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 would be obvious and widely accepted that we in the West are responsible for the rebirth and growth of Nazism, if the truth was a staple in our cultural diets.

Beneath veils of distactions and obfuscations, for example, the Canadian government has a long history of quietly supporting nazism. (1)

Drawing false equivalencies between the USSR and Nazi Germany furthers the support for nazism, which, through such operations, is being whitewashed. Canada voted against a UN initiative condemning the glorification of nazism.

Russia is combating the cancer of nazism and NATO expansionism in Ukraine, whereas the West seeks to fight “to the last Ukrainian” as it uses Ukrainians, and nazism, as proxies against Russia.

Largely censored and forgotten, Washington is behind the nazi-infested coup that overturned the elected Ukrainian government in 2014. This was followed by about eight years of genocide in which nazi battalions bombed Eastern Ukrainian (Russian-speaking) civilians and civilian infrastructure. (2)

Former Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel and former Ukraine President Pyotr Poroshenko even admitted to using the Minsk Peace accords as a stalling mechanism to build up the Ukrainian military. They were never negotiating in good faith. They never wanted Peace. (3)

Western support for nazism goes back to WW2 with Western corporate support (Rockfeller’s Standard Oil) of Operation Barbarossa and the nazi rampage across the USSR.

Prof. Chossudovsky notes that,

“(w)ithout US support to Nazi Germany, the Third Reich would not have been able to wage war on the Soviet Union. Germany’s oil production was insufficient to wage a major military campaign. Throughout the war, the Third Reich relied on regular shipments of crude oil  from US Standard Oil owned by the Rockefeller family.” (4)

Furthermore, writes Chossudovsky,

“Wall Street creditors are the main actors.  They were firmly behind Nazi Germany. They financed Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of the Soviet Union.

The Rockefellers funded Hitler’s election campaign.

Wall Street also “appointed” the head  of Germany’s Central Bank (Reichsbank).” (5)

WW2 didn’t need to happen, and the current war in Ukraine didn’t need to happen either.

The complex web of Western war propaganda which obfuscates these facts enables the permanent warfare state and its war against us all.

*

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.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.

Notes

(1) Aidan Jonah, “Long history of Ukrainian-Canadian groups glorifying Nazi collaborators exposed by defacing of Oakville memorial.” The Canada Files, 20 July 2020. (Long history of Ukrainian-Canadian groups glorifying Nazi collaborators exposed by defacing of Oakville memorial — The Canada Files_ Accessed 16 December, 2022.

(2)  Christelle Néant and Dr. Leon Tressell, ” ‘The First Casualty of War is the Truth’. What is Really Happening in Donbass/ A Conversation with Christelle Neant of Donbass Insider on the War in Ukraine.” Global Research, 21 June, 2022 (“The First Casualty of War is the Truth”. What is Really Happening in Donbass – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 16 December, 2022.

(3) Mark Taliano, “The West Seeks War, Not Peace.” Global Research, 30 November, 2022. (The West Seeks War, Not Peace – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 16 December, 2022.

(4) Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, ” Sleeping With The Third Reich: America’s Unspoken “Alliance” with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union/Nazi Germany largely depended on oil shipments from US Standard Oil.” Global Research, 04 December, 2022, (Sleeping With The Third Reich: America’s Unspoken “Alliance” with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 16 December, 2022.

(5) Yuri Rubtsov, “History: Hitler was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England/US Investments in Nazi Germany. Rockefeller Financed Adolf Hitler’s Election Campaign.” Global Research, 03 December, 2022. (History: Hitler was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 16 December, 2022.

All images in this article are from the author

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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 U.S. Government support for Ukraine to retake Crimea is part of a plan by U.S. President Barack Obama, in which he sidelined his Secretary of State John Kerry and backed Kerry’s subordinate Victoria Nuland when she promised the then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that he would continue to enjoy U.S. backing if he expanded his civil war against the breakaway (formerly Ukrainian) region of Donbass so as to invade also Crimea, which had broken away from Ukraine earlier — less than a month after the U.S. coup in Kiev occurred in February 2014. So, the U.S. Government’s now teasing Ukraine’s Government to invade Crimea can’t be understood without knowing its history:

On 16 March 2014, Crimeans went to the polls in a plebiscite on whether Crimea should be restored to Russia, of which it was a part during 1783-1954 (Khrushchev arbitrarily switched it to Ukraine in 1954, which outraged most Crimeans), and the vote (in that 83.1%-turnout March 2014 Referendum) was 96.77% voting to “join the Russian Federation,” which then was promptly done.

The U.S. Government, in its extensive planning for the February 2014 coup that overthrew the democratically elected neutralist President of Ukraine and selected the rabidly anti-Russian Arseniy Yatsenyuk to replace him and to install a rabidly anti-Russian junta to ethnically cleanse the areas of Ukraine that had voted more than 70% for the elected Ukrainian President that Obama had just overthrown in February, so as to enable a ‘democratic’ election in Ukraine to retain the rabidly anti-Russian U.S.-installed regime to continue to remain in power ‘democratically’ without those voters still being able any longer to vote in Ukraine, had commissioned Gallup to poll Crimeans in 2013 in order to find out how receptive Crimeans would be to the coup which was then being planned and which would entail replacing Russia’s naval base in Crimea (since 1783) by a U.S. naval base there.

This 2013 Gallup poll (which was reported to U.S. Government agencies but not to the public) had found that whereas only 15% considered themselves to be “Ukrainian,” 40% considered themselves to be “Russian”; and 24% said instead that they preferred as their self-identity “Crimean,” which meant favoring an independent nation of Crimea, a breakaway from Ukraine that wouldn’t necessarily be part of Russia.

Asked to choose between Crimea being part of the U.S.-allied EU or part of the Russia-allied EurAsian Customs Union, 53% chose the latter, 17% chose the EU. Whereas 68% said that their feelings for Russia were “Warm,” and 5% said “Cold”; 6% said that their feelings for USA were “Warm,” and 24% said “Cold.” (The poll also asked many questions that were designed in order for the U.S. Government to plan a PR program targeted especially at the roughly 10% of Crimeans who self-identified as being “Tatars” in order to enable the U.S. operation to make them hate Russia and Russians — including pro-Russian Crimeans.)

The U.S. Government again Gallup-polled Crimeans in April 2014, just weeks after the 96.77% plebiscite-vote to rejoin Russia, in order to obtain any evidence that might become the basis for a U.S. accusation the plebiscite had been rigged by Russia — not genuinely democratic. This poll of 500 Crimeans was simultaneous with Gallup’s polling of also 1,400 (non-Crimean) Ukrainians in order to help the newly U.S.-installed Ukrainian regime to control the media and public opinion more effectively.

The question,

“Please tell me if you agree or disagree: No government outside of Ukraine has a right to be involved in decisions about the country’s future. [Asked of nonCrimeans only]” produced around 80% of (non-Crimean) Ukrainians in all regions of the country being in agreement with that viewpoint, so that the U.S. Government would need to keep secret as much as possible the total dependence of the new stooge-regime in Kiev upon its masters in Washington DC.

The poll also showed that at least until April 2014, the U.S. operation to control Ukrainian public opinion was an outstanding success, because in response to “For each of the countries and organizations I mention, tell me whether you think it has played a mostly positive role or a mostly negative role in the crisis in Ukraine,” 66.4% in (non-Crimean) Ukraine said that Russia had played a “Mostly negative” role, whereas only 27.7% said America did. HOWEVER THE FINDINGS IN CRIMEA WERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT: There, “Mostly negative” was 76.2% for U.S., and only 8.8% for Russia; and whereas “Mostly positive” was 71.3% for Russia, it was only 2.8% for U.S.

Apparently, the vast majority of Crimeans were outraged at America’s (and its ‘allies’ or vassal-nations’) REJECTION of their 16 March 2014 plebiscite-results to (re)join Russia. And, finally, the question “Please tell me if you agree or disagree: The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflect the views of most people there/here.” produced: “Agree/Disagree” by 82.8%/6.7% in Crimea, and by 29.5%/48.2% in “Exclusive of Crimea.” Therefore, clearly already by the time of April 2014, Crimea and Ukraine were antipodally different demographic worlds.

Gallup also asked only outside Crimea, “Please tell me if you agree or disagree: Ukraine should return to the course of NATO integration.” and reported no nationwide percentage but only regional percentages, throughout non-Crimean Ukraine, in “South” “East” “Center” “North” and “West”; and ONLY in the West (west of Rivne in the northwest and Khmelnytsky in the southwest, or roughly the area within 200 miles of the Polish border) did more than 50% (53%) “Agree”: by contrast, only 10.3% in South did; only 13.1% in East did; only 32.1% in Center did; and only 37.7% in North (which includes Kyiv, the capital) did.

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded the most the regions that most OPPOSED joining in NATO. Only(and just barely), the West region favored to join NATO, and Russia’s invasion has invaded that region (the anti-Russian region) less than any of the others. This fact suggests that the Russian Government has no intention to include the West region as part of Russia in any final settlement of this war between the U.S. and Russia that is being waged in Ukraine’s battlefields, between Russian military forces and America’s Ukrainian and other military-forces — this proxy-war that Washington intends to start WW III.

That is the demographic background. Now for the historical background:

On 7 June 2015, I headlined “Obama Sidelines Kerry on Ukraine Policy” and reported that, whereas Secretary of State John Kerry had warned the then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko NOT to promise Ukrainians that Ukraine would retake both Crimea and Donbass by force if necessary, Kerry’s subordinate Victoria Nuland privately told Poroshenko to ignoreKerry’s warning — and Obama then nullified Kerry and backed Nuland on that. “Kerry now faces the decision as to whether to quit — which would force the EU’s hand regarding whether to continue with U.S. policy there [violating Obama’s will on that matter] — or else for Kerry to stay in office and be disrespected in all capitals for his staying on after having been so blatantly contradicted by his subordinate on a key issue of U.S. foreign policy.”

He stayed in office; and, then, later, Obama did it yet again — overrode Kerry for his subordinate Nuland — but this time on Syria. Kerry had worked long and hard to get Obama to accept a Syria peace-deal that would enable the people of Syria, and not the USA, to decide Bashar al-Assad’s political future — for Obama to give up trying to overthrow Assad. On 16 December 2015, I headlined “U.S. Ends Its Opposition to Democracy in Syria” and reported that despite Victoria Nuland’s insistence upon overthrowing Assad, Kerry had managed to get Obama’s nominal acceptance of democracy in Syria. (You can see in the pictures there that Nuland scowls at that signing-ceremony.) 

Then, Kerry managed an agreement with Russia on 17 May 2016 regarding Syria-policy, in which Obama nominally gave up on America’s protecting Al-Qaeda in Syria (Russia refused to allow AlQaeda in Syria to be protected from Russia’s bombing, but Obama’s Syria-operation used mainly AQ Syria as its proxy to lead the other jihadist groups to overthrow Assad); and, so, the deal was that Russia could continue to bomb AQ Syria’s forces, and that America would stop bombing Syria’s army forces, and Russia would coordinate with America on eliminating ISIS in Syria.

And, then, Kerry signed a Syrian ceasefire agreement on 9 September 2016, and barely a week later, on 17 September 2016, Obama violated that ceasefire agreement by (through his SecDef) bombing Syria’s army that were protecting Syria’s main oil field at Deir Ezzor. That’s when Putin learned not to trust ANYTHING from the U.S. regime.

Whereas Hillary Clinton had been at least as neocon as was Obama himself, Kerry had done everything he could to prevent a nuclear war, but Obama (like Biden) was on that path — the path to nuclear war. Kerry didn’t really fit in. The Deep State was solid against him.

Now, in the continuation of the Obama Administration’s ceaseless determination for the U.S. to conquer Russia and to defeat any ally of Russia such as Syria, Obama’s V.P. and now President, Joe Biden, brings the world to the precipice of WW III against both Russia and (like Trump) China while refusing to back down from Trump’s wars against also both Venezuela and Iran.

And Victoria Nuland is now #2 under Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who is just as rabid a neocon as is she and as is Biden himself. And, just as Nuland had beaten Kerry by getting his achievements nullified by President Obama, she is apparently again receiving support from the top, to have the U.S. Government guiding Ukraine’s Government to invade Crimea.

On 14 December 2022, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty bannered “In Satellite Images Of Russian-Occupied Crimea, Experts Point To Potential Targets For Ukraine” and reported that private U.S. military contractors are supplying Ukraine’s Government with detailed satellite images of Russia’s military defenses in Crimea for Ukraine’s missiles to target and take out.

