1,600 Stinger MANPADS and 50 AN/TPQ counter-reaction radars.

According to the think tank, rapidly increasing production is impractical. However, they argue that Washington is taking steps in the right direction and can expect to triple their 155mm ammunition production within three years. None-the-less, the report calls for the hoarding of other critical weapons.

According to the CSIS report, the US will probably lose the war for Taiwan. A war over Taiwan would mainly take place in the air and at sea. In this context, it is unlikely that the US can supply weapons to the island because the People’s Liberation Army Navy will immediately blockade it.

The Pentagon has repeatedly hosted simulated war games to visualise how conflict with China would look. Results from war drill scenarios show that the key condition for victory is the destruction or serious weakening of China’s navy. However, simulations almost never lead to unconditional success as China has a strong air defence system, many warships and fighter jets.

According to analysts, in such conditions, the JASSM-ER stealth anti-ship missile becomes important because it can hit targets up to 925km away. However, in a war, hundreds would be needed every week, if not thousands, meaning that the JASSM-ER missile stockpile would run out in less than a week. In addition, it would take the US two years to restore the supply of the JASSM-ER missiles.

The Pentagon will soon encounter a shortage of SM-6 air defence missiles, as well as Tomahawk missiles for the Navy. A problem for the US Navy is that missile contracts are not always approved by Congress. In January, US Navy Commander Michael Gilday complained to reporters that a $33 million contract for 11 LRASM missiles had been rejected at the highest level.

Shortage of anti-ship missiles is not the only problem though, but also the means of carrying them. In 2021, the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute published a report concluding that the US could lose most of its aircraft if a conflict over Taiwan broke out.

The main problem, according to them, are the condition of refuelling planes far from home airfields. Fighter planes and bombers will not be able to hit targets at long distances. This is especially important in conflicts with countries with large territories, such as China. After the end of the Cold War, the US fleet of aerial refuelling aircrafts was nearly halved to 470. This number is clearly not enough for an all-out war with China over Taiwan.

It appears, according to the experts, that the US has very little prospect for victory in a war with China over Taiwan. These damning conclusions could galvanise factions in the US who oppose the sending of weapons to Ukraine, especially as there is a growing call to confront China instead of Russia.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CSIS Report: Ukraine-bound Munitions Deliveries Could Negatively Impact “U.S. Capabilities in War with China”?

UK Workers Launch Largest Strike in Over a Decade

February 2nd, 2023 by Julia Conley

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The walkout comes a day after members of Parliament approved an anti-strike bill that, if made into law, would enforce “minimum service levels” for railroads and emergency services, Julia Conley reports.

Roughly half a million British workers walked out on Wednesday in the country’s largest coordinated strike in more than a decade.

About 300,000 of the striking employees are educators, and they were joined by civil servants, railroad workers, university professors, London bus drivers, museum workers and border officials, among others, with 59 percent of Britons telling YouGov in a recent poll that they supported the walkout.

The strong support comes even as an estimated 85 percent of schools across the U.K. were closed on Wednesday. Students and parents stood on picket lines alongside teachers, whose wages have not kept up with inflation and who are struggling to teach in schools where per-pupil spending for the 2024-25 school year is now expected to be 3 percent lower than it was in 2010.

“It’s partly about pay, which has been reduced by 11% over the last 10 years,” Jon Voake, a drama teacher in South Gloucestershire, told The Guardian. “But it’s also about how our workload’s going up. We’re all working with bigger groups. Children’s education is going to suffer and enough is enough.”

In the most economically deprived parts of the country, the National Education Union said, teachers’ pay has gone down by more than 20 percent since 2010 as the rate of inflation in the U.K. stands at 10.5 percent —”the highest among the G7 group of advanced economies,” according to Al Jazeera.

“We’re struggling,” a London teacher named Mehnaz told Tribune magazine last October. “Many of us are living in cold homes because we need to save wherever we can … I know colleagues who are worried about how they’ll pay their rent or their mortgage, or how they’ll be able to afford childcare when they’re at work because their children’s schools are also having to reduce hours and close earlier than they previously did.”

         National Education Union strike and rally, London, Feb. 1. (Steve Eason, Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)

Strike organizers said it’s entirely within the  Conservative government’s power to ensure public sector employees are paid fairly .

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) says that the average public sector worker in the U.K. now has $250 less per month than they did in 2010, accounting for inflation. A graph the organization shared on social media as the workers walked out showed that teachers’ real compensation is now far lower than the range among other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

A 5 percent pay raise offered to public sector workers last year is actually a 7 percent pay cut when accounting for soaring inflation, union leaders say.

The walkout comes a day after members of Parliament passed an anti-strike bill that would enforce “minimum service levels” in a railroad sector and emergency services, threatening workers with termination if they take part in a work stoppage.

The bill still needs to pass in the House of Lords before becoming law. The TUC has said it could take the government to court over the proposal, which TUC assistant general secretary Kate Bell told The Guardian is “unnecessary, unfair, and almost certainly illegal.”

Ambulance drivers and nurses are reportedly planning to stage a work stoppage in the coming days.

Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told public health workers on Monday, “I would love, nothing more would give me more pleasure than, to wave a magic wand and have all of you paid lots more” — but organizers and labor advocates on Wednesday said Sunak’s government simply needs to change its tax policies to mitigate the cost-of-living crisis.

    U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on right, visiting University Hospital of North Tees, Jan. 31. (No 10 Downing, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

“We just need a fair taxation system,” John McDonnell, a Labour MP and former shadow chancellor of the exchequer, told The Guardian. He called on the Tories to tax capital gains at the same level of income to pay for raises. “The issue at the moment is that we seem to have a government that is redistributing wealth upwards,” McDonnell said.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, told The Guardian that the Tories have claimed it would cost £29 billion ($35 billion) to give raises to public sectors, while the actual amount is about £10 billion ($12 billion).

“And £10 billion in an economy like ours can easily be found,” said Serwotka.

Mick Lynch, secretary general of the National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers, rallied thousands of teachers outside Downing Street in London.

“We are the working class, and we are back,” said Lynch. “We are here, we are demanding change, we refuse to be bought, and we are going to win for our people on our terms.”

 

Julia Conley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

This article is from  Common Dreams.

Biomedical Security State, British Edition

February 2nd, 2023 by Dr. Aaron Kheriaty

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First, by way of contextual backdrop, let me offer a quick recap of some relevant developments, which I describe in more detail in The New Abnormal:

  • November 2021: As reported by the New York Times, the Israeli government issued emergency pandemic legislation permitting Shin Bet (their equivalent of the CIA), to access mobile phones and extract track and trace data from suspected covid patients without their knowledge or consent.
  • December 2021: Canada’s Public Health Agency confirmed that it had been extracting mobile phone data from the outset of pandemic to covertly track citizens’ movements, again without their knowledge or consent. Unlike Israel, this was not done legislatively or publicly. The agency confirmed that it planned to expand and continue this program until 2026.
  • May 2022: Vice broke story that over the past two years, “The CDC tracked Millions of Phones to See If Americans Followed COVID Lockdown Orders.” The CDC used phone location data to, among other things, monitor citizens movements at schools and churches. They confirmed plans to use the data for applications beyond covid in coming years. Researchers from Princeton demonstrated that with only four location data points, the supposedly anonymized data could easily be connected to specific persons.
  • Evidence also emerged last year that the CIA has been using unauthorized digital surveillance to spy on Americans. Two members of Senate Intelligence Committee warned that “documents reveal serious problems associated with warrantless backdoor searches of Americans.”

Not to be left out of the digital panopticon game, news from Britain broke this week with the following headline:

The article begins:

A shadowy Army unit secretly spied on British citizens who criticised the Government’s Covid lockdown policies, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Military operatives in the UK’s ‘information warfare’ brigade were part of a sinister operation that targeted politicians and high-profile journalists who raised doubts about the official pandemic response.