This would, in the view of Russians, be a Ukrainian invasion of Russia using U.S. intelligence and more, in order to do it, and, therefore direct war between America and Russia.

It would be a dream for Victoria Nuland and the rest of the U.S. Deep State, including all of the billionaires who financed Joe Biden’s political career. Of course, the ‘opposition’ Party, the Republicans, are also almost 100% solid for the neocon agenda (U.S. global imperialism), right up to and including global nuclear conflict. Apparently, all of America’s (and allied) billionaires are for it — none has come out, really, against it.

And, within the empire, the general public hardly even cares about it: the exit-polls show that international relations (“foreign policy”) was at the very bottom of American voters’ concerns. The whole world could be destroyed like that — as-if it didn’t even matter.

*

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.

Featured image: CODEPINK “No War with Russia Rally, Negotiate Ukraine, Don’t Escalate.” (2022)

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.

***

A huge flow of money is subtracted from our vital needs and is poured by the European Union into Ukraine, where it fuels war and corruption.

EU foreign ministers have allocated another 2 billion euros for military support to Ukraine. The “European Peace Fund”, which has been used to arm and train Kyiv’s army since 2021, is set to increase on an annual basis from the initial 400 million to over one billion euros. This adds more funds to the 30 billion euros that the EU spent from January to October to arm Ukraine.

In addition to these expenses, the European Union has decided to give the Ukrainian government 19 billion euros in a loan form, knowing full well that they will never be repaid. In a summit that President Macron convened in Paris to provide Kyiv with further financial aid, the President of the European Commission Ursula Von der Leyen announced that “the international community has decided for next year to inject at least 1.5 billion euros financial aid per month into Ukraine”.

In a country already characterized by widespread corruption at all levels, it is practically impossible in the current chaotic situation to control the actual destination of this enormous flow of money and weapons. A large part certainly ends up in the hands of power groups, which makes it disappear in the clandestine circuits of tax havens. What guarantees the European Union can give on anti-corruption controls is demonstrated by Qatar gate. The vice president of the European Parliament Eva Kaili, a Greek socialist exponent belonging to the Socialists and Democrats Group (the Italian Democratic Party is a member of it), was arrested together with others (including 4 Italians) for corruption, money laundering and participation in a criminal organization on a mandate of the Belgian Justice.

*

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 is from World United News

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.

***

Palestinian woman tells the story of her connection to the village of Ma’alul (which I visited on July 28, 2022) which was one of 520 villages destroyed by Israel in 1948, and how she and the half million internally displaced Palestinian citizens of Israel are determined to exercise their return to their villages and land despite racist Israeli laws that deny them their right to do so.

*

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.

People Died from mRNA-Vaccine-Damaged Hearts, New Peer-Reviewed German Study Provides Direct Evidence

By Dr. Jennifer Margulis and Dr. Joe Wang, December 16, 2022

Medical pathologists from Heidelberg University Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany have published direct evidence showing how people found dead after mRNA vaccination died. As this team of six scientists explore in their study, these mRNA-vaccinated patients suffered from heart damage because their hearts were attacked by their own immune cells.

A Poem for Christmas: Christmas Revels (1838)

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, December 19, 2022

The Irish artist Daniel Maclise (1806–1870) was a well known artist of the nineteenth century and he painted many scenes featuring British and Irish history. His painting Merry Christmas in the Baron’s Hall (1838) was eventually purchased by the National Gallery of Ireland in 1872. This festive work contains many figures of various ranks and degrees and depicts aspects of the declining traditional Christmas festivities of his time.

Erdogan Jails His Main Rival in the 2023 Election

By Steven Sahiounie, December 18, 2022

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan faces a tough re-election vote in six months.  His rival, the Mayor of Istanbul Ekrem Imamoglu, is very popular and far ahead in the polls. Erdogan went back in time to find an obscure statement made by Imamoglu in 2019 which Erdogan used to order the Turkish courts to try Imamoglu on the charge of ‘insulting electoral officials’.

Aussies Go 100% Coal! Imagining Life Out from Under the Climate Cloud

By William Walter Kay, December 18, 2022

The real tragedy is what we don’t see. We see billions squandered on wind and solar. Tragic enough, but we don’t see the magnificent electrical infrastructures coal might create if similarly furnished with funds.

Xi of Arabia and the Petroyuan Drive

By Pepe Escobar, December 18, 2022

It would be so tempting to qualify Chinese President Xi Jinping landing in Riyadh a week ago, welcomed with royal pomp and circumstance, as Xi of Arabia proclaiming the dawn of the petroyuan era.

‘Disability Culture’ and the Allure of Victimhood

By Ben Bartee, December 16, 2022

The “Oppression Olympics” – the victimization hierarchy in which more extreme victimhood equals higher social status – is an odd outgrowth of the wider helicopter-mom, “everybody-gets-a-trophy,” “Nerf-the-world” culture that saturated everything circa the 90s. It proliferated from there under the guises of “tolerance” and “equity.”

White House Summit with African Leaders Result in More Promises

By Abayomi Azikiwe, December 16, 2022

During the December 13-15 White House-Africa summit, the Biden administration sought to persuade leaders and officials from 49 states that the United States wants an equal partnership with the continent. This was the first of such meetings since 2014 when the administration of former President Barack Obama was in office.

The Pentagon Budget Normalizes War

By Robert C. Koehler, December 16, 2022

Two dogs walking. One of them says to the other: “I bark and I bark, but I never feel like I affect real change.”This is the caption of a New Yorker cartoon by Christopher Weyant from several years ago. It keeps popping up in my head — I mean, every day. Like everyone else, I want what I do to matter, to “effect real change.” What I do is write. Specifically, I swim in the infinity of possibility. Humanity can kill itself or it can learn to survive. Most people (I believe) prefer the latter, which is all about discovering how we are connected to one another and to the rest of the universe. This is what I try to write about.

“Israeli Exceptionalism” Is a Canadian Value that Forgives Apartheid Israel All Its Crimes

By Khaled Mouammar, December 16, 2022

Canada at the United Nations just finalized its vote AGAINST a resolution which affirms the inalienable right of Indigenous Palestinian Semites to the Occupied Palestinian Territories’ natural resources, and demands Israel cease any exploitation, damage, or depletion of them. It passed 159-8.

Putin Attempting to Prevent a Repeat of the Clinton-Yeltsin Destruction of Russia

By Kurt Nimmo, December 16, 2022

In a speech delivered in 2007, well before the current crisis, Vladimir Putin “reserved his bitterest complaints… for the US drive to expand Nato into former Soviet eastern Europe and for the plans to deploy parts of the missile shield in central Europe. ‘Why do you need to move your military infrastructure to our borders?’” he asked.

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.

***

Omega-6 linoleic acid (LA) is the most common fat in the American diet. Most people get 25 times more LA than they need. At most, you need about 2 grams a day, but the average American gets about 50 grams a day, thanks to the fact that most processed foods and condiments are loaded with omega-6 seed oils

LA gets incorporated into your cell membranes where it causes inflammation. Its half-life is nearly two years, so ridding your body of stored LA completely can take up to seven years

Eliminating LA is a marathon, not a sprint. Ineffective and potentially harmful ways of eliminating LA include extended fasting and overtaxing your body with strenuous endurance exercise

To stop the accumulation of LA in your cells, eliminate seed oils from your diet. Cook with beef tallow, butter, ghee or coconut oil, and avoid all processed foods, restaurant foods, condiments, and animals raised on grains, such as chicken and pork

Vitamin E, in a dose of about 2 IU – 3 IU for every gram of PUFA (not just linoleate) consumed daily may also be able to provide some protection against the inflammatory and endocrine (estrogenic, pro-cortisol) effects of linoleate and PUFA in general

To safely encourage the elimination of LA from your body, focus on building muscle and maximizing lean muscle mass with concentric exercise, and eat a balanced diet with a ratio of 2-to-1 healthy carbs to protein

*

In this interview, Georgi Dinkov, an expert on linoleic acid (LA), details some of the health hazards of this exceedingly common fat in the modern diet, and how to safely rid your body of it.

Both Georgi and I are convinced excessive LA intake is one of the most important variables that can make or break your health, especially in the long term. It’s a far greater contributor to chronic and degenerative disease and mortality than sugar, and it’s the primary culprit that makes processed foods so harmful.

The historical (last 50 to 75 years) incidence curves of cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes and neurological disease in the general population overlap remarkably well the ever-increasing PUFA consumption rates in developed countries, suggesting PUFA is a major factor in those diseases.^1,2

How Georgi Became a Biohacker

Despite having a degree in computer science, Georgi has made a name for himself as an expert biohacker. After graduating from college in 2002, he got a job as a programmer at the National Biomedical Research Foundation (NBRF).

There, he helped develop uniprot.org, a database of all known protein sequences — Protein Information Resource (PIR — pir.georgetown.edu) and UniProt (www.uniprot.org).

Surrounded by up to 60 of the brightest doctors and biochemists in the world, Georgi developed an interest in biochemistry, and started studying on the side so he could more effectively collaborate with his coworkers. He provides an amazing example of what one can learn without any formal training if they merely apply themselves.

I was a young, single person, didn’t have anything better to do, and I tried to utilize my time the best I could. Over a period of about three years, it started to click, so I started to understand what these people were talking about.

In 2005, I left, got myself a full-time job in the IT sector, and then kept reading. The reason I got into this bioenergetic area, which linoleic acid is a big part of, is because around 2009, I … became a low-carber.

Being an athlete in college, I basically happened to combine very low carb diet with very exhaustive exercise, and I got myself into a really big predicament. I started getting these very weird neurological symptoms, tingling of the extremities, headaches, sensitivity to light.”

Low-Carb Considerations

In the interview, we clear up some of the pervasive confusion surrounding low-carb diets, and why long-term chronic low-carb is not ideal. It’s a great short-term intervention for most people, especially those with insulin resistance.

This is because lowering carbs can help reset your metabolism and recover your metabolic flexibility. However, in the long term you can run into trouble — especially if you’re also doing a lot of endurance training. The main reasons for the issues caused by chronic low-carb diets (and/or stress, which mimics the effects of low-carb diets) are:

1. The elevated lipolysis in a low carb-state, which results in chronically elevated circulating levels of PUFA, with the resulting inflammatory and endocrine effects (e.g. PUFA is pro-cortisol, estrogenic and also synergizes with endogenous/exogenous estrogens, and promotes their effects even in low doses).
2. The downregulation of the resting metabolic rate (RMR) by lowered synthesis of T3 when eating a low-carb diet and/or fasting and/or strenuous exercise.

For more details on this, be sure to listen to the interview at normal speed. Believe me, this is an interview that nearly everyone should listen to a few times to capture the incredible clinical pearls that Georgi shared. I personally learned more during this discussion than I have from most interviews.

If you listen to the interview, you will learn that once your sugar stores are expended, you start tapping into your fat stores through a process called lipolysis. This liberated fat is then circulated around your body and supplied to the cells as fuel to compensate for the low glucose availability.

However, certain types of fat block the effects of insulin in your body, so a long-distance endurance athlete can actually end up with a blood profile similar to that of a person with Type 2 diabetes. In Georgi’s case, as an endurance athlete, his blood sugar climbed higher the less sugar he ate. This competition/antagonism between glucose and fats (mostly PUFA) as fuel for the cells was first discovered in the 1970s and named the Randle Cycle.

Why does it occur? The process in your liver that controls blood sugar is gluconeogenesis. If you stop supplying carbs to your body, the organs that need them will activate glucose creation in your body by elevating the stress hormone cortisol, which ends up being very destructive to your tissues, including skeletal muscle, liver, brain and kidneys.

In Type 2 diabetes, a state with hyperglycemia, only about 10% of the circulating glucose is of dietary origin. The rest is due to chronically elevated gluconeogenesis — which suggests that cortisol is the driver of hyperglycemia in Type 2 diabetes — and elevating cortisol chronically by doing low-carb or exhaustive exercise is likely detrimental to insulin sensitivity.

People with elevated cortisol (Cushing phenotype) have the same central obesity and loss of muscle mass (sarcopenia) as the ones seen in diabetes 2. Conversely, blocking cortisol’s effects with the drug RU486 has been demonstrated to lead to sustained fat loss WITHOUT dieting, and improved insulin sensitivity.^3,4,5

Cortisol goes up during exercise, and if there’s no glucose around, cortisol rises even higher. Shakes, problem sleeping, jitteriness and neurological abnormalities are some of the symptoms of high cortisol and low glycogen stores. In Georgi’s case, his symptoms slowly vanished once he started eating a more balanced diet, with a macronutrient ratio of about one-third carbs, one-third fat and one-third protein.