They compiled dossiers on public figures such as ex-Minister David Davis, who questioned the modelling behind alarming death toll predictions, as well as journalists such as Peter Hitchens and Toby Young. Their dissenting views were then reported back to No 10 [Downing Street, the office of the British Prime Minister].

Documents obtained by the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, and shared exclusively with this newspaper, exposed the work of Government cells such as the Counter Disinformation Unit, based in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Rapid Response Unit in the Cabinet Office.

But the most secretive is the MoD’s 77th Brigade, which deploys ‘non-lethal engagement and legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of adversaries’.

As happened with so many of our federal agencies in the US, which have strayed beyond their original mission of protecting citizens from foreign threats to protecting the state from its own citizens, we see the following developments in the UK:

According to a whistleblower who worked for the brigade during the lockdowns, the unit strayed far beyond its remit of targeting foreign powers.

They said that British citizens’ social media accounts were scrutinised – a sinister activity that the Ministry of Defence, in public, repeatedly denied doing.

Papers show the outfits were tasked with countering ‘disinformation’ and ‘harmful narratives… from purported experts’, with civil servants and artificial intelligence deployed to ‘scrape’ social media for keywords such as ‘ventilators’ that would have been of interest.

The information was then used to orchestrate Government responses to criticisms of policies such as the stay-at-home order, when police were given power to issue fines and break up gatherings.

It also allowed Ministers to push social media platforms to remove posts and promote Government-approved lines.

The Army whistleblower said: ‘It is quite obvious that our activities resulted in the monitoring of the UK population… monitoring the social media posts of ordinary, scared people. These posts did not contain information that was untrue or co-ordinated – it was simply fear.’

Last night, former Cabinet Minister Mr Davis, a member of the Privy Council, said: ‘It’s outrageous that people questioning the Government’s policies were subject to covert surveillance’ – and questioned the waste of public money.

Our Missouri v. Biden case and the Twitter Files have revealed these kinds of surveillance and censorship policies to be operating in the US, as I have previously written about here.

This latest story suggests the British government has likewise been engaging in the same totalitarian policies against its own citizens.

I am reminded here of CISA, a little known U.S. government agency that’s been around for only about six years. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency was originally set up to protect us from cyberattacks—malware, computer viruses, etc. But a year or so into their existence, CISA leadership decided that their real mission was combatting another kind of threat, which they called—in a brilliant Orwellian euphemism—domestic threats to our “Cognitive Infrastructure”.

Now, just what does this refer to? The new dangerous threats to our cognitive infrastructure are your thoughts, your ideas, the things you express for example on Twitter or Facebook or in the newspaper. With this sleight-of-hand, CISA quickly positioned itself to become the thought police at the center of the US government’s illegal censorship regime.

But back to the UK. The article describes the targeting of one of my favorite British journalists, Peter Hitchens:

Mail on Sunday journalist Mr Hitchens was monitored after sharing an article, based on leaked NHS [British National Health Service] papers, which claimed data used to publicly justify lockdown was incomplete. An internal Rapid Response Unit email said Mr Hitchens wanted to ‘further [an] anti-lockdown agenda and influence the Commons vote’.

Writing today, Mr Hitchens questions if he was ‘shadow-banned’ over his criticisms, with his views effectively censored by being downgraded in search results.

He says: ‘The most astonishing thing about the great Covid panic was how many attacks the state managed to make on basic freedoms without anyone much even caring, let alone protesting. Now is the time to demand a full and powerful investigation into the dark material Big Brother Watch has bravely uncovered.’

The whistleblower from 77 Brigade, which uses both regular and reserve troops, said: ‘I developed the impression the Government were more interested in protecting the success of their policies than uncovering any potential foreign interference, and I regret that I was a part of it. Frankly, the work I was doing should never have happened.’

The source also suggested that the Government was so focused on monitoring critics it may have missed genuine Chinese-led prolockdown campaigns.

Silkie Carlo, of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘This is an alarming case of mission creep, where public money and military power have been misused to monitor academics, journalists, campaigners and MPs who criticised the Government, particularly during the pandemic.

‘The fact that this political monitoring happened under the guise of ‘countering misinformation’ highlights how, without serious safeguards, the concept of ‘wrong information’ is open to abuse and has become a blank cheque the Government uses in an attempt to control narratives online.

‘Contrary to their stated aims, these Government truth units are secretive and harmful to our democracy. The Counter Disinformation Unit should be suspended immediately and subject to a full investigation.’

If you scroll to the bottom of the article, you’ll find that the Mail also published an accompanying commentary from the anonymous whistleblower,

This snooping was wrong, it hangs over my proud Army career like a black cloud,”

and a commentary from Peter Hitchens,

“How shadowy censors tried to remove my ‘unhelpful’ Covid views from YouTube”.

In Britain, Orwell’s country of origin, seven decades after the publication of 1984, it turns out that Big Brother is Always Watching. Perhaps this is a good moment to remind everyone that Orwell’s classic dystopian novel was meant to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biomedical Security State, British Edition

A new wave of activity is expected for the Russian special military operation during February. The recent changes in the command of the operation appear to have been carefully planned in order to elevate the combat to a new level and several of Moscow’s strategic objectives may soon be achieved, radically changing the course of the conflict.

According to information provided by Russian military, a major offensive is being prepared for the period between February and early March. The informants say that the objectives will be:

1. Reaching the borders of the regions recently reintegrated into the Russian Federation, pacifying the new oblasts;

2. capturing Nikolaev, Odessa, as well as the entire Black Sea coast, reaching Transnistria;

3. seizing Kiev, forcing a political capitulation of the neo-Nazi regime until early March.

The territory of Belarus will become the main springboard for the upcoming strike. Mobilized Russian servicemen are being trained in training camps in Belarus, where heavy military equipment and combat aircraft are concentrated. A large bombardment force is in readiness for action. Also, Russian forces in Belarus have been collecting strategic information on the location of Ukrainian units, mainly about Kiev’s air defense, gathering intelligence data that will be used to plan the attacks.

In parallel to Belarus, Zaporozhye and Lugansk are also key zones for the Russian strategy. It is expected that massive attacks will come from these regions during the offensive, destroying enemy units in a short period of time which will allow a rapid Russian advance on the battlefield, reaching the zones listed in the above-mentioned objectives.

Sources also report that for the offensive to be successful Russian forces will focus on blocking all enemy’s supply lines. The main route of arrival of supplies to Ukraine is the border with Poland, where there is the transit of NATO’s ammunition and military equipment.

In fact, the battlefield conditions seem favorable for these objectives to be achieved. The Ukrainian forces are currently exhausted and weak. On the other hand, the mobilized Russian soldiers are fully prepared to engage in high-intensity combats. In addition, Russian artillery positions in Belarus and in the liberated territories have a privileged location, which significantly increases the chances of victory in the coming offensive.

Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, was promoted to the position of Commander of the Joint Forces of the Russian Federation in the Special Military Operation Zone. Gerasimov’s arrival to power seems to have been a move towards the final stage of the special military operation.

His predecessor, General Surovikin played an important role while in command. A veteran of Chechnya and Syria and having extensive experience in counterterrorism, Surovikin was appointed to the post at a time when Ukrainian terrorist actions were on the rise. He fulfilled the goal of neutralizing the enemy’s offensive potential with his strong actions on the Ukrainian critical infrastructure, at the same time that he saved thousands of Russian lives with his policy of avoiding trench warfare and prioritizing long-distance bombing. Now, however, the special military operation needs a new direction.

And this was the main reason for the appointment of Valery Gerasimov. As Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, he is undoubtedly the most prestigious Russian officer and therefore the right man to lead the operation’s most decisive moves. The objective now is no longer to break the enemy’s offensive potential, but to force Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime into capitulation through a huge offensive.