Dietary Fats and Fatty Liver Disease

In his search for answers to the symptoms he experienced on a low-carb diet, he came across Dr. Peat’s website,⁶ aka, Dr. T.A. Peterson, an American biologist who’s been studying the role of energy in the cell, and the effects of LA. Georgi started reading Peat’s work in 2009, and eventually started doing his own experiments.

As noted by Georgi, published research has long demonstrated that LA is far from a benign macronutrient. It’s actually a highly proinflammatory mediator and has endocrine effects that mimic estrogen. Contrary to popular belief, LA is also a major culprit in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), more so than fructose and other sugars.^7,8

Georgi cites research^9,10,11 showing people with alcoholic cirrhosis (liver disease) who ate their normal diet, which was high in omega-6 fats, experienced classic progression of cirrhosis resulting in liver failure. The group whose diet was altered to eliminate all forms of fat aside from coconut oil, a saturated fat, was able to reverse their cirrhosis, even in the presence of continued alcohol abuse. Additional animal experiments¹² confirmed these results. As explained by Georgi:

“The livers of people who are eating predominantly omega-6 fatty acids very quickly get fattened up. Also, there’s cell damage of the Kupffer cells due to the many oxidation byproducts (OxLAMs) of these omega-6 fatty acids … [Meanwhile], the livers of the animals that were still alcoholic but were given the saturated fatty acids had very little oxidative damage to the cells, and they weren’t fat.

What could explain this? Well, it turns out that when you’re consuming a meal with fat, it’s composed of many different fatty acids, but we can separate them into saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated [PUFAs].

It turns out that the liver and most of the organs preferentially oxidize (burn) the saturated fatty acids, and then the monounsaturated fatty acids, while the polyunsaturated acids are predominantly stored.

The polyunsaturated fatty acids, aside from being very susceptible to spontaneous auto oxidation … combustion … are precursors to inflammatory mediators such as prostaglandins and leukotrienes. Those inflammatory mediators are basically derived from … linoleic acid. So, if you eat a lot of polyunsaturated fats, and specifically linoleic acid, you’ll have more … systemic inflammation.

Now NAFLD is already known to be an inflammatory state. You cannot get an inflammatory state from saturated fat. It does not produce those same mediators. Saturated fat will either get stored or will get oxidized properly through the process of beta oxidation to carbon dioxide, ATP and water.

But the polyunsaturated fats, they’re unstable. They can get combusted and create a lot of toxic byproducts, and the liver being the site of the primary organ of detoxification of whatever you are eating through the diet — guess what? They’re going to go mostly there.

Also, because they’re precursors to a number of different mediators, enzymes in the body will take these fatty acids, specifically linoleic acid, and then through a chain of reactions convert it to prostaglandins, leukotrienes and thromboxane.”

PUFAs Are Stored, Not Digested

An important take-home here is that PUFAs such as LA are not digested. Instead they’re stored.¹³Most of the body fat in obese individuals is composed of PUFAs, not saturated fat. Saturated dietary fat is mostly burned (oxidized) and used up.

So, obese individuals are typically not eating very much saturated fat; rather, they’re exponentially overdosing on LA. Animal studies in the early 20th century demonstrated conclusively that pigs fed saturated fats (mostly coconut oil) could not get fat but became lean and muscular, while the ones fed PUFA gained mostly fat.

This led to the adoption/promotion of PUFA as animal feed since the goal there is to maximize “caloric efficiency” — i.e., get the animals as heavy as possible with a little food as possible. In other words, the pro-obesity effects of PUFA and anti-obesity effects of saturated fats are well-known in the livestock industry and are not disputed.

Considering the similarity of our metabolism/structure/tissues/organs with those of pigs, it should not be at all surprising that we keep getting fatter while consuming ever-larger amounts of PUFA.

The half-life of PUFAs such as LA, which get embedded and integrated into your cell membranes, is about 680 days. This means that to rid your body of LA will take approximately seven years, provided you don’t load more in. And you really do want to get rid of this fat, as it’s highly inflammatory and prevents your mitochondria and cellular machinery from operating properly.

Research has shown that given enough PUFAs, your cells will go into apoptosis, they basically commit suicide. “It can actually work like a radiation or chemotherapy. It is a type of chemotherapy,” Georgi says. The implications^14,15 of this insight are quite profound and I look forward to exploring that with Georgi on his next interview.

PUFAs Coming Out of Storage Can Cause Trouble

A key way to eventually lower your body burden of LA is to keep your total LA intake below 2%, maybe even close to 1%. You need to stop putting more in. Exercise and fasting will help drive the LA out, but you need to be really careful if you have a lot of LA storage.

“A recent study¹⁶ found that even lean people who are running marathons, a good portion (82%!) of them are actually in acute kidney failure by the time they reach the finish line,”Georgi says. “The question is, how is this possible? It looks like these circulating fatty acids, which are mostly PUFAs coming out of storage, circulate and cause energetic problems.

Also, because of the quick peroxidation and conversion into inflammatory mediators, they’re damaging many of the organs, predominantly the kidneys.¹⁷ Why the kidneys? Anything that is not oxidized for fuel basically gets sent to the liver through the blood stream, the Phase 2 detoxification mechanism. The liver attaches glucuronic acids to these fatty acids to make them more water soluble.

It can also sulfate them. When they’re more water soluble, you pee them out. But they have to go through the kidneys, and it looks like if a sufficiently big supply of these glucoronidated sulfated PUFAs, or let’s say linoleic acid just for the sake of the argument, is flooding the kidneys, it is causing local damage there.

So, what should we do? Well, it looks like we should be taking measures to not get into excessive lipolysis. What is excessive lipolysis? It’s any situation where you’ve run out of glycogen and now the body says, ‘I don’t have the fuel,’ because you’re not eating and you’ve run out of glycogen.

Then fat is your only other fuel, plus the amino acids that are coming from cortisol. So basically, you should not be getting to a state where you’re chronically starving. Acute, let’s say like eight to 12 hours of fasting, calorie restriction, has been shown to have benefits, but anything longer than that, then you’re starting to increase baseline lipolysis.”

My Recommendations for TRE Have Changed

Georgi pointed out the dangers of an excessive time-restricted eating (TRE) window.^{18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25}An extreme example of TRE is the one meal a day (OMAD) protocol, where you’re fasting 20 hours or more each day. Georgi believes this is too extreme for most people, as most have large stores of LA that need to be purged safely.

I have been personally practicing and advocating a six– to eight-hour time restricted eating window. What I learned from our conversation is that this, or even longer eating restrictions and fasts, are perfectly appropriate for 95% of the population as they are insulin resistant and metabolically inflexible.

The major problem comes once you lose your insulin resistance and become metabolically flexible. At that point, this strategy becomes counterproductive as you will increase your cortisol levels, which causes chronic inflammation that can lead to tissue damage. Usually, it takes about three to six months for you to recover your metabolic flexibility.

Prior to my interview with Georgi I would have a six- to eight-hour eating window and I did this for a few years. Now I am going to shift to one day a week of 12 hours, three days of 10 hours and three days of eight hours. If you are metabolically healthy, I would encourage you to avoid very short eating windows under eight hours.

This is because chronic fasting also elevates your cortisol, just like chronic endurance exercise does. Cortisol, in turn, is involved in insulin resistance and the synthesis of fat, and promotes the storage of fat. Also, as just mentioned above, high amounts of LA can kill your cells.

“So, you don’t want to be doing this to your normal tissues, and you’re doing it to your tissues every single time you over-exert yourself to the point of either glycogen running low or you’re so stressed that your adrenaline has gotten to the point where it’s increasing lipolysis and you’re starting to shed fat.”

This is a massive piece of the puzzle that I never fully appreciated. Molecular biology and pH physiology are based on a pre-1860s scenario where you didn’t have these high levels of LA, which totally distorts the strategies. If they weren’t there, you could fast to activate autophagy and get all these benefits.

You could have a much longer TRE window. But LA is a game changer. It radically modifies the concept of what you need to do to optimize your health. Essentially, if you’ve filled up your fat stores with LA — and in most people, over 20% of their fats are LA stored in their cell membranes and the optimum is 1% to 2% — then you need to integrate that knowledge into your strategy.

How to Safely Purge LA

How can you safely reduce these stores of LA without self-sabotaging? As explained by Georgi, extensive fasting will, in this instance, backfire, as will overtaxing yourself with heavy exercise. You’ll need to accept that this is a marathon, not a sprint, and that it’s going to take years to purge your LA stores. The best strategy, Georgi says, is to build muscle and maximize lean muscle mass.

“What does that mean? Concentric exercise, stimulating the muscles to grow. We already mentioned that cortisol is a very catabolic steroid for the muscles, so [you don’t want that] chronically. Acute spikes of cortisol are unavoidable. But things such as chronic fasting or eating inflammatory foods should be avoided as much as possible, which means cutting out vegetable oils.

If you’re cooking your own food, you have the tools at your disposal to eliminate almost completely the consumption of polyunsaturated fats. If you have to fry things or cook on high temperature, use butter, ghee or beef tallow. Even coconut oil [is good], but it has a lower smoke point. All of these are very good substitutes.”

Also avoid all processed foods, restaurant foods, condiments and animal foods raised on grains, such as chicken and pork. Aside from switching the types of dietary fats you eat, Georgi recommends a diet with a 2-to-1 ratio of carbs to protein, the carbs being in the form of fruits and vegetables, not processed sugary snacks.

“Protein is thermogenic. It’s going to raise your metabolic rate. It’s important to consume it with enough carbs because one of the quickest ways to damage your kidneys is consuming a very high protein diet without sufficient amount of carbs.

Even a competitive bodybuilder can only fully utilize about 120 grams of protein a day. Everything else that a person consumes is going to get oxidized as fuel and in the process gets deaminated, which means it produces ammonia, which is very toxic. It destroys the kidneys, liver and brain.

So, eat your protein, don’t cut down on the protein, but don’t overdo it. Make sure the ratio of carbs to protein is at least two to one, and completely cut out PUFAs as much as possible, especially if you’re cooking your own food.”

Hopefully you didn’t skim this and miss the pearl at the end, to take twice as many carbs as protein. What Georgi didn’t state here, though, is that is for people who are metabolically flexible and not insulin resistant.

So, the key is not to be afraid of healthy carbs: They are your friend. If you are eating enough protein to build muscle, please make sure you also have enough carbs because, if you fail to do this, you can hurt your kidneys, liver and brain.

He also shared another pearl about resistance exercises that I wasn’t aware of. Eccentric exercise, in which you are resisting gravity on the way down, builds muscles, BUT it also damages your muscles and destroys the mitochondria. It is far better to focus on the concentric phase of exercise, as it builds more and stronger mitochondria. Concentric exercise increase mitochondrial biogenesis, and steroidogenesis in muscle.²⁶

How PUFAs Cause Heart Disease

Saturated fats improve the structure of cells, specifically the lipid bilayer, while PUFAs like LA impair it. The reason your cholesterol and LDL levels may go up when switching to saturated fats is because you’re giving the cells the structural material needed, from which the cells can synthesize their own cholesterol as needed. Hence, extra cholesterol gets dumped into the bloodstream because it isn’t needed.

Cholesterol is carried around by LDL. So, when you’re eating saturated fat, your LDL rises, but it’s rising because the cholesterol already in the cell is not as needed anymore. It’s actually a good sign.

Conversely, when you’re eating PUFAs, your cells need more cholesterol to strengthen their structure, so your body dumps cholesterol into the cells to protect them from the onslaught of the PUFAs. Hence, it appears your cholesterol level is going down, but it’s actually having a strongly negative effect.

Additionally, the LA becomes oxidized and the LDL carrying it is now oxidized LDL, which is strongly associated with plaque. Plaque, associated with heart attacks also contains white blood cells, calcium, 7-ketocholesterol and PUFA peroxidation byproducts. Saturated fat does not contribute to plaque.

“The plaque is basically a reaction to an inflammation caused by these toxic PUFA byproducts, and PUFA itself is inflammatory. When it gets lodged into the blood vessel walls, it causes a localized inflammatory reaction. The first response of the body is to send white blood cells to protect the blood vessel wall from damage and rupture. That’s really the purpose of the plaque.

So, the body’s not trying to kill you. It’s simply trying to repair in the best possible manner, to isolate the issue. And the issue that it’s trying to isolate is the PUFA peroxidation byproducts²⁷ and 7-ketocholesterol.²⁸ How can you get around this? Don’t eat PUFA, or at least drastically reduce it. Go back to whatever your grandmother was eating.”

Concluding Thoughts

Like me, Georgi is convinced LA is a primary culprit in chronic diseases. And, since LA is found in most whole foods, there’s really never any need to take an omega-6 supplement. It’s virtually impossible to get too little from your diet.

I believe omega-6 supplements really ought to be removed from the market altogether, as people are getting 25 times more omega-6 than they could possibly need from their diet. At most, you need about 2 grams a day, but the average American gets about 50 grams a day, thanks to the fact that most processed foods and condiments are loaded with omega-6 seed oils.

If our diet were to be shifted away from seed oils to saturated fats, the way it was 150 years ago, we’d likely see a massive decline in chronic diseases, including cancer and heart disease.

To learn more, be sure to listen to the entire interview, as we dive into far greater detail than what I’ve summarized here. Georgi is an absolute fire hydrant when it comes to biochemical details. Also check out Georgi’s blog at www.haidut.me. You can also obtain a major sampling of Ray Peat’s work for free by going to these two sites: wiki.chadnet.org/Ray-Peat and RayPeat.com.

*

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.

Notes

¹ Ray Peat Forum April 13, 2016

² Open Heart August 22, 2018

³ Obesity September 6, 2012; 18(12): 2295-2300

⁴ Front Pharmacol April 24, 2020

⁵ BMC Endocr Disord 2015; 15: 63

⁶ Ray Peat

⁷ Ray Peat Forum January 23, 2018

⁸ Haidut.me October 20, 2021

^9, 17 Gastroenterology August 1995; 109(2): 547-554

¹⁰ J Pharmacol Exp Ther November 2001; 299(2): 638-644

¹¹ Haidut.me September 12, 2019

¹² Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 1989; 13(1): 15-19

¹³ Haidut.me October 22, 2019

¹⁴ Ray Peat Forum March 23, 2021

¹⁵ Ray Peat Forum December 4, 2019

¹⁶ Ray Peat Forum March 28, 2017

¹⁸ Haidut.me February 16, 2021

¹⁹ Haidut.me September 27, 2022

²⁰ Haidut.me March 4, 2021

²¹ Haidut.me December 10, 2021

²² Haidut.me June 21, 2022

²³ Haidut.me November 17, 2020

²⁴ Haidut.me December 21, 2021

²⁵ Haidut.me September 30, 2020

²⁶ Muscle & Nerve 2014; 50(5): 803-811

²⁷ Int J Vitam Nutr Res 2013; 83(6): 367-376

²⁸ Int J Biochem Cell Biol March-April 1999; 31(3-4): 369-375

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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 an overwhelming bipartisan vote late Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed legislation authorizing $858 billion in military spending for Fiscal Year 2023, a sum that drew dissent from just a handful of lawmakers and outrage from watchdogs who said the money should be spent on fighting the climate emergency, poverty, and other pressing crises.

The $858 billion budget amounts to a roughly 10% increase from the previous year and $45 billion more than the historic sum President Joe Biden requested, and it was approved even after the Pentagon failed yet another audit, unable to account for more than 60% of its assets.

Much of the newly authorized money, as analyst Stephen Semler has shown, is likely to wind up in the pockets of military contractors. The NDAA passed by a vote of 83 to 11.

“This absurdly inflated Pentagon budget is a huge payout to military contractor corporations at the direct expense of the American people,” Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, said in a statement, calling the military policy legislation “a moral and political disgrace.”

“The money wasted on the Pentagon… siphons funding away from reducing child poverty, expanding healthcare, addressing the climate crisis, and countless other priorities,” Weissman continued. “This spending level is a testament to the corporate capture and corruption of the Pentagon budgeting process. It leaves the nation less secure and more unjust. It is an utter, total disgrace.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of just 11 senators to vote against the NDAA, lamented that the bill provides the military with “many billions more than Congress has invested in addressing many of the biggest security concerns facing the American people—such as climate change, the opioid epidemic, poverty, hunger, and disease.”

“Instead, it doubles down on the failed approach of pouring money into a bloated, inefficient, and sometimes counterproductive national security machine underwritten by an army of lobbyists and gold-plated contractors that fails to deliver on the needs of the American people,” Markey added. “I simply cannot support it.”

Markey noted that he proposed an NDAA amendment that would have sliced just 1% off the $858 billion topline and allocated the savings to global climate funding, but his proposal was not granted a floor vote—unlike Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) proposed giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, which was voted down Thursday evening.

Joining Markey in voting against the NDAA were Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.).

“At a time when we spend more than the next 11 nations combined on defense, we should invest in healthcare, jobs, housing, and education—not more weapons of destruction,” Sanders tweeted late Thursday.

Breaking: Senate passed an $858 billion military budget.

We’re sprinting towards $1 TRILLION.

Meanwhile:

1.2 billion people worldwide will be climate refugees by 2050

100 million Americans have medical debt

500,000 Americans are homeless

It doesn’t have to be this way.

— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) December 16, 2022

Having passed the House last week by a vote of 350 to 80, the NDAA now heads to President Joe Biden’s desk.

As Defense News reported, the legislation “allocates more than $8 billion to procure high-priority munitions while granting the Pentagon emergency procurement powers to bolster production and refill U.S. stockpiles sent to Ukraine.”

“The final bill includes a requirement for the U.S. Navy to maintain 31 operational amphibious ships, despite opposition from the White House,” the outlet added. “The White House also opposes funding a third Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. But the final bill allocates $2.2 billion for the third Arleigh Burke ship. Additionally, the bill sets aside $25 million to continue the sea-launched cruise missile nuclear development program, also known as SLCM-N, despite the Biden administration’s attempts to cancel it.”

The peace group CodePink said in a statement Thursday that “if common sense were to prevail, President Biden would veto this budget and instruct Congress to use these resources to address the climate crisis, the world’s common enemy.”

“They would invest in infrastructure and education, free healthcare so our illnesses can’t be turned around for profit. They would provide student and medical debt relief, and everyone has a roof over their head,” the group said. “Elected officials, who trade war stocks, are telling us that an arms sale or buying another F-35 fighter jet is in our best interest. The people know what we want, and it’s not endless war.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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 Fort Russ

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 World Health Organization has published a video claiming that people opposed to the COVID jabs are “anti-science” and a “major killing force.” 

In a recently published video on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Twitter page, Dr. Peter Hotez said that “anti-vaccine activism” is “anti-science aggression” and links people who refused the COVID injections to the “far right.” 

“Anti-vaccine activism, which I actually call anti-science aggression, has now become a major killing force globally."
– @PeterHotez, Professor and Dean @BCM_TropMed, on the devastating impact of #misinformation and disinformation. pic.twitter.com/ZluiMGJ2gX

— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) December 14, 2022

The WHO has made this wholesale condemnation of “anti-vaccine activists” despite the fact that many people have been seriously injured or even died after receiving the experimental COVID jabs. A Swiss study for instance found elevated troponin levels – indicating heart injury – across all vaccinated people, with 2.8 percent showing levels associated with subclinical myocarditis.

Furthermore, a group of scientists recently conducted a risk-benefit analysis which showed that getting a COVID-19 “booster shot” is at least 18 times more dangerous than catching the virus itself for young people under the age of 30. 

However, the WHO’s showcased physician did not acknowledge these facts in his rant.

“We have to recognize that anti-vaccine activism, which I actually call anti-science aggression, has now become a major killing force globally,” Hotez said in the video, using a backdrop of photos of protestors against the COVID shots. 

The University Professor of Biology at Baylor College of Medicine claimed that “during the COVID pandemic in the United States, 200,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives because they refused a COVID vaccine, even after vaccines became widely available.” 

“And now the anti-vaccine activism is expanding across the world […].” 

“It’s a killing force,” Hotez proclaimed. “Anti-science now kills more people than things like gun violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or cyber-attacks.”

The scientist did not provide evidence for this dramatic claim.

“And now it’s become a political movement,” he continued. “In the U.S. it’s linked to far [sic] extremism on the far right, same in Germany.” 

“So this is a new face of anti-science aggression. And so we need political solutions to address this.”

The doctor did not provide evidence in the video that opposition to the dangerous, experimental COVID jabs is linked to extremists.

Hotez is a pediatrician who works in the field of vaccine research and development and, in addition to his post at Baylor College of Medicine, is the Chair of Tropical Pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital.  

The WHO is known for its radical pro-abortion stance and promotion of “abortion access” all around the world. 

 Its current director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was a member of the Ethiopia’s communist Tigray People’s Liberation Front and served its Minister of Health when it was in power. The party was declared a terrorist organization by the Ethiopian government in 2021. 

Hotez appears to be very close to Ghebreyesus, as he recently described him as “my brother and mentor Dr. Tedros,” in a Tweet responding to the murder of the WHO director’s uncle.

*

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 LSN

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.

***

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan faces a tough re-election vote in six months.  His rival, the Mayor of Istanbul Ekrem Imamoglu, is very popular and far ahead in the polls. 

Erdogan went back in time to find an obscure statement made by Imamoglu in 2019 which Erdogan used to order the Turkish courts to try Imamoglu on the charge of ‘insulting electoral officials’.

On December 14, Imamoglu was sentenced to 2 years, 7 months, and 15 days of prison, and was banned from politics.

Following his sentence, Imamoglu told his supporters, “Because this case is not a case against me. Because this case is not a party case. This case is a country case. This case is a justice case. This case is an equality case. Because we see this case as the case of leaving a strong and democratic Turkey to our children. Believe me, 2023 will be very beautiful.”

The US reaction to Erdogan’s move to rig the election

On December 15, Ned Price, US State Department Spokesperson said, “The United States is deeply troubled and disappointed by a Turkish court’s verdict against Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, sentencing him to two years and seven months in prison and banning him from political activity.  His conviction is inconsistent with respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.  We remain gravely concerned by the continued judicial harassment of civil society, media, and political and business leaders in Turkey, including through prolonged pretrial detention, overly broad claims of support for terrorism, and criminal insult cases.

We urge the government to cease prosecutions under criminal “insult” laws, and to respect the rights and freedoms of all Turkish citizens, including by ensuring an open environment for public debate.”

The Erdogan-Biden relationship has been weak despite Turkey being an ally, a fellow NATO member, and hosting a US airbase in Incirlik.  Turkey and the US are on opposite sides in northeast Syria, and Turkey is expected to increase their attacks on the US military’s partner there, the Kurdish SDF.

Erdogan’s policies have failed

Erdogan’s polling is so low for many reasons.  From 2011 he supported the US-NATO war on Syria for regime change. The Obama plan failed, and Turkey suffered from the effects of the support for the failed US-sponsored project.

His ruling AKP party aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood united Turkey with Qatar but broke its relationship with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. He began an Islamist transformation from a secular democracy.

International terrorists were hosted by Erdogan as they transited through airports and set up headquarters in camps on the Syrian border.

In response to the terrorists battling the Syrian government, Syrian refugees who aligned themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood flooded Turkey in the millions as they sought protection under Erdogan and his Muslim Brotherhood-aligned party, AKP.  After 12 years of 3 million Syrian refugees living in Turkey, Turkish citizens have grown to hate and resent the refugees for racial, and economic reasons.

Turkey lost its biggest export market in 2012. Turkish exports to Syria represented 50% of all global Turkish exports, but in 2012 the Syrian government banned imports from Turkey because they participated in the US-NATO attack for regime change.

This huge loss to the Turkish economy began a downturn that saw the currency devalued and hyperinflation. Turkish citizens are suffering the loss of a prosperous lifestyle robbed of them by Erdogan’s failed foreign policy.

Erdogan and his close relatives have prospered as war profiteers; making money off of stolen oil, factories, and wheat, and transporting them to Turkey for resale.  Erdogan and his son sold stolen Syrian oil to the EU for $17 per barrel and sold stolen Syrian wheat to France for its croissants and Italy for its pasta.

Erdogan is low in the polls and is afraid of losing the election

Erdogan finished with the constitutional three-term limit in 2015, so he changed the constitution to allow himself more time to reign.

Cemil Cicek is a former parliamentary speaker from Erdogan’s ruling AKP, who also has served as deputy prime minister and justice minister, and is now a member of the Turkish Presidency’s High Advisory Board.