After so many Russian attempts to negotiate a peaceful resolution, with the Ukrainian government ignoring them and insisting on an irresponsible military campaign, now there seems to be no other possible end to the conflict than a Russia’s offensive strong enough to liberate the entire Ukrainian coastline and capture Kiev.

Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,  geopolitical analyst, frequent contributor to Global Research

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

Today I received reports that Dutch pro cycling star Lieuwe Westra (40) and University of Arizona star swimmer, Ty Wells (23) have, in recent days, died suddenly. Judging by media reporting, the cause of their deaths is unknown. The two great athletes—both at the pinnacle of human fitness—apparently just died.

News of their deaths reminded me of a new book that I’ve been meaning to review for the last six weeks. The only reason I’ve hesitated is that this particular book strikes me as one of the most momentous ever written, so strange that it almost defies belief. The story it tells seems like something out of a dystopian science fiction novel, but in fact it falls squarely within the true crime genre.

At its heart is a mystery that now confronts all of mankind. Something out there—some horrible agent that entered the world in 2021—is killing humanity’s fittest. What could it be? What could be causing this “Epidemic of Sudden Deaths,” to quote the subtitle of Edward Dowd’s new book, CAUSE UKNOWN.

As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. introduced the author in the book’s Forward:

Among the world’s towering financial titans is BlackRock, a company with a bigger economy than every country on Earth except the U.S. and China. They manage $10 trillion in assets. In 2002, BlackRock recruited the brilliant Wall Street careerist, Edward Dowd, and soon promoted him to serve as Managing Director. Turns out BlackRock made a very good bet on Ed Dowd: The Growth Fund he managed started at $2 billion; by the time he left BlackRock it was at $14 billion. His work with BlackRock required a keen ability to understand markets, pick stocks, analyze statistics, and identity trends.

In 2021, Dowd found himself withdrawing from Wall Street to study an entirely new kind of trend: the expanding and tragic epidemic of sudden deaths among healthy young people.

CAUSE UNKNOWN presents the results of Dowd’s investigation. Since I received my copy, I have tried very hard to play the Devil’s Advocate against it, but in the final analysis, the “tragic epidemic of sudden deaths among healthy young people” cannot be a fluke of increased detection and reporting, hyper-vigilance, or confirmation bias. What Mr. Dowd documents is terrifyingly real.

What, Dowd asks, was introduced into our world in 2021, when the epidemic began? Like all good true crime authors, he doesn’t jump to conclusions, but does a terrific job of collating and analyzing the evidence.

Judging by the Afterword by Gavin de Becker—founder of Gavin de Becker Associates—Dowd was assisted by one of the world’s most capable investigators. Mr. de Becker’s 1997 book, Gift of Fear, is widely considered the most insightful ever written on the subject of identifying and assessing mortal dangers.

I won’t spoil the ending by revealing Mr. Dowd’s thesis of what is causing the epidemic of sudden deaths among young people. Regular readers of this Substack won’t be surprised, but they will still be stunned by the book’s meticulous documentation of the global catastrophe, and saddened by its page after page of smiling children and youths who are no longer with their parents, siblings, and friends.

I especially recommend the book to all of the coroners and medical examiners of the world who—for whatever reasons—seem to remain clueless.

Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022, (Skyhorse Publishing/Children’s Health Defense) Hardcover – December 13, 2022, by Ed Dowd (Author), Gavin de Becker (Afterword), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Foreword).

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021-2022

African Americans and the United States Civil War

February 2nd, 2023 by Abayomi Azikiwe

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***
By 1860, the dominant industry within southern agriculture was cotton production which utilized the unpaid labor of Africans on lands which were stolen from the Indigenous people of North America.
 .
During that presidential election year the issue of the expansion of slavery as an economic system underlined the struggle over who would become the leader of the U.S. and serve as the command-and-chief in the coming four year war which left hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced.
 .
The military outcome of the civil war resulted in the legislative abolition of African enslavement by Congress in 1865. Nonetheless, the question of the future role and status of the nearly four million people and another 500,000 of their kindred who were designated as free persons of color, remains unanswered until today some 160 years since the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.
 .
A series of Southern state-engineered referendums on secession from the U.S. were held during late 1860 and early 1861. In April of that year, the dominant political forces in South Carolina refused to allow their military units to be mobilized by the administration of President Abraham Lincoln to defend what the government considered to be the territorial integrity of the U.S. Lincoln ordered the attack on Fort Sumter and the war would begin.
 .
Developments in the war between the U.S. and the Confederate States of America (CSA) in 1861 and the first half of 1862 raised doubts as to whether the Union forces could prevail against the slave-holding class. Although the war had been framed as a conflict pitting southern slave-owning states against their northern free labor counterparts, there were many within the North who maintained sympathies for the Confederacy.
 .
In addition, there were those whites in the northern states who rejected the prospect of joining the Union military forces in a war which was perceived as a campaign to end slavery. Concurrently, when the war erupted, thousands of enslaved and free Africans fled to the Union military installations seeking to volunteer for service in Lincoln’s forces.
 .

Resistance to Enslavement and the Arming of Black Union Troops

 .
The notion of providing arms and legal protection to utilize them in a war which would determine the political status of the African people inside the country stoked fear among broad sections of the ruling class. As early as 1792, a federal law barred Africans from bearing arms for the U.S. military. This was declared even though Africans did participate on both sides during the War for Separation from Britain (1776-1783) and later in the War of 1812.
 .
Despite the racist propaganda that people of African descent were inherently inferior to Europeans, the white slavocracy and burgeoning northern industrialists remembered quite well the periodic revolts waged to put an end to human bondage. The legacies of the Louisiana Coast rebellion of 1811 which was influenced by the Haitian Revolution of 1791-1804; the Denmark Vesey insurrection plot of 1822 in South Carolina; Nat Turner’s crusade to cease arms to carry out a full blown anti-slavery war in 1831; to the attacks at Harper’s Ferry led by John Brown, Osborn Anderson and their compatriots in 1859 ,were very much in the uppermost of the minds of the slave owning class.
 .
Resistance to enslavement by Africans has been well documented in the innumerable ads taken out in mainstream newspapers seeking the recapture of people who were fleeing the plantations and other bases of exploitation. The existence of laws and executive orders by local, state and federal governmental structures which restricted the movement of Black people were numerous from the times of British colonialism through the antebellum period.
 .
The decision to enlist African men and women into the Union war efforts was done out of military necessity. The Lincoln administration had been under pressure to recruit African soldiers and operatives by leaders such as abolitionist and journalist Frederick Douglass who emphatically stated:
 .
“Once let the Black man get upon his person the brass letter, U.S. let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship.”
.
 .
Frederick Douglass
 .
When General John C. Fremont in Missouri and General David Hunter in South Carolina issued proclamations that emancipated enslaved Africans in their military regions and permitted them to enlist in the Union military, their orders were overridden by superiors. However, by mid-1862, there was the decline of white volunteers amid the growing demands for personnel to staff the war machinery.
 .
Therefore, a background report written by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, emphasizes that:
 .
“As a result, on July 17, 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, freeing slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army. Two days later, slavery was abolished in the territories of the United States, and on July 22 President Lincoln presented the preliminary draft of the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet. After the Union Army turned back Lee’s first invasion of the North at Antietam, MD, and the Emancipation Proclamation was subsequently announced, Black recruitment was pursued in earnest. Volunteers from South Carolina, Tennessee, and Massachusetts filled the first authorized Black regiments. Recruitment was slow until Black leaders such as Frederick Douglass encouraged Black men to become soldiers to ensure eventual full citizenship. Two of Douglass’s own sons contributed to the war effort. Volunteers began to respond, and in May 1863 the Government established the Bureau of Colored Troops to manage the burgeoning numbers of Black soldiers.” (https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war)
.
.
At the conclusion of the civil war in April 1865, some 179,000 African men had served as soldiers in the Army constituting approximately 10% of the enlisted. Another 19,000 carried out their service in the Navy. African women who could not formally enlist in the military, however, contributed immensely to the defeat of the Confederacy as intelligence operatives, scouts, medical workers and laborers. Perhaps one of the most well-known participants in the Union military forces was anti-slavery fighter Harriet Tubman from the state of Maryland.
 .
 .
Harriet Tubman
 .
Black soldiers were subjected to racial discrimination inside the Union military. Initially they were given less pay and substandard equipment and living conditions. Those African enlisted personnel would face harsher treatment when captured by Confederate military units and were subjected to torture and re-enslavement.
.
Despite these difficulties, the African soldiers and other participants in the Union war effort engaged militarily with Confederate forces in battles at Milliken’s Bend in Louisiana; in Petersburg, Virginia; and in Nashville, Tennessee. In July 1863, an assault on Fort Wagner, South Carolina, by the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, resulted in the deaths of two-thirds of their officers and half of the troops. By the conclusion of the war, 16 Black soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor for their work in the war.
.
Over and above the role of Africans enlisted in the Union forces and other personnel, it was the enslaved people overall who in great numbers collectively rejected the system of human bondage. A tradition of flight, rebellion and sabotage against enslavement proved critical in the destruction of the antebellum economy.
 .
The challenge after the civil war was the reconstruction of democratic governance in a manner in which African Americans would achieve full equality and the right to self-determination. With the defeat of the slavocracy, the debate would be centered around the future rights and responsibilities of the people of African descent.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Russia wouldn’t have promoted this former ambassador’s critical reaction to Lula’s proposal via one of its publicly financed international media flagships if it contradicted the Kremlin’s informal views towards this matter.

Newly re-elected and now three-time Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, popularly known as Lula, suggested during a recent press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that a G20-like structure be assembled for reviving the Russian-Ukrainian peace process. His most passionate supporters on social media spun this as supposed proof that his multipolar vision remains perfectly aligned with Russia’s despite evidence to the contrary, but Moscow just indirectly contradicted this.

Publicly financed TASS published the reaction of the Lugansk People’s Republic’s (LPR) former Ambassador to Russia Rodion Miroshnik, who threw cold water on Lula’s proposal. Before quoting that diplomat, whose region is now formally a part of Russia, it’s important to draw attention to the fact Moscow wouldn’t have promoted his critical reaction via one of its publicly financed international media flagships if it contradicted the Kremlin’s informal views towards this matter.

With that in mind, here’s what Miroshnik said: “Prospects for ‘Brazilian format’ talks the way Brazilian President [Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva] sees them look slim to me. The Brazilian leader can only be praised for striving to make a contribution to ending the bloodshed, but the quality of opponents in proposed talks raises questions…It is really prestigious to be a peacemaker, for the role can give you extra clout internationally, especially when there is nothing to it.”

Reading between the lines, which admittedly isn’t difficult to do since Miroshnik didn’t exactly mince his words, it’s evident that Russia believes that Lula is just trying to promote himself internationally. Anyone with even the most elementary understanding of the Ukrainian Conflict would know that a G20-like peace proposal is fated for failure since there’s no way that some of the implied parties would ever agree to anything other than Russia’s complete strategic capitulation.

Brazil’s world-class diplomats are obviously aware of this, as is Lula, especially considering the keen observer of International Relations that he is. This in turn leads to the conclusion that his intentions in proposing this doomed-to-fail G20-like structure aren’t sincere but rather completely driven by his political self-interests in promoting his return to the world stage, especially in the eyes of the US-led West’s Golden Billion that would benefit from manipulating his proposed peace process.

There’s no point in Russia wasting value diplomatic time entertaining this possibility, yet it also can’t officially dismiss it out of hand either lest it inadvertently offend its fellow BRICS partner. For that reason, Moscow arguably responded indirectly by having publicly financed TASS amplify the former LPR Ambassador to Russia’s critical reaction to Lula’s proposal, which should be interpreted as having been done with a wink and a nod from the Kremlin due to the two players involved, TASS and that diplomat.

Looking forward, Lula will probably continue pushing this proposal despite the practical impossibility of any tangible progress ever being made on it since his political interests are served by doing so exactly as Miroshnik very strongly suggested. Russia might officially pay lip service to his superficially well-intended attempt to broker peace between it and Ukraine, but its policymakers know that he’s only making a spectacle out of this in order to give himself extra clout internationally.

The possibility of splintering China apart into separate regions, outside of Beijing’s influence, has been an integral part of American foreign policy ever since the end of the 1940s, when China exited Washington’s control following the communist revolution. 
 
The 1949 communist takeover of China was termed in imperialist language as the “loss of China” in Washington. China’s revolution was lamented by American politicians as a major blow to United States power, which it undoubtedly was, after China had been a Western client nation for many years. 
 
The Harry Truman administration (1945–53), severely criticised for “losing China”, made concerted efforts to undermine America’s new rival. Between 1949 and 1951, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) increased the number of its operatives tenfold which were engaged in covert actions relating to China. (1) 
 
The CIA budget, for activities against China, reached 20 times greater than the sum of money expended on the 1953 US/British-backed overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh’s government in Iran. (2) 
 
Scanning maps of east Asia, US government strategists were inevitably drawn towards Tibet, in south-western China, as an area of critical importance. The Tibetan landmass, which is recognised internationally to be within China’s frontiers, is the highest in the world, and it has an average altitude of over 4,300 metres above sea level. At 1.2 million square kilometres in size, the region of Tibet is more than twice larger than France; but it doubles to 2.5 million square kilometres, by taking into account much of the surrounding Tibetan Plateau which is scarcely inhabited by humans. 
 
 
It should be noted, in modern history, that Tibet was under effective Chinese control for almost two centuries (from 1720–1912), during the Manchu-led Qing dynasty of China. 
 
After the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1912, the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, announced de facto Tibetan independence in early 1913. The Dalai Lama insisted that he was assuming spiritual and political leadership of Tibet, outside of China’s auspices. In the autumn of 1950, now a year in power, the Chinese leader Mao Zedong and his entourage – viewing Tibet as consisting of China’s historical territory – dispatched an army of 40,000 men to subdue the Tibetan independent forces, and to reintegrate Tibet to China’s authority. 
 
Beijing went a long way to achieving its ambition in Tibet through military force, during the Battle of Chamdo (6–24 October 1950), which took place in eastern Tibet and resulted in a decisive Chinese victory. The Tibetan fighters were greatly outnumbered, and around 3,000 of them ended up surrendering to the Chinese troops. 
 
The 14th (and current) Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, stressed that the Chinese soldiers did not attack Tibetan civilians in Chamdo, and he said they “were very disciplined” and “distributed some money” to the locals (3). Tibet was officially reincorporated or annexed to China just 7 months later, in May 1951. 
 
Beijing’s military offensive in Tibet was immediately condemned by China’s neighbour, India, as being “deplorable” and “not in the interest of China or peace” (4). This position was strongly supported by India’s allies, America and England. Not mentioned was that the Western-backed Chinese politician, the anti-communist Chiang Kai-shek, had previously stated his desire for the restoration of Tibet to China’s control. 
 