“If you decide on a one-sentence defamation claim after such a long time, and at such a critical threshold, neither the legality nor the accuracy of your decision will be convincing,” said Cicek of the Imamoglu sentence, and added “I don’t believe that it is credible either. This both harms the judiciary and a lofty concept such as justice. It will do a lot of damage to the country as well.”

Bulent Arinc, former parliamentary speaker and one of the founding members of the AKP also slammed the court’s decision on Imamoglu.

“The court’s verdict is a shame and a despair for the Turkish judiciary,” Arinc said.

The Mayor of Istanbul

Ekrem Imamoglu is a Turkish businessman, building contractor, and center-left politician. First elected as Mayor of Istanbul with 4.1 million votes and won with a margin of 13,000 votes against his AKP opponent in the March 2019 mayoral election as the joint Nation Alliance candidate, but served only from April 17, 2019, until May 6, 2019, when the election was annulled on orders of Erdogan. Imamoglu was then reelected in a renewed election on June 23, 2019, by an even larger margin of 800,000 votes.

Condemning the decision in 2019, Imamoglu said “Those who canceled the election are fools.”

The opposition to Erdogan

Turkey’s six opposition parties including the CHP have formed the Nation Alliance to unite their strength against the ruling bloc AKP (Justice and Development Party) and its supporter MHP (Nationalist Movement Party). The opposition candidate for president will be determined by the leaders of six opposition parties, who are: CHP Chairman Kılıçdaroğlu, IYI Party Chairman Akşener, Future Party Chairman Davutoğlu, Democrat Party Chairman Uysal, DEVA Party Chairman Babacan, and IMM President Ekrem Imamoglu.

The opposition parties are united in their goal to defeat Erdogan

200 thousand Turkish citizens gathered in Sarachane in support of Imamoglu and protested his prison sentence. The setting of the rally was the site of the July 15, 2016 coup attempt to overthrow Erdogan’s government.

The leaders of the six opposition parties gave speeches to the crowd and stressed justice and the ultimate victory awaiting the nation.

IBB President Ekrem Imamoglu spoke to the crowd,

“I will tell you: The people who run this country are sick, very sick. These are people who are allergic to the will of the nation.”

Referring to Erdogan and his nepotism and cronyism,

“You manage some interest groups, elected associations, close family foundations, and some dark circles. They have established an order of waste in Istanbul and they want it to last forever. This was an order that enriched the wealth of a handful of people and hurt the people of Istanbul,” said Imamoglu.

“If 16 million Istanbulites are not equal in your eyes; If you do not see our 85 million citizens of the Republic of Turkey,” he said and added, “You showed your day to those who want to set a barrier to your will three and a half years ago and twice. You will show it again; I have no doubt. Never lose your hope.”

CHP Chairman Kilicdaroglu said

“In Turkey today, no one feels safe. The rule of law is not the rule of the superiors. No one speaks to the one who has an uncle. But when a teenager tweets, there is a knock on his door early in the morning and he is taken into custody. We will finish this scene. Don’t worry. You will never, ever experience these sights again.”

Kilicdaroglu added,

“This is not a 100m run. It’s a marathon, and we’ve come to the end of the marathon. After six months you will see a new Turkey. You will see a beautiful Turkey. You will see an embracing Turkey. You will see a fertile Turkey.”

IYI Party Chairman Aksener said forcefully, “Democracy is ours. The ballot box is ours.”

DEVA Party Babacan said, referring to the long reign of Erdogan,

“The 3-term rule, these three terms expired in 2015.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. 85 million is bigger than one. Turkey is bigger than one.”

Uysal, Chairman of the Democratic Party said,

“May 6, 2019, is the date of a major break for Turkish democracy. It is the date when the main pillar of our democracy collapsed.”

The Chairman of the Future Party, Davutoğlu said

“Yesterday, the judiciary became politicized. But our issue is above politics. We are here as six general presidents. We are in different political parties. But we all say ‘Honor’ with the same loud voice. We call it ‘fundamental rights and freedoms’. We call it the ‘democratic state of law’.

I say on behalf of 85 million democracy lovers: We are not afraid, we are not afraid, we will not be afraid. We did not bow to you, we do not bow, we will not bow. We will protect everyone’s rights, law, and justice, regardless of their political views.”

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular 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.

***

The real tragedy is what we don’t see. We see billions squandered on wind and solar. Tragic enough, but we don’t see the magnificent electrical infrastructures coal might create if similarly furnished with funds.  

The world’s largest coal-fired power stations, Inner Mongolia’s 6,720 Megawatt (MW) Tuoketuo Station and South Korea’s 6,100 MW Taean Station, were built in stages as additional generators were needed. Tuoketuo now sports a motley array of 12 steam turbines ranging in size from 300 to 660 MW. Taean’s managers topped-up their 8 original 500 MW turbines with 2 Hitachi 1,050s.

Australian electricity demand peaks at 35,000ish MW; therefore, 8 Tuoketuo-sized plants (operating at two-thirds capacity) could meet national needs.

Nature’s most coal-rich tribe, the Aussies, own 165 billion tonnes of recoverable black coal and 433 billion tonnes of brown. Australia’s 94 coal mines yield a mere half-billion tonnes annually.

With centuries of supply, Aussies should consider coal inexhaustible. The Stone Age didn’t end when we ran out of rocks. Uranium will dethrone coal before Australians exhaust their seams; but right now 9,000 coal-fired power plants adorn Earth; a quantum blossoming by hundreds every year.

When life throws you lemons, …make lemonade. Pre-2002 Australians drew 80+% of their electricity from coal. In 2002, decades into the climate hooey, wind power finally captured measurable portions of Australia’s electricity market. Solar surfaced in 2005. Australia’s electricity-by-source scorecard now reads: coal 51%, gas 18%, solar 12%, wind 10%, hydro 6%, and oil 2%.

Net Zero dictates 90% reductions in global coal-burning by 2050. The climate oligarchy’s sacrificial lamb, Australia, must surrender coal-power long before then.

On command, Australia’s top toadies tumble over one another, beckoning the coal-apocalypse closer. PM Albanese recently increased renewable quotas 15%, proclaiming:

“Our new ambitious target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 will put Australia on track to achieve Net Zero by 2050.” (1)

Queensland Premier Palaschuk demands 70% renewable electricity by 2032; …80% by 2035. Given (non-renewable) gas’s role in planned electricity mixes, Palaschuk’s demands spell death for coal-power.

Australians added 5 units to their coal-power fleet post-1999; none since 2009. Several closures are slated for the 2020s. Other closures are being brought forward.

Between 2002 and 2022 generating capacity grew from 36,900 MW to 53,400 MW; however much new capacity is aspirational nameplate capacity configured by solar panel and wind turbine salesmen. Australia’s coal-plants consistently deliver 66% of advertised max capacity, while wind typically delivers 30%; and solar: 10%.

Australia’s 19 coal-plants continue to supply baseload power with 59 aging steam turbines. Bayswater Station draws water from the Hunter River to operate four 660 MW generators. Saltwater-cooled Eraring Station’s four 720 MW Toshibas are fed by local mines. Brown coal monsters, Lon Yang A and B’s 6 generators electrify Melbourne; …also with locally-mined coal.

Ubiquitous deposits incentivize many Australian cities, like Melbourne, to tap adjacent brown coalfields. Strides in ultra-high-voltage long-distance transmission render this strategy obsolete.

The Belo Monte-Rio de Janeiro transmission line carries 4,000 MW a distance of 2,543 kilometres. The Siberia-Ural line carries 5,500 MW 2,344 kilometres. The UHV (1.1 million volt) Changi-Guquan carries 12,000 MW 3,250 kilometres.

Nine major Australian cities lay within 1,200 kilometres of Queensland’s humongous, high-volatility black coalfields.

Australians should visualize next-gen (15,000+ MW) coal-stations. Imagine robotized arrays of Arabelle 1,900s, fed by supercritical boilers, nestled into Queensland’s richest coalfields, and swirling the world’s cheapest electricity across Australia.

GE, Siemens, Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Toshiba et al will gladly sell Australia the machinery; the manufacturing of which Aussies should master. 30,000 industrializing South Pacific and Indian Ocean islands, thirsting for electricity, makes a ready market.

There’s also coal-to-oil; or, “carbon-to-x,” as coal is now re-constructable into a myriad of commodities, not just gasoline. South Africa has been exploiting this tech at grand scale since 1950. China is undergoing a coal-to-x boom.

Why not Australia?

*

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 Walter Kay is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Note

1. Albanese’s letter to the UNFCCC June, 16, 2022.

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.

***

Could a gel made out of human proteins create the next generation of bulletproof body armor? Scientists have created a biogel that is capable of stopping supersonic objects — such as a speeding bullet.

Scientists at the University of Kent say it could ensure the safety of military and police personnel, as well as guard airplanes and spacecraft against flying debris.

The protective material contains a protein found in human cells. Known as talin, it reforms in response to external forces.

“Each molecule has 13 ‘switches’ that can unfold when force is applied,” says project leader Professor Benjamin Goult in a statement, according to SWNS. “These refold after force is removed – enabling shock absorption.”

The team adapted the ends of three switches and then linked them together using water and a gelling agent to form a mesh. When something hits it, the energy unfolds the modified talin rather than converting into heat — as is the case with existing materials.

In experiments, a piston fired tiny particles of basalt and larger pieces of shrapnel at a sample placed in front of an aluminum plate. Even at supersonic speeds of a mile a second, twice as fast as firearm bullets, the gel stopped them in their tracks.

The breakthrough opens the door to next-generation bulletproof armor.

“Talin is cells’ natural shock absorber. It contains a series of binary switch domains which open under tension and refold again once tension drops,” Prof. Goult says, according to SWNS.

“This response to force gives talin its incredible properties, protecting our cells from the effects of large force changes.”

Traditional body armor has its flaws

Current body armor has a bulky ceramic face with a fiber-reinforced composite backing. While this may be good at stopping bullets and flying debris, it is ineffective against kinetic energy which can cause physical trauma to the body behind the armor.

Moreover, due to reduced structural integrity, traditional body armor frequently sustains permanent damage after a hit, barring continued usage. Talin-based alternatives could be a viable replacement for existing conventional technologies.

“It offers a lighter, more durable armor shielding the wearer from a wider spectrum of injuries – including those brought on by shock,” Prof. Goult tells SWNS.

Energy-dissipating materials are required to efficiently collect space debris, dust, and tiny meteoroids for scientific investigation. They can trap and store projectiles after impact and help construct expensive equipment, increasing astronauts’ durability and safety.

They may also replace gels used in the industry which are prone to melting due to temperature increases brought on by projectile impact. The team is now working with a company to develop the gel as a component of body armor.

Other proteins labeled with markers can bind to talin. Damage could be identified by adding fluorescent protein.

“There’s an analogy with autopilots in planes. A lot of private planes don’t contain autopilots,” Prof. Goult says.

*

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 study is published on the science website bioRxiv.

South West News Service writer Mark Waghorn contributed to this report.

Featured image is by Pixabay from Pexels

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 would be so tempting to qualify Chinese President Xi Jinping landing in Riyadh a week ago, welcomed with royal pomp and circumstance, as Xi of Arabia proclaiming the dawn of the petroyuan era.

But it’s more complicated than that. As much as the seismic shift implied by the petroyuan move applies, Chinese diplomacy is way too sophisticated to engage in direct confrontation, especially with a wounded, ferocious Empire. So there’s way more going here than meets the (Eurasian) eye.

Xi of Arabia’s announcement was a prodigy of finesse: it was packaged as the internationalization of the yuan. From now on, Xi said, China will use the yuan for oil trade, through the Shanghai Petroleum and National Gas Exchange, and invited the Persian Gulf monarchies to get on board. Nearly 80 percent of trade in the global oil market continues to be priced in US dollars.

Ostensibly, Xi of Arabia, and his large Chinese delegation of officials and business leaders, met with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to promote increased trade. Beijing promised to “import crude oil in a consistent manner and in large quantities from the GCC.” And the same goes for natural gas.

China has been the largest importer of crude on the planet for five years now – half of it from the Arabian peninsula, and more than a quarter from Saudi Arabia. So it’s no wonder that the prelude for Xi of Arabia’s lavish welcome in Riyadh was a special op-ed expanding the trading scope, and praising increased strategic/commercial partnerships across the GCC, complete with “5G communications, new energy, space and digital economy.”

Foreign Minister Wang Yi doubled down on the “strategic choice” of China and wider Arabia. Over $30 billion in trade deals were duly signed – quite a few significantly connected to China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects.