On 20 December 1941, Chiang Kai-shek wrote in his diary that Tibet should be claimed by China once the Second World War is over, along with other regions like Xinjiang and Outer Mongolia. In 1942, Chiang Kai-shek then drew up plans for the return of Taiwan and Manchuria to China. (5) 
 
From late 1950 the US Congress, meanwhile, considered Tibet to be a region occupied by China and which was entitled to self-determination. Tom Lantos, an American politician with the Democratic Party noted, “Only when Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party came to power, and Washington broke diplomatic relations with Beijing, did sympathy for the Tibetans begin showing up at the State Department”. (6) 
 
It was around this time, from the beginning of the 1950s, that the Dalai Lama started to receive funding from the CIA; although the Dalai Lama may actually have been obtaining CIA money from the late 1940s, and he later maintained contact with CIA agents operating freely in Tibet. (7) 
 
From 1956, when anti-Beijing revolts broke out in the eastern Tibetan regions of Amdo and Kham, the CIA became actively involved in assisting the rebellions (8). From 1956 to 1957, the CIA trained between 250 to 300 “Tibetan freedom fighters” within the United States itself, at Camp Hale in the state of Colorado, astride the southern part of the Rocky Mountains. At Camp Hale, which was constructed for the US military in 1942, the Tibetan rebels were trained and organized under the supervision of Bruce Walker, a CIA officer. 
 
Following completion of training at Camp Hale, the Tibetan insurgents were transported by CIA and US Air Force planes to a secret base for operations against China, located in Aspen, the Colorado mountain resort. Once the aircraft were positioned over the facility at Aspen, the Tibetans would jump out and deploy their parachutes. 
 
The CIA was also training Tibetan fighters in the region of Tibet. The scholar Melvyn Goldstein, an expert on Tibet wrote, “The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) immediately made contact with the [Tibetan] resistance leaders, and by 1957 had begun to train and provide weapons to Tibetan guerrilla forces” (9). In May 1957, a rebel group in Tibet with its own fighting unit was created with the help of the CIA. 
 
The Americans had already placed on their payroll the Dalai Lama’s older brother, Gyalo Thondup, who like his sibling is still alive today. In 1951 Thondup travelled to Washington, and he became a key source of information for the US State Department regarding the situation in Tibet. For example, the CIA learned from Thondup in 1952 that there were between 10,000 to 15,000 Chinese troops stationed in Tibet. 
 
The CIA offered assurances to Thondup that it would assist in securing Tibet’s independence from China. In return, Thondup agreed to aid the Americans in preparing guerrilla forces in Tibet to fight against Mao Zedong’s soldiers. 
 
A CIA intelligence report, from September 1952, acknowledged there would be serious difficulties in successfully aiding the Tibetan resistance against the might of the Chinese Army (People’s Liberation Army). The CIA developed and organised Operation ST-Circus in 1959, a covert war against Chinese influence in Tibet using guerrilla warfare, and which was headed by the Dalai Lama’s brother (10). ST-Circus turned into a fiasco as the insurgency was overcome easily by Beijing’s troops, resulting in thousands of deaths. 
 
Through this secret war in Tibet, the CIA was assisted by the intelligence services of India and Nepal. The latter country was also a US ally and shares a lengthy frontier with Tibet. CIA training camps were set up in India and Nepal. There was a joint CIA-Indian command centre in the capital city of India, New Delhi. 
 
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, hundreds of Tibetans were flown to the American-controlled islands of Guam and Okinawa, where they underwent development as guerrilla fighters (11). The Tibetan insurgents were subsequently flown back to Tibet where they exited the airplanes by parachute. The CIA provided air drops to the rebels which contained mortars, grenades, rifles and machine guns. 
 
The March 1959 Tibetan uprising, that erupted in Tibet’s capital city Lhasa, was supported by the US and India. It was an escalation of the Kham and Amdo revolts, which had been encouraged by the Dwight Eisenhower administration (1953-61). 
 
Lasting for 2 weeks, the 1959 uprising was another bloody, expensive and enduring failure: Beijing’s forces smashed it with an iron fist, compelling the Dalai Lama in the second half of March 1959 to flee Lhasa to northern India, along with tens of thousands of his followers. The Americans gave cautious backing to the new Tibetan Government in exile, the Central Tibetan Administration, which was founded in April 1959. 
 
Over elapsing time, the Dalai Lama continued to be subsidised with CIA money. In one year alone, 1964, he received $180,000 in CIA funds (12). The sum of $180,000 in 1964 is presently worth about $1.7 million. The same year, 1964, the CIA provided $500,000 ($4.7 million today) to the training of Tibetan guerrillas in Nepal, while $400,000 ($3.8 million today) was spent on training other Tibetans at Camp Hale in Colorado in 1964. The CIA forked out that year $185,000 for the transportation of the Tibetans at Camp Hale, who were flown to India. (13) 
 
Documents released by the US State Department in August 1998 stated that, from the late 1950s until the mid-1970s, the Dalai Lama in fact received $180,000 every year for his assistance during that period (14). The Dalai Lama’s retinue denied that the spiritual leader ever pocketed any of the cash himself. The Dalai Lama, who is no fool and can speak several languages including Chinese and English, later admitted, “the C.I.A.’s motivation for helping was entirely political”. 
 
From the summer of 1959 a Tibetan guerrilla unit, known as the Chushi Gangdruk Volunteer Defense Force, was receiving weapons and training from the CIA. This group was operating from the Himalayan mountains of Nepal, from which its forces would advance and ambush unsuspecting Chinese troops, or commit sabotage against their supply lines. At different times, the rebels were assisted by CIA-contract mercenaries and CIA planes roaming overhead. (15) 
 
By the mid-1960s, the Chushi Gangdruk force had nearly 2,000 fighters of Khampa ethnicity, from the Kham area of eastern Tibet, and which were now being commanded by CIA officers. One of the Tibetan fighters Nawang Gayltsen recalled, “None of us knew how to fight the Chinese the modern way. But the Americans taught us. We learned camouflage, spy photography, guns and radio operation. We played ping-pong on Sundays”. (16) 
 
In the games room at Camp Hale there was a portrait of Eisenhower, which was signed by the US president at the bottom, “To my fellow Tibetan friends, from Eisenhower” (17). Nawang said he had been taught how to destroy bridges by his CIA instructors at Camp Hale. The insurgents were paid directly by the Americans to attack Chinese government facilities, infrastructure and machinery in Tibet. If the raids were successful, the CIA would increase the payment to the rebels. 
 
According to author Joe Bageant, the final CIA arms drop to the Tibetan forces occurred in May 1965 (18). By then, American government attention under president Lyndon Johnson (1963–69) was shifting increasingly to the US war in Vietnam, which the Johnson White House escalated sharply in the mid-1960s. 
 
Roger McCarthy, a CIA officer formerly in charge of the Tibetan program said, “Generally speaking, I think the Agency [CIA] looks at Tibet as having been one of the best operations that it has ever run… But if you look at the final results, it’s a very sad commentary. If we look at what we did to Tibet as about the best that we could do, then I say that we failed miserably”. 
 
The CIA continued its operations against the Chinese alongside the Tibetan guerrillas until 1974, as relations between the US and China began to thaw at that time, on the surface at least. It was also in 1974 that the CIA funding to the Dalai Lama suddenly ceased. (19)
 
***
Notes 
 
1 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st edition, 23 June 2017) p. 76 
 
2 Ibid. 
 
3 Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama (Grove Press; 1st Trade Paper edition, 10 October 2007) p. 305 
 
4 Madhur Sharma, “Explained: The China-Tibet 17-Point Agreement, The Conflict’s History, And India’s Place In It”, OutlookIndia, Updated 23 May 2022 
 
5 Rana Mitter, China’s Good War: How World War II Is Shaping a New Nationalism (Belknap Press, 27 January 2023) p. 45 
 
6 Tom Lantos, “Tibet: The Washington Perspective”, Culturalsurvival.org 
 
7 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 77 
 
8 Richard M Bennett, “Tibet, the ‘great game’ and the CIA”, Global Research, 25 March 2008 
 
9 Melvyn Goldstein, “The United States, Tibet, and the Cold War”, Journal of Cold War Studies, Summer 2006, Jstor, p. 4 of 20 
 
10 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 75 
 
11 Paul Salopek, “The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet”, Chicago Tribune, 26 January 1997 
 
12 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 76 
 
13 Ibid. 
 
14 Dennis G. Fitzgerald, Informants, Cooperating Witnesses, and Undercover Investigations, A Practical Guide to Law, Policy, and Procedure (CRC Press Incorporate, 2nd edition, 5 November 2014) p. 15 
 
15 Bennett, “Tibet, the ‘great game’ and the CIA”, Global Research 
 
16 Salopek, Chicago Tribune 
 
17 Joe Bageant, “CIA’s Secret War in Tibet”, HistoryNet, 12 June 2006 
 
18 Ibid. 
 
19 Fitzgerald, Informants, Cooperating Witnesses, and Undercover Investigations, p. 15

This is warrior policing on steroids.”—Paul Butler, law professor

That the police officers charged with the beating death of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols are Black is a distraction.

Don’t be distracted.

This latest instance of police brutality is not about racism in policing or black-on-black violence.

The entire institution is corrupt.

The old guard—made up of fine, decent, lawful police officers who took seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace—has given way to a new guard hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

Memphis’ now-disbanded Scorpion unit provides a glimpse into the looming crisis in policing that has gone beyond mere militarization.

Unfortunately, while much has been said about the dangers of police militarization, a warrior mindset that has police viewing the rest of the citizenry as enemy combatants, and law enforcement training that teaches cops to shoot first and ask questions later, little attention has been paid to the role that “roid rage,” triggered by anabolic steroid use and abuse by police, may contribute to the mounting numbers of cases involving police brutality.

Given how prevalent steroid use is within the U.S. military (it remains a barely concealed fixture of military life) and the rate of military veterans migrating into law enforcement (one out of every five police officers is a military veteran), this could shed some light on the physical evolution of domestic police physiques.

A far cry from Mayberry’s benevolent, khaki-clad neighborhood cops, police today are stormtroopers on steroids, both literally and figuratively: raging bulls in blue.

“Steroid use,” as researcher Philip J. Sweitzer warns, “is the not-so-quiet little secret of state and city police departments.”

John Hoberman, the author of Dopers in Uniform: The Hidden World of Police on Steroids, estimates that there may be tens of thousands of officers on steroids.

Illegal without a prescription and legitimized by a burgeoning industry of doctors known to law enforcement personnel who will prescribe steroids and other growth hormones based on bogus diagnoses, these testosterone-enhancing drugs have become hush-hush tools of the trade for police seeking to increase the size and strength of their muscles and their physical endurance, as well as gain an “edge” on criminals.

Having gained traction within the bodybuilding and sports communities, steroid use has fueled the dramatic transformation of police from Sheriff Andy Taylor’s lean form to the massive menace of the Hulk. As retired cop Phil Dees explains, “Anabolic steroid use among law enforcement officers is prevalent among the subset of cops who are heavily into weight training. They usually stand out from the crowd, and anyone who cares to look can pick out the most likely suspects.”

Broad-shouldered. Slim-waisted. Veiny. Tree-trunk necks. Rippling physiques. And as big as action heroes. That’s how Men’s Health describes these “juicers in blue”: cops using a cocktail of steroid drugs to transform themselves into “a flesh-and-blood Justice League.”

“Because juicing cops are a secretive subculture within a secretive subculture,” exact numbers are hard to come by, but if the anecdotal evidence is to be believed, it’s more widespread than ever, with 25% of police using these drugs to bulk up and supercharge their aggression.

Indeed, while steroids are physically transformative, building muscle mass, they are also psychologically affective, upping resistance to physical and emotional stress during periods of prolonged or heavy conflict, to the delight of the military, which was involved in their early development and experimentation.

Cue the rise of muscular authoritarianism.

As Philip Sweitzer documents, “Cops on steroids are simply the natural evolution of a conscious decision by the federal government to promote military authoritarianism in drug enforcement, and the implementation of military technologies.”

Roid rage is yet another example of blowback from a militaristic culture.

There are few police forces at every level of government that are not implicated in steroid use and, consequently, impacted by “roid rage,” which manifests itself as extreme mood swings, irritability, nervousness, delusions, aggressive outbursts, excessive use of force, a sense of invincibility, and poor judgment.

“For officers who work daily in high stress, high adrenaline environments and carry guns, the ‘rage’ can be even more extreme,” concludes journalist Bianca Cain Johnson, eliciting “a Hulk-esque response by those using steroids to normal situations.”

When that roid rage is combined with the trappings of a militarized cop armed to the teeth and empowered to shoot first and ask questions later, as well as to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, the danger of any encounter with a cop grows exponentially more deadly.

Given the growing numbers of excessive force incidents by police, especially against unarmed individuals, we cannot afford to ignore the role that doping by police plays in this escalating violence.

For instance, in one of the largest busts nationwide involving law enforcement, 248 New Jersey police officers and firefighters were found to have been getting fraudulent prescriptions of anabolic steroids, human growth hormones and other muscle-building drugs from a doctor. A subsequent investigation of those officers found that many had previously been sued for excessive force or civil rights violations, or had been arrested, fired or suspended for off-duty.

As David Meinert reports, “Steroid use has been anecdotally associated with several brutality cases and racially motivated violence by police officers, including the 1997 sodomizing of an Haitian immigrant in  New York.”

Not surprisingly, police have consistently managed to sidestep a steady volley of lawsuits alleging a correlation between police doping and excessive force, insulated by a thin blue wall of silence, solidarity and coverups, powerful police unions, and the misapplied doctrine of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity is how the police state stays in power.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.”

At its most basic level, what this really translates to is an utter lack of accountability, whether over police brutality or doping.

Despite concerns about roid rage by police, few agencies carry out random tests for steroid use among officers, not even when an officer employs excessive force. Objections to such testing range from concerns about availability and cost to officer privacy.

As Hoberman points out, “The police establishment has reacted to the steroid culture by equivocating: announcing zero-tolerance policies while doing the absolute minimum to detect and control steroid use.”

Thus, any serious discussion about police reform needs to address the use of steroids by police, along with a national call for mandatory testing.

For starters, as journalist David Meinert suggests, police should be subjected to random drug tests for use of steroids, testosterone and HCG (an artificial form of testosterone), and testing should be mandatory and immediate any time an officer is involved in a shooting or accused of unnecessary force.

This is no longer a debate over good cops and bad cops.

It’s a power struggle between police officers who rank their personal safety above everyone else’s and police officers who understand that their jobs are to serve and protect; between police trained to shoot to kill and police trained to resolve situations peacefully; most of all, it’s between police who believe the law is on their side and police who know that they will be held to account for their actions under the same law as everyone else.

Unfortunately, more and more police are being trained to view themselves as distinct from the citizenry, to view their authority as superior to the citizenry, and to view their lives as more precious than those of their citizen counterparts. Instead of being taught to see themselves as mediators and peacemakers whose lethal weapons are to be used as a last resort, they are being drilled into acting like gunmen with killer instincts who shoot to kill rather than merely incapacitate.

We’ve allowed the government to create an alternate reality in which freedom is secondary to security, and the rights and lives of the citizenry are less important than the authority and might of the government.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the longer we wait to burst the bubble on this false chimera, the greater the risks to both police officers and the rest of the citizenry.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The German Foreign Minister, Ms. Annalena Baerbock, recently announced in the Council of Europe, “We are fighting a War against Russia”. With ”We”, she meant all of Europe and, of course, Germany.

This young lady-novice (42), a scholar of Klaus Schwab’s Young Global Leaders (YGL) is out of her mind.