And that brings us to the two key connections established by Xi of Arabia: the BRI and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The Silk Roads of Arabia

BRI will get a serious boost by Beijing in 2023, with the return of the Belt and Road Forum. The first two bi-annual forums took place in 2017 and 2019. Nothing happened in 2021 because of China’s strict zero-Covid policy, now abandoned for all practical purposes.

The year 2023 is pregnant with meaning as BRI was first launched 10 years ago by Xi, first in Central Asia (Astana) and then Southeast Asia (Jakarta).

BRI not only embodies a complex, multi-track trans-Eurasian trade/connectivity drive but it is the overarching Chinese foreign policy concept at least until the mid-21^st century. So the 2023 forum is expected to bring to the forefront a series of new and redesigned projects adapted to a post-Covid and debt-distressed world, and most of all to the loaded Atlanticism vs. Eurasianism geopolitical and geoeconomic sphere.

Also significantly, Xi of Arabia in December followed Xi of Samarkand in September – his first post-Covid overseas trip, for the SCO summit in which Iran officially joined as a full member. China and Iran in 2021 clinched a 25-year strategic partnership deal worth a potential $400 billion in investments. That’s the other node of China’s two-pronged West Asia strategy.

The nine permanent SCO members now represent 40 percent of the world’s population. One of their key decisions in Samarkand was to increase bilateral trade, and overall trade, in their own currencies.

And that further connects us to what has happening in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, in full synchronicity with Riyadh: the meeting of the Supreme Eurasia Economic Council, the policy implementation arm of the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU).

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in Kyrgyzstan, could not have been more straightforward:

“The work has accelerated in the transition to national currencies in mutual settlements… The process of creating a common payment infrastructure and integrating national systems for the transmission of financial information has begun.”

The next Supreme Eurasian Economic Council will take place in Russia in May 2023, ahead of the Belt and Road Forum. Take them together and we have the lineaments of the geoeconomic road map ahead: the drive towards the petroyuan proceeding in parallel to the drive towards a “common paying infrastructure” and most of all, a new alternative currency bypassing the US dollar.

That’s exactly what the head of the EAEU’s macroeconomic policy, Sergey Glazyev, has been designing, side by side with Chinese specialists.

Total Financial War

The move towards the petroyuan will be fraught with immense peril.

In every serious geoeconomic gaming scenario, it’s a given that an enfeebled petrodollar translates as the end of the imperial free lunch in effect for over five decades.

Concisely, in 1971, then-US President Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon pulled the US from the gold standard; three years later, after the 1973 oil shock, Washington approached the Saudi oil minister, notorious Sheikh Yamani, with the proverbial offer-you-can’t-refuse: we buy your oil in US dollars and in return you buy our Treasury bonds, lots of weapons, and recycle whatever’s left in our banks.

Cue to Washington now suddenly able to dispense helicopter money – backed by nothing – ad infinitum, and the US dollar as the ultimate hegemonic weapon, complete with an array of sanctions over 30 nations who dare to disobey the unilaterally imposed “rules-based international order.”

Impulsively rocking this imperial boat is anathema. So Beijing and the GCC will adopt the petroyuan slowly but surely, and certainly with zero fanfare. The heart of the matter, once again, is their mutual exposure to the Western financial casino.

In the Chinese case, what to do, for instance, with those whopping $1 trillion in US Treasury bonds. In the Saudi case, it’s hard to think about “strategic autonomy” – such as what’s enjoyed by Iran – when the petrodollar is a staple of the Western financial system. The menu of possible imperial reactions includes everything from a soft coup/ regime change to Shock and Awe over Riyadh – followed by regime change.

Yet what the Chinese – and the Russians – are aiming at goes way beyond a Saudi (and Emirati) predicament. Beijing and Moscow have clearly identified how everything – the oil market, global commodities markets – is tied to the role of the US dollar as reserve currency.

And that’s exactly what the EAEU discussions; the SCO discussions; from now on the BRICS+ discussions; and Beijing’s two-pronged strategy across West Asia are focused to undermine.

Beijing and Moscow, within the BRICS framework, and further on within the SCO and the EAEU, have been closely coordinating their strategy since the first sanctions on Russia post-Maidan 2014, and the de facto trade war against China unleashed in 2018.

Now, after the February 2022 Special Military Operation launched by Moscow in Ukraine and NATO has devolved into, for all practical purposes, war against Russia, we have stepped beyond Hybrid War territory and are deep into Total Financial War.

SWIFTly drifting away

The whole Global South absorbed the “lesson” of the collective (institutional) west freezing, as in stealing, the foreign reserves of a G20 member, on top of it a nuclear superpower. If that happened to Russia, it could happen to anyone. There are no “rules” anymore.

Russia since 2014 has been improving its SPFS payment system, in parallel with China’s CIPS, both bypassing the western-led SWIFT banking messaging system, and increasingly used by Central Banks across Central Asia, Iran and India. All across Eurasia, more people are ditching Visa and Mastercard and using UnionPay and/or Mir cards, not to mention Alipay and WeChat Pay, both extremely popular across Southeast Asia.

Of course the petrodollar – and the US dollar, still representing under 60 percent of global foreign exchange reserves – will not ride into oblivion overnight. Xi of Arabia is just the latest chapter in a seismic shift now driven by a select group in the Global South, and not by the former “hyperpower.”

Trading in their own currencies and a new, global alternative currency is right at the top of the priorities of that long list of nations – from South America to Northern Africa and West Asia – eager to join BRICS+ or the SCO, and in quite a few cases, both.

The stakes could not be higher. And it’s all about subjugation or exercising full sovereignty. So let’s leave the last essential words to the foremost diplomat of our troubled times, Russia’s Sergey Lavrov, at the international interparty conference Eurasian Choice as a Basis for Strengthening Sovereignty:

“The main reason for today’s growing tensions is the stubborn striving of the collective West to maintain a historically diminishing domination in the international arena by any means it can… It is impossible to impede the strengthening of the independent centers of economic growth, financial might and political influence. They are emerging on our common continent of Eurasia, in Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.”

All aboard…the Sovereign Train.

*

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 Cradle.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle

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.

***

A patent granted to Bill Gates awarded the self-appointed world health czar the “exclusive rights” to computerize human bodies and use them as local wireless networks.

The human body is a vibrating, throbbing, pulsing gateway of tubes and tunnels, filled with electrolytes and all capable of transmitting information, the lifeblood of the internet and the 21st century.

Now it has emerged that Gates’ Microsoft was granted “exclusive rights” to this ability of the body to act as a computer network.

If this sounds too much like science fiction, then you are welcome to check this out for yourself. Microsoft was awarded US Patent 6,754,472, which is titled: Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using the human body.

Which really should be science fiction, if you stop to think about it. Did anybody consult you about whether you are willing to hand over to Bill Gates the exclusive rights to your body?

Civil liberties groups have expressed outrage over Gates’s move to patent the human body. “Body parts, in this case skin, should not be in any way patentable,” said Jim Thomas of the ETC group, which monitors developments in technology. “There are big questions here about whether individuals will be able to refuse this technology if it is used in, for example, tracking devices.”

Klaus Schwab’s right hand man, Yuval Noah Harari, says there is no question that individuals will have no say whatsoever about refusing this technology. According to Harari, “The designer of life will no longer be god, the WEF are going to be the designers of the future of life.”

Harari also explains why Gates’ patent on the human body is so important. Gates was at the forefront of the computer science revolution, according to Harari, and he is also at the forefront of “the revolution in the biological sciences.” And guess what? According to Harari, Bill Gates’ two revolutions are about to merge.

While Harari is dropping some hints, Gates is remaining coy about what they plan to do to the human body, and more to the point, whose human bodies they plan to computerize.

The big question is whether Gates is planning to allow his human subjects a choice in the matter.

According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Gates has a “God-like willingness to experiment with the lives of lesser humans.”

Kennedy Jr. goes on to warn that Bill Gates has used his money to systematically purchase “powers exceeding, in some respects, those wielded by presidents” and is using these powers to experiment on human beings like “guinea pigs“.

“Gates’ strategy of buying WHO [World Health Organization] and purchasing control of US health officials like Tony Fauci & Deborah Birx” means the Microsoft co-founder can now “dictate global health policies affecting 7 billion people and to control the most intimate details of our lives,” said Kennedy Jr. on his Instagram page.

“Under his direction, the WHO is conducting global social and medical experimentation applying Gates’ religious faith that he can use technology (vaccines and GMO agriculture) and his deep understanding of computers to make him the savior to all of humanity. We are his guinea pigs.”

But if you think Bill Gates’ plans for humanity are disturbing, wait until you meet the people he is collaborating with.

A controversial proposal by a New York University professor to combat ‘climate change’ through biohacking has attracted the attention of World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation.

Strap yourself in. Things are about to get weird.

Matthew Liao, a bioethicist at NYU, first presented the proposal in a paper he wrote in 2012. Titled ‘Human Engineering and Climate Change’, the crux of the paper argues for the use of radical biomedical interventions on humans so as to create people who are literally physiologically environmentally-friendly.

These biomedical interventions involve three approaches: a eugenics program against tall people, inducing intolerance towards meat including beef, pork and chicken, and radically lowering birth rates by altering women’s cognitive abilities.

Liao states that its necessary to have a eugenics program that breeds tall people out of the population because the increase in human height over the past few centuries has had a negative environmental impact, because tall people consume more calories.

To carry out the eugenics program, Liao has two suggestions. The first one being the genetic screening of embryos before IVF implantation so that parents can have the option to choose children who are likely to be short and small. Liao’s second suggestion is even more radical, and involves injecting children with hormones to severely stunt their growth so they consume less calories when they are adults.

As for inducing meat intolerance, Liao uses the globalist elites favorite excuse; ‘climate change’, to argue that we must make people allergic to meat, by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins.

This is taking authoritarianism to a whole new level, far surpassing anything attempted in Mao’s China or Stalin’s Russia.

Instead of eating meat, as humans have since time began, the WEF want us to eat Bill Gates’ lab-grown meat. The elite also have a thing for cannibalism. Here is WEF-aligned transhumanist politician Ben Zion consuming lab-grown human meat in what he claims is a historic first.

The 40 year-old-Facebook politician turned biohacker claims the lab-grown human meat is from cell cultures that he took from his own skin.

Why do they want us to eat crickets, bugs and lab-grown human meat? The answer lies in how badly the elite want to humiliate and degrade us.

But Liao’s suggestions don’t stop there. Getting onto the elite’s favourite topic, depopulation, and Liao suggests that to lower birth rates even further, the WEF should pump women full of smart drugs to enhance their cognitive abilities. He arrives at this conclusion by arguing that the more educated women become, the less children they have.

“Women with low cognitive ability are more likely to have children before age eighteen,” says Liao, “Hence, another possible human engineering solution is to use cognition enhancements such as Ritalin and Modafinil to achieve lower birthrates.”

When Liao published his paper almost a decade ago, it caused controversy, and was for the most part dismissed as eco-extremism, even by ‘climate change’ activists. But fast forward to the present day, and the extreme bioengineering proposals of the paper are being seriously discussed at the World Economic Forum.

Last year in December, in preparation for this year’s Davos Summit, the World Economic Forum unveiled its bioengineering framework in a presentation called ‘3 Scenarios for How Bioengineering Could Change Our World in 10 Years.’

Edible vaccines grown in plants and CRISPR gene-editing were some of the highlights of the framework. The presentation was based off a World Economic Forum sponsored academic paper called Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020.

For this year’s Davos Summit, Liao’s human bioengineering paper was added to the ‘Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020’ paper for both the World Economic Forum’s bioengineering framework and Climate Change framework.

As radical as Matthew Liao’s human bioengineering suggestions might seem, their consideration and deliberation by the World Economic Forum should come as no surprise.

Bill Gates is a fan of experimenting on the human body, whether his human subjects have given their consent or otherwise, and Klaus Schwab considers bioengineering a key component of his Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Do not underestimate these people. They are mad, drunk on power, and they do not have our best interests at heart.

*

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.

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, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on April 13, 2022

***

In March 2020, as the entire world grinded to a halt for the first time in recorded history in the face of the Covid-19 scare, most people had no idea of the deep significance of the events taking place. It was the first time that all nations were collectively brought to a complete standstill. The fact that all the people of the world were simultaneously forced to ‘stop’, signalled that a major change in the world was coming.

• We know that Covid-19 hoax was pre-planned; that the PCR test, methods for recording case numbers, the CDC’s Covid-19 genome are all fraudulent;  it is proven that the so-called virus was never isolated anywhere;
• doctor’s such as Dr Stefan Lanka have exposed the virus misconception; the so-called Covid-19 ‘variants’ are due to the vaccinated becoming ill and spreading variants, not the un-vaccinated, as Dr Mikovits explained, it’s a cover up of XMRVs, transmitted into humans via contaminated vaccines;
• the dangers of  MRNA-based vaccines, and of EMF technologies, such as 5G; that manmade climate change is a deception;
• Covid-19 and manmade climate change are a ‘psyops’ intended to propel the world into the Davos Group WEF technocratic ‘reset’ and the aligned UN Agenda 2030 plan;
• additional orchestrated pandemics, crises and wars are likely ‘in the pipeline’ to further these plans. Many doctors and scientists that have explained this are censored on internet platforms.

In the book “Transcending the Covid-19 Deception” I detail evidence for the above and a 100-year timeline of key events, who and what is behind the curtain of these lies, and the bigger picture of what it all means.

They are using these well marketed scares, false ideologies, fake crises, and political systems (democracy, communism, socialism, etc) to control you. Many people are thus in a media-and-government-induced dysfunctional state of confusion, and thus blindly assume their pre-determined role in society under this ‘dictatorship of words’ without even being aware of it. For example, we now have millions of so-called climate change warriors blind to the fact that climate change is not actually caused by carbon emissions.

Manmade climate change is nothing more than UN, WEF and EU promoted non-evidence-based propaganda. I am a signatory of the Climate Intelligence Group European Climate Declaration, a declaration that has been signed by 1,000 scientists in climate and related fields, that asserts “the proclaimed climate crisis exists in computer models only”.

How can I assert this? I worked as a scientist at the UK Government Dept. of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), and at the United Nations Environment Division in Geneva. I resigned from both roles. It was evident that the manipulation and distortion of data had long been used to promote false ideology and deceptive agenda rather than fact. These agendas stem from the top echelons of the international finance, political, and mega-corporate system, and those private central bankers who control the system by owning the source of debt-money creation.

The UN is clever marketing tool and unelected unaccountable political mechanism for implementing and maintaining a corrupt worldwide system, under the clever guise of ‘fixing the problems of the world’.  It is so big most people have no idea what the UN really is or what it is designed for, and who are the globalist robber barons that control it from the top down. The word sustainable was hijacked decades ago, it is now deceptively used to advance the agendas of the globalists who couldn’t care less about the environment.

The UN Agenda 2030 plan and the Paris Agreement goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 7% per annum until 2030 is in effect a plan that will disable the resource mechanisms of the industrial economy for the food, energy and goods that enable human life and survival. This is being done before humanity has transitioned away from the flawed polluting trans-national industrial economy toward self-sufficient local economies. Whether you believe the ‘plug is being pulled’ intentionally or not, this inevitably amounts to a de-population outcome. The dependency of humanity on a globalised system was created for decades by an international political corporate hierarchy rampantly promoting and implementing flawed trans-national systems for agriculture, energy and goods, aligned with a usury economy in which wealth continuously flowed toward the private bankers. These globalised oil-dependent systems become useless as peak oil manifests.

Furthermore, the current green energy/renewable technologies being promoted by the UN and WEF, these technologies are not a viable solution for the world’s energy supply. The Energy Returned on Energy Invested is much too low – in essence the entire process is mathematically flawed. This is evidenced by the work of Professor David MacKay, Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University and former Chief Scientific Advisor at DECC.

The funding of entire world economy is now based on a life-killing net-zero GHG strategy. Note that the world’s central bankers are behind this decision and are fully funding the worldwide climate change ‘project’. The Bank for International Settlements created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure, which represents the world’s mega-banks and $118 trillion of assets globally.

Democracy will not make things better, it is an illusory divide and conquer/control trick. It is just the election of the latest political figure heads, none of whom have any real power – it’s the behind-the-scenes privately-owned world banking cartel that owns the debt-money creation system that has the means to control, own, fund, or de-fund whatever government, corporation or ideology it wishes. Many politicians are the witting, and often un-witting, pawns, of the globalists. Democratic leaders are subservient not to the people but always to international finance. International banking and mega corporations control governments.

For many decades the so-called banking and corporate elites have had full control of the source of money creation and its allocation, via the debt-money system, and have therefore, by default, been able to fund, and increasingly control and manipulate the entire world spectrum of industry, media, government, education, ideological supremacy and war to their own design, agenda and benefit. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (banker) is reported to have said:

“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”

The WEF reset/UN Agenda 2030 moves the elites beyond control of the money system, to control of the people system, via new rules, track and trace, bio-metrics, vaccine passports, digital IDs, facial recognition, smart cities and blockchain power dynamics. That is not smart for you, it is smart for them. It is all presented in clever marketing language because if people understood it nobody would want it. Humanity urgently needs to take back control of the money creation process, or, at least, function outside of the privately-owned worldwide banking, credit creation and corporate system.

People’s access to energy and resources is being intentionally reduced via rapid inflation, bogus climate change policies, ongoing geo-political theatre and intentionally instigated war, in which both ‘sides’ are acting as pawns for the wider agenda of the punch-and-judy show globalists.

As sovereign free peoples, we urgently need to start planning, connecting with each other and creating much more self-sufficient local communities, towns, and regions free of the globalist controlled monetary system.

If people are not dependent on the system they cannot be controlled by the system. How many people will accept a ‘well-marketed system of technocratic control’ and how many will maintain their own freedom and create their own local systems? You are part of the answer.

The mainstream media is fully owned and controlled by the corporate elites and it is time for people to replace their window on the world. This starts by turning off the TV. John Swinton, former chief-of-staff for the New York Times said: “We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes… They pull the strings… AND WE DANCE.”

The corporate super-entity

The Covid and Climate change hoaxes could not have been orchestrated without a single controlling world influence over the media, banking, and the corporate/political structure. Who owns the banks and asset management companies that own and control the world? Let’s take the example of Blackrock, one of the world’s largest asset management companies, which manages funds of over $27 trillion ($27,000 billion) and in effect owns most of the U.S. and large parts of the world. The major shareholders of Blackrock are all mega-banks and financial corporations, in this way we can see that it the private mega-banks that own most of the world.

A study was conducted in 2018 at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, on the relationships between 37 million companies and investors worldwide, and they concluded there is one ‘super-entity’ of just 147 tightly knit mega-corporations, and all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity. In essence, the worldwide privately owned financial and corporate orthodoxy is one large self-reinforcing super-entity underneath the tentacles of financial mega-corporations, who are themselves pre-dominantly owned by a small coterie of privately owned mega-banks/financial institutions. One corporate ‘super-entity’ of interlocking ownership literally owns and dominates the world economy, resources, and media.

The private banking cartel owns and controls the corporate super-entity. A small number of mega-banks are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation. This is why less than 0.001 % of the world’s population, i.e., a small number of banking family elites and their networks, own the majority of the world’s assets and wealth.

A systemic ongoing problem with the world economic system, and peak oil, has been manifesting.  Various studies now indicate that peak oil has occurred, and the days of using oil as a cheap energy source to drive the flawed globalised system and seemingly endless growth may soon be over permanently. The decades old economic Ponzi scheme of the globalists has thus reached its mathematical end-phase, forcing another paradigm shift.

By 2019, virtually every national government of the world owed vast or mathematically unpayable amounts of debt to the worldwide private banking cartel. This system forces people to live in a debt cycle which never ends. Since debt does not really exist (the money was created from nothing), the national debt is a hoax perpetrated by the so-called ‘powers that be’. The private central-banks and governments facilitate this worldwide con game.

This system of debt-money slavery had reached its mathematical end-phase by 2019. A new system of control was needed and the elites had known this for a long time. Most people still have no idea that in March 2020 the world central bankers launched a world economic reset under cover of the pre-planned Covid world lockdown. Viruses, it seems, suddenly become invisible enemies of the world’s governments, but it was all pre-planned. The Covid-19 hoax was and is a cover/smokescreen for an attempted new worldwide system of societal control. At the exact same time as the lockdown was introduced the world central bankers implemented a world financial reset and transferred trillions of dollars to Blackrock; and the WEF/UN launched a pre-planned technocratic reset of world society aligned with their Agenda 2030 plan.

Transcending the power game of godless scientism

The Covid-19 vaccine has been relentlessly promoted as a chemical messiah purported to save everyone from death, the problem of course is it is a false and dangerous messiah of demonic scientism. The vaccine companies and government health agencies knew that the Covid-19 vaccines were unsafe and going to injure a high volume of people. This is proved by the fact that the MHRA in the UK posted a procurement contract notice on the EU EPSD procurement website in 2020 “urgently seeking an artificial intelligence software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reactions”. Statistics published by the UK Government’s MHRA listed 460 dead and 243,612reported injuries within months after the launch of the Covid-19 vaccines. To date, millions of vaccine adverse reactions and thousands of vaccine-induced deaths are recorded by Yellow card and VAERS, etc., but not reported by globalist-owned media. A puppet media who, at the launch of the pandemic, employed nothing less than trauma-based mind control to convince the world’s population that they were all likely to die from a killer virus unless they do exactly what the world government orders and take an experimental gene-modification vaccine and wear masks.

Masks, by the way, are a masonic symbol of subversion, de-personalization and slavery. People in a dysfunctional state of confusion and fear have yielded their lifelong wisdom in favour of subjugation and compromise, and the younger generation is being moulded and depersonalised into robotic compliance, instead of exploring their God-given potential, which always derives from their uniqueness.

Corporate godless forces are pushing the deceptions of Covid, manmade climate change, for their Hegelian dialectic agenda of control via UN Agenda 2030 and the WEF reset. More fake pandemics, geo-political theatre, and wars are likely in the pipeline to further these plans.

In our own life-time we have lived under a political hierarchy, which though pertaining to be made of individual and autonomous nation states, is actually a one world government controlled by the world private banking cartel via its controlling ownership of the mega-corporate world structure (as evidenced in my books); and via its institutional vassals, including the unelected unaccountable UN, WEF and WHO.

This hierarchy has also stealthily introduced a poisonous a debt-monetary system that has caused economic enslavement to billions of people through-out the world, and a perpetual war machine which has caused death and injury to hundreds of millions of people through-out the world; it is a system which has introduced mass abortion, mass animal killing, atheistic ideology, illicit sex, gambling, and intoxication; it is a system that has introduced genetically modified foods, chemtrails, thousands of toxic manmade chemical compounds, herbicides and pesticides, fluoridated water, toxic pharmaceuticals and vaccines, widespread ecological destruction, etc. The godless ulterior forces have been foisting an increasingly dark and perverse society on us. There is no more normal. There has not been a normal for a very long time.

Though individual politicians have been replaced by others, the same system of government has continued. In the midst of a so-called pandemic, we were expected to believe that this one world government was suddenly concerned for the lives and health of people threatened by the so-called virus. Does a vulture wish the cow to be alive or dead? And does a vulture political hierarchy wish for the physical, economic and spiritual health of its citizens? Luciferianism is the underlying globalist cult religion, and is the only ideological institution adopted by the UN, via the UN’s relationship with Lucis Trust. Lucis Trust was originally called Lucifer Publishing Company, and still has a private library within the UN building today.

Many politicians are themselves unwitting pawns of the godless international hierarchy. The real divide in society is not the media fostered left-versus-right punch-and-judy show’, it is totalitarianism versus human freedom. The power seekers versus the freedom lovers. There are those that just want to be left alone and there are those that just won’t leave them alone. Covid-19 was a fulcrum event, it created a mental split. There are those that fully accepted the government narrative, restrictions and wore the masks of slavery proudly; and there are those more aware people that could see for themselves what was really happening.

The situation could be perceived as a challenge for us all, we can choose to either be a slave to the system or, alternatively, to create and co-create an improved society, a world of integrity, truth, justice and wellbeing, along with the many millions of people who also realise what is happening. This may all be a spiritual test where everyone has a choice and a role to play – without the narcissistic forces there would be no battle where the righteous ones can prove themselves.

In ancient societies by fulfilling one’s dharma, duty, or mission in life with integrity and to the best of one’s ability, whilst cognisant of the Creator as the supreme authority to which we will ultimately answer, each person could live more successfully in the mode of goodness, contributing to the overall societal welfare. This contrasts with modern-day conditioning in which many people behave like government-controlled zombies or robotic cogs in the system machinery of the money-masters. Robot-like behaviour is not human, humans know how to improvise and create new things directly from the source, from the Spirit.