Some 80 years after a German invasion of Russia ended horrendously in a killing streak against Germany with millions of deaths on both sides, Ms. Baerbock has the distorted brain to tell the world “We are fighting a War against Russia”.

Germany, so far, largely media-tolerated the “Baerbockization” which was intended to influence European Council members to think likewise – “We are at War with Russia.” Baerbock went on pressing the point by saying – “We all, all of Europe, are in this War” – intending to speak for Europe.

How come Baerbock wasn’t fired? At least that would have sent a signal to the world, that Germany has not fallen into the craze of wanting war with Russia.

Unless self-assured by a strong power of support behind, for example Klaus Schwab, from whose school of YGL’s she is a graduate, she might not have dared to be so bold. That she was not sacked by now, is probably also due to the same nefarious unelected and undesired world power.

German Chancellor Scholz did say this to an applauding German Parliament, “Germany will always be at the forefront when it comes to supporting Ukraine…. because there really is a war in Europe – not far from here in Berlin, it is taking place against a big country like Ukraine”…”but at the same time we must prevent the war from escalating into a war between Russia and NATO,” he cationed. See this https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-approves-sending-heavy-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2023-01-25/ .

Was this a tacit encouragement for Baerbock?

How much longer will the People of the World tolerate Schwab / WEF and Co., as well as the informal, unregistered associations, like G7 and G20 / B20? How much longer are they allowed to prevail and decide over the destiny of humankind?

Does the majority of the world population even realize to what kind of self-styled and unelected powers we are exposed and by whom our future is decided?

—–

Baerbock was dead serious, thinking she was doing the planet a favor by bringing forward what most people wanted. Wrongly so. She couldn’t have been more wrong. People of this world want Peace not conflict.

Those comparatively minuscule minorities who want war, conflict, population reduction, overall control of the world’s resources and of the globe’s population, are the few power-hungry inhuman psychopaths, whose illegally begotten riches, they believe, give them the right to decide over humanity and humanity’s destiny.

The vast majority of the people of the world want Peace with Russia, want an integrated harmonious world. They do not care for Klaus Schwab, the megalomaniac and his “his brothers in crime´ and of his Death Cult, his absolute madness of a self-nominated elitist, leading the world into transhumanism, into an all digitized environment – that can and will – if not stopped now – blow up one day worse than a thousand Hiroshimas.

The Third Reich will have been a benign precursor, a trial balloon, if you will, to a no-escape worldwide empire – that too will collapse – as all empires in history collapsed. But the result would be DEVASTATING, for lack of a stronger term.

See this speech by Carlos A. Gebauer, famous actor of the German RTL TV show “Das Strafgericht” (the Criminal Court). In the summer of 2022, he spoke about the “Reset” in both historic and philosophical terms (in German) at a Conference of the Atlas Initiative for Justice and Freedom, headquartered in Gelsenkirchen, Germany.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3mk8QSZInE.

The vast majority of the world does not care for BlackRock, and Larry Fink, BR’s CEO and his ilk, attempting to control the world with tens of trillions of assets accumulated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), controlling every economic and productive sector of the worldly universe, from food, to services, to war-machines. BlackRock is the main sponsor of the Schwab-WEF-madness.
—-

Amazingly, the German media have dealt with the Baerbock idiocy quite benignly. This, compared to what the same media on the other hand promoted – the unconditional supply of German Jaguar tanks to the most corrupt government of Europe and arguably the world, Ukraine – to fight Russia.

The German media went berserk – including some of other German speaking media, like Swiss and Austrian – who have collectively sold their soul to green neofascism – urging Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, to finally make the decision to supply the Leopards to Kiev.

The war-soul-journalists were like kids under the Christmas tree when finally, Scholz, of course, on orders of the US of A – decided, yes – we deliver, but the tanks will get there (to Kiev or wherever in the wasteland Ukraine) earliest by May 2023. – See this https://www.globalresearch.ca/german-leopards-more-killing-collaterals-no-end-sight-historic-perspective-germany-repeated-role-in-attempting-conquering-russia/5806049.

By then Russia may have totally “neutralized” Ukraine and the unused Leopards will rot away.

The international media condemned Baerbock’s statement vehemently, including even European Council member States. They wanted to disassociate themselves from such crude language.Even the US doesn’t seem to want a direct confrontation with Russia, if you believe the not-so-trustworthy Biden Regime.

Why then has Germany succumbed to the EU / NATO pressure on the delivery of Leopards?

Because – what many may not realize – Germany is as of this day not a free, sovereign nation. Germany has no Peace Agreement with the “conquerors” of WWII, especially not with the US. Germany functions under an Armistice Agreement since the end of WWII in 1945.

A key condition of this AA is that Germany would NEVER do anything that goes against the interests of the United States – or else – see again this https://www.globalresearch.ca/german-leopards-more-killing-collaterals-no-end-sight-historic-perspective-germany-repeated-role-in-attempting-conquering-russia/5806049.
——–

We, the People of this world, want this madness to stop. Now.

After the January 16-20, 2023 WEF meeting in Davos, the World media have unequivocally shown that they have seen enough, of this unelected WEF, of this unelected self-styled emperor of the world, named Klaus Schwab, who, by the way, is coming from a Third Reich background.

We, the People of the World, want to get back to a human way of life. All the elitist oligarchs, self-styled commanders – and eugenists – of the universe, like Gates, Rockefeller, Soros et al, should stand trial à la Nuremberg 2.0.

If not, they may want to disappear, dig themselves into a deep hole, perhaps in New Zealand, which Jacinda Ardern, NZ’s ex-PM (already gone, thanks God) – has neatly prepared as a rescue paradise for the world’s most sought-after criminals.

Madame Annalena Baerbock, please go away! By doing so, you may safe just a tiny bit of your dignity!

In addition to the nonsense talk, what also came to the fore from the WEF 2023 – that it is one of the world’s most exclusive escort and prostitution services event. Apparently, that’s what the sick-rich sociopaths need – unlimited sex, at (almost) unlimited cost. And they come to the WEF’s host in Switzerland, Davos, a ski resort – to the detriment of the local population.

Under the glory and shine of the WEF’s luster, and the Swiss police- and military defense, they are not asked, and have no choice but to accept. Money rules. Law and ethics are overruled. Dystopia, again, George Orwell’s 1984 at its best.

And remember, when the duped world chose “Green”, we the People, had no idea, that again we were misled, by an environmental dystopia, a climate-change craze, gradually turning fascist.  Just look at John Kerry and Al Gore at the 2023 WEF – their words and gesticulations speak volumes – of distortion.
See this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6ZaDxNUrAQ  and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfAYLSQIxTI .

That’s what Green has become today. It’s the new fascist party. Unfortunately, often in close alliance with the Socialists, which once upon a time, had the well-being of the working class in mind, created the worlds social services, decent work-conditions, unemployment insurance, social health insurance coverage, paid vacation, weekly work hours limitations – and much more.

During the past few of decades – ravaged by uncontrolled globalism, and globalization, many of them, including so-called socialist world leaders, have sold out to the fascist globalist trend. Many of the lower echelons’ SPs – Socialist Party members – were drawn into this diabolical fascist machinery without even noticing it.

Fortunately, 2023 is a year of Transition. The world is waking up. Signals to that effect keep emerging. The US Supreme Court just ruled against Global (covid) Vaccination. This is a step they wouldn’t have dared taking just a year ago.

People! Let us stay awake and alert!

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Ukraine Is Sinking. Are Western Elites Bailing Out?

February 2nd, 2023 by Mike Whitney

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

What makes the RAND Corporation’s latest report on Ukraine so significant, is not the quality of the analysis, but the fact that the nation’s most prestigious national security think-tank has taken an opposite position on the war than the Washington political class and their globalist allies. This is a very big deal.Keep in mind, wars don’t end because the public opposes them. That is a myth. Wars end when a critical split emerges between elites that eventually leads to a change in policy. The RAND Corporation’s new report, “Avoiding a long war: US policy and the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict”, represents just such a split. It indicates that powerful elites have broken with the majority opinion because they think the current policy is hurting the United States. We believe this shift in perspective is going to gain momentum until it triggers a more-assertive demand for negotiations. In other words, the RAND report is the first step towards ending the war.

Consider, for a minute, this excerpt from the preamble of the report:

“The costs and risks of a long war in Ukraine are significant and outweigh the possible benefits of such a trajectory for the United States.”

This quote effectively sumarizes the entire document. Think about it: For the last 11 months we have been told repeatedly that the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” The above quote assures us that that’s not going to happen. The United States is not going to undermine its own interests to pursue the unachievable dream of expelling Russia from Ukraine. (Even the hawks no longer believe that is possible.) Rational members of the foreign policy establishment are going to evaluate Ukraine’s prospects for success and weigh them against the growing likelihood that the conflict could unexpectedly spiral out-of-control. That, of course, would serve no one’s interest and could ignite a direct clash between Russia and the United States. Also, US policymakers will decide whether the ballooning collateral damage is worth the expense. In other words, are the ruptured supplylines, the rising inflation, the increasing energy and food shortages, and the declining weapons stockpiles a fair trade-off for “weakening Russia”. Many would say, “No.”

In some respects, the RAND report is just the first in a long line of falling dominoes. As Ukraine’s battlefield losses mount –and it becomes more evident that Russia will control all the territory east of the Dnieper River– the flaws in Washington’s strategy will become more apparent and will be more sharply criticized. People will question the wisdom of economic sanctions that hurt our closest allies while helping Russia. They will ask why the United States is following a policy that has precipitated a strong move away from the dollar and US debt? And, they will wonder why the US deliberately sabotaged a peace deal in March when the probability of a Ukrainian victory is near zero. The Rand report seems to anticipate all these questions as well as the ‘shift in mood’ they will generate. This is why the authors are pushing for negotiations and a swift end to the conflict. This is an excerpt from an article at RT:

The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report stating that prolonging the proxy war is actively harming the US and its allies and warning Washington that it should avoid “a protracted conflict” in Ukraine…

(The report) starts by stating that the fighting represents “the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences” for Washington, which includes US “interests” being actively harmed. The report makes it very clear that while Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, and their cities have been “flattened” and “economy decimated,” these “interests” are “not synonymous” with Kiev’s.” (“Rand calls for swift end to war“, RT)

While the report does not explicitly state that ‘US interests (are) being harmed’, it certainly infers that that is the case. Not surprisingly, the report doesn’t mention any of the collateral damage from Washington’s war on Russia, but, surely, that must have been foremost on the minds of the authors. After all, it is not the $100 billion or the provision of lethal weapons that is costing the US so dearly. It is the accelerating emergence of international coalitions and alternate institutions that has put the US empire on the fasttrack to ruin. We assume that the analysts at RAND see the same things that every other sentient being sees, that Washington’s misguided conflagration with Moscow is a ‘bridge-too-far’ and that the blowback is going to be immense and excruciating. Hence, the urgency to end the war quickly. Here’s a excerpt from the report that was posted in bold print halfway through the text:

“Since avoiding a long war is the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks, the United States should take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely.”

Interestingly, while the report details the main escalation risks, (The main risks include a broader war with NATO, a spillover of the conflict into other EU countries, and a nuclear war.) it fails to explain why exactly a ‘long war’ would be so damaging to the United States. We believe that this omission is intentional and that the authors do not want to concede that the backfiring of sanctions and the forming of anti-American foreign coalitions is clearly undermining US plans to maintain its grip on global power. Among elites, such talk is verboten. Here’s how Chris Hedges summed it up in an article at Consortium News:

The plan to reshape Europe and the global balance of power by degrading Russia is turning out to resemble the failed plan to reshape the Middle East. It is fueling a global food crisis and devastating Europe with near double-digit inflation. It is exposing the impotency, once again, of the United States, and the bankruptcy of its ruling oligarchs. As a counterweight to the United States, nations such as China, Russia, India, Brazil and Iran are severing themselves from the tyranny of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, a move that will trigger economic and social catastrophe in the United States. Washington is giving Ukraine ever more sophisticated weapons systems and billions upon billions in aid in a futile bid to save Ukraine but, more importantly, to save itself. (“Ukraine — The War That Went Wrong”, Chris Hedges, Consortium News)

Image

Hedges sums it up perfectly. Washington’s foolish intervention is clearing the way for the greatest strategic catastrophe in US history. And yet, even now, the vast majority of corporate and banking elites resolutely back the existing policy while shrugging off the obvious signs of failure. Case in point: The World Economic Forum posted a blanket statement of support for Ukraine on its website. Here it is:

The essence of our organization is its belief in respect, dialogue, and collaborative and cooperative efforts. We therefore deeply condemn the aggression by Russia against Ukraine, the attacks and atrocities.

Our full solidarity is with Ukraine’s people and all those who are suffering innocently from this totally unacceptable war.We will do whatever is possible to help and actively support humanitarian and diplomatic efforts.
We only hope that – in the longer-term – reason will prevail and that the space for bridge-building and reconciliation once more emerges.” (Klaus Schwab and Børge Brende, World Economic Forum)

No one should be surprised by this. Naturally, the globalists are going to come-down on the side of their expansionist wrecking-crew (NATO) instead of the world’s biggest proponent of traditional values, borders and national sovereignty. That goes without saying. Even so, the Rand report suggests that support for the war is no longer unanimous among elites. And, since elites ultimately set the policy, there is now an increasing probability that the policy will change. We see this ‘splintering of elite consensus’ as the most positive development in the last 11 months. The only way the United States is going to change its approach in Ukraine is if a growing number of elites come to their senses and pull us back from the brink. We are hopeful that that will happen, but we’re not sure that it will.

Image

The least persuasive section of the entire report falls under the heading of: “US and Allied Commitments to Ukraine’s Security”.

The problem is easy to understand. The authors want to settle on a plan for providing security to Ukraine in order to incentivize negotiations with Russia. Unfortunately,Russia is not going to allow Ukraine to be a part of any western-backed security alliance, in fact, that is why Russia launched its invasion in the first place, to preempt Ukraine’s membership in a hostile military alliance (NATO) linked to the United States. This is a touchy subject that will undoubtedly be an obstacle in any future negotiations. But it is a matter on which there can be no ‘wiggle room’. Ukraine –or whatever is left of Ukraine– will be required to be permanently neutral and all the far-right extremists will have to be removed from the government, the military and the security services. Moscow will not pick Ukraine’s leaders, but it will make sure that those leaders are neither Nazis nor linked to any far-right nationalist organization.

Will the USG Split into Warring Camps?
Will the USG Split into Warring Camps?

As we said earlier, we think the RAND report indicates that elites are now divided on the issue of Ukraine. We think that is a positive development that could lead to negotiations and an end to the war. However, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that even the most impartial analysis can tilt favorably in the direction of the group that provides the funding. And that could be true here, as well. Keep in mind, the RAND Corporation is a nonpartisan think tank that, according to retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski:

“works for the defense establishment, and were money to dry up there, the thinktank would not exist in it current form. It serves US government interests entirely, and is dependent upon them.” (Lew Rockwell)

What this suggests is that the RAND report may represent the views of the Pentagon and the US Military establishment who believe the United States is racing headlong towards a direct conflagration with Russia. In other words, the report may be the first ideological broadsides against the neocons who run the State Department and the White House. We suspect this split between the War Department and ‘State’ will become more visible in the days ahead. We can only hope that the more judicious faction at the Pentagon prevails.