Remember no politician, police or person has authority over you – unlock yourself from their mental prison. The agenda of political control in the world is not going to stop by people complying with it, it only stops when people say no and cultivate a path not reliant on an immoral system.

When you use the gadgets and platforms of the current corporate system you inevitably come into contact with a mass worldwide collective hypnosis, a conditioned mentality that has been molded by corporate TV, corporate media, social media which is filtered by computer algorithms, smartphone applications, etc. The pressure to comply and conform with the accepted reality and cleverly designed propaganda of these collectives is huge. In contrast, when you embrace your dharma, duty, or mission in life, you are on the right path and are doing ‘what you are here to do’, your mentality engages into a whole new world of possibility and you can feel the difference.

The ancient Vedic texts describe that humanity is in the age of ‘Kali-yuga’, a time period of chaos and dominance of dark powers. The ‘dark powers’ are hell bent on harming humans physically; crushing our consciousness and separating us from our connection with God. However, good-hearted God-conscious humans are exceedingly resilient and the dark forces cannot defeat them. It appears that enough people have awakened so that humanity is now holding the potential for an alternative reality, a better future. If a person is still thinking that they are under the control of the governments, then they are unable to function as a truly free soul and remain bound by the edicts of the government. It’s all about consent. If we do not consent with evil, it has no control over us.

It seems like most of the world has been desperate to return to the ‘normal’ world we had in 2019 prior to the fake pandemic, but the reality is that life pre-Covid-19 was far from normal, what exactly are people trying to get back to? Vastly excessive consumerism; hours stuck in traffic; the 9 to 5 hamster wheel to pay off the mortgage (mortgage is the French word for death grip btw); kids glued to harmful microwave-producing smart phones; mindless TV programmes designed to keep you ‘programmed’ and dumbed down; the whole world in unpayable debt to private bankers; an education system that indoctrinates everyone to become cogs in the system machinery of the criminal elites; mega-corporations polluting the earth; toxins in the food and water supply; Hollywood movie drivel; internet censorship; impotent art, music and culture projects that depend on corporate gatekeepers or state funding and, therefore, lack the balls to say what needs to be said; the list goes on and on. What is normal about any of that?

The old system was based on debt-slavery of money created from nothing by private bankers, and the new system being pushed is based on technocratic control created from nothing except our consent to cleverly marketing narcissism and lies. We need a better paradigm, but obviously not the technocratic ‘new normal’ paradigm the elites have planned for us to keep us under tabs. Local systems for food, energy, water and services are an essential part of escaping the coming technocratic system that is being cleverly wrapped around us. Start creating local self-sufficient systems and networks.

We don’t need these international money-masters and their ‘paid-for’ bureaucrats. We don’t need to be slaves to their systems of medical fascism, fraudulent banking, and international political and corporate totalitarianism. It is time to leave it all behind – to hell with the new normal and to hell with the old normal. Is a slow comfortable death in the suburbs of the ‘system’ really what you are here on Earth for?

The dystopian movie The Matrix portrays humans as just batteries, the slave energy to fuel a technocratic dictatorship. How many people will wake up, like the movie character ‘Neo’ and discover their own power? We are in real physical and spiritual war for truth and freedom.

*

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.

Mark Keenan is an author and former scientist at the United Nations in Geneva, and at the UK Government, Department of Energy and Climate Change. The book “Transcending the Covid-19 Deception” is available at www.mkeenan.ie and  www.amazon.com (US) or email [email protected] for direct delivery.

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.

First published on August 18, 2022

***

Bill Gates owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other private farmer, having purchased a total of 242,000 acres. Is the purchase of this land all part of his plan to force you to eat lab-grown synthetic meat?

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest charitable foundation in the world, has an agricultural agenda that supports agrochemicals, patented seeds, fake meat and corporate control — interests that undermine regenerative, sustainable, small-scale farming. One of the key players in this agenda is the widespread adoption of synthetic meat.

Imitation meat company Impossible Foods was co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, and Gates has made it clear that he believes switching to synthetic beef is the solution to reducing methane emissions that come from animals raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is made in Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 2021. In an interview with MIT Technology Review, he goes so far as to say that people’s behaviours should be changed to learn to like fake meat and, if that doesn’t work, regulations could do the trick.

Gates, by the way, invests in fake meat companies and is buying up U.S. farmland at a frenzied pace. Ultimately, the Gates empire “will own everything.”

Gates Invests in Fake Meat Companies

According to Gates, in order to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, fake meat will “be required.” He told MIT Technology Review:

“In terms of livestock, it’s very difficult. There are all the things where they feed them different food, like there’s this one compound that gives you a 20% reduction [in methane emissions]. But sadly, those bacteria [in their digestive system that produce methane] are a necessary part of breaking down the grass.

And so I don’t know if there’ll be some natural approach there. I’m afraid the synthetic [protein alternatives like plant-based burgers] will be required for at least the beef thing.”

He then mentions Memphis Meats, which is producing synthetic meat in a lab via mass culturing stem cells from animals, often in a solution containing bovine serum, hormones, growth factors and other food additives. PR campaigns have gone so far as to call lab-grown meat “clean meat,” but research published in Environmental Science and Technology suggested it could actually require more intensive energy use compared to conventional meat.

Gates says he thinks Memphis Meats will be too expensive to become widespread, “But Impossible and Beyond have a road map, a quality road map and a cost road map, that makes them totally competitive.” He’s referring to Impossible Foods, a leader in the fake meat industry that is producing plant-based “meat.”

Impossible Foods holds 14 patents, with at least 100 more pending. Beyond Meat is another leading producer of fake “beef,” “pork” and “chicken” products, which announced in 2020 that it would start producing some of its products in China.

What many aren’t aware of, however, is that Gates is either personally invested in, or invested in via Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Beyond Meats, Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats and other companies he actively promotes. Gates told MIT:

“As for scale today, they [Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat] don’t represent 1% of the meat in the world, but they’re on their way. And Breakthrough Energy has four different investments in this space for making the ingredients very efficiently …

Now I’ve said I can actually see a path. But you’re right that saying to people, ‘You can’t have cows anymore’ — talk about a politically unpopular approach to things.”

Gates isn’t stopping at fake meat, though. He’s also recently backed a biotechnology start-up company called Biomilq, which is developing lab-cultured breast milk.

Gates: All Rich Countries Should Eat 100% Fake Beef

Whether or not it’s “unpopular” doesn’t matter, apparently, as Gates said he thinks rich countries should all be eating fake meat. When asked whether he thinks plant-based and lab-grown meats could “be the full solution to the protein problem globally,” he says that, in middle- to above-income countries, yes, and that people can “get used” to it:

“I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behaviour of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.

So for meat in the middle-income-and-above countries, I do think it’s possible. But it’s one of those ones where, wow, you have to track it every year and see, and the politics [are challenging]. There are all these bills that say it’s got to be called, basically, lab garbage to be sold. They don’t want us to use the beef label.”

The irony of Bill Gates — who lives in a 66,000-square-foot mansion and travels in a private jet that uses up 486 gallons of fuel every hour — talking about how to save the environment isn’t lost on everyone.

The Nation criticized Gates’ contradictions, including the fact that, as a result of buying staggering amounts of farmland, he’s a major contributor to carbon emissions. His jet-setting lifestyle also makes him a carbon “super emitter”:

“According to a 2019 academic study looking at extreme carbon emissions from the jet-setting elite, Bill Gates’s extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world’s top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter. In the list of 10 celebrities investigated — including Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, and Oprah Winfrey — Gates was the source of the most emissions.”

Gates Is the Largest Farmland Owner in the US

Bill Gates owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other private farmer, having purchased a total of 242,000 acres — much of it considered some of the richest soil in the U.S. — in the past few years. Conventional agriculture represents one of the greatest sources of pollution on the planet.

An estimated 80% of soil carbon in heavily farmed areas has already been lost, due to destructive ploughing, overgrazing and the use of soil-destructive, carbon-depleting chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The jet-travel study alone pointed to Gates as one of the most problematic carbon emitters, without considering agricultural emissions. The Nation noted:

“The study only looked at Gates’s jet travel, but might have also considered Gates’s emissions from his farmland, which includes large tracts of corn and soybeans, which typically goes to feed animals (often on factory farms) — a particularly carbon-intensive model of agriculture.”

Christine Nobiss, the founder of the Great Plains Action Society, which is led by Indigenous people, accused Gates of colonization: “Bill Gates is smart enough to understand — he’s smart, he can do the math — that no one single person needs that amount of land. He’s basically participating in the never-ending cycle of colonization.”

She’s among those who have suggested Gates give away his farmland as an act of reparations and as a way to ensure it’s used for sustainable food production, but as The Nation noted, that’s not going to happen:

“Not that Gates is going to give up his vast farmland. Nor is he going to sell any of his houses — including his 66,000-square-foot mansion outside Seattle. He’s also not going to get rid of his private jet — a Bombardier BD-700 Global Express that consumes 486 gallons of fuel each hour. But, Bill Gates writes, he is going to start buying ‘sustainable jet fuel.’”

No Private Property for Americans, Except Gates

So what does Gates intend to do with all that farmland? That remains to be seen, but it’s worth noting that when you own the land, you also own the water that’s beneath it, and with his vast amounts of land, he can grow all the genetically engineered soy necessary to create the fake meat he’s so heavily pushing.

For those who control resources like food and water, power is limitless, and control of the food supply is part of “building back better.” Founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Klaus Schwab first started circulating the idea of The Great Reset, of which “build back better” is an integral part.

WEF has partnered with the EAT Forum, which will set the political agenda for global food production. The EAT Forum was cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which in turn was established with the financial help of GlaxoSmithKline.

EAT collaborates with nearly 40 city governments across Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia, and maintains close relationships with imitation meat companies such as Impossible Foods. Gates is also a supporter of The Great Reset, which is curious since his massive accumulation of wealth and land is the opposite of what The Great Reset promotes.

In truth, wealthy technocrats will not redistribute their own wealth during the reset, but will only continue to grow their financial empires as the rest of the world consents to giving up their privacy and ownership of all property.

In fact, EAT developed a Planetary Health Diet that is designed to be applied to the global population and entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil. As Summit News reported:

“[While] billionaire philanthropists and technocrats are acquiring land at an accelerating speed, they appear to be telling the general public that in the future private property will virtually cease to exist. In his books, World Economic Forum founder and globalist Klaus Schwab makes clear that the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ or ‘The Great Reset’ will lead to the abolition of private property.

That message is echoed on the WEF’s official website, which states, ‘Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city — or should I say, ‘our city.’ I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.’

Apparently, you won’t be allowed to own any private property and your only recourse will be to live in a state of permanent dependency on a small number of rich elitists who own everything. That used to be called feudalism, which is a form of slavery.”

*

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.

Featured image is from The Expose

The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The threat of nuclear annihilation is real.

What distinguishes October 1962 to today’s realities is that the leaders on both sides, namely John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev were acutely aware of the dangers of nuclear annihilation.

The nuclear doctrine was entirely different during the Cold War. Both Washington and Moscow understood the realities of mutually assured destruction. Today, the issue of nuclear annihilation is tacitly dismissed.  

Communication today between the White House and the Kremlin is at an all time low. International diplomacy is is crisis. The UN General Assembly is being hijacked, 

Forward JFK’s 1961 message far and wide to friends and colleagues. Bear in mind that “MISTAKES” are often what determine the course of World History.

Michel Chossudovsky, December 18, 2022

***

President John F. Kennedy

New York City
September 25, 1961

Mr. President, honored delegates, ladies and gentlemen:

We meet in an hour of grief and challenge. Dag Hammarskjold is dead. But the United Nations lives. His tragedy is deep in our hearts, but the task for which he died is at the top of our agenda. A noble servant of peace is gone. But the quest for peace lies before us.

The problem is not the death of one man–the problem is the life of this organization. It will either grow to meet the challenges of our age, or it will be gone with the wind, without influence, without force, without respect. Were we to let it die, to enfeeble its vigor, to cripple its powers, we would condemn our future.

For in the development of this organization rests the only true alternative to war–and war appeals no longer as a rational alternative. Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer concern the great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by wind and water and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike. Mankind must put an end to war–or war will put an end to mankind.

So let us here resolve that Dag Hammarskjold did not live, or die, in vain. Let us call a truce to terror. Let us invoke the blessings of peace. And as we build an international capacity to keep peace, let us join in dismantling the national capacity to wage war.

II

This will require new strength and new roles for the United Nations. For disarmament without checks is but a shadow–and a community without law is but a shell. Already the United Nations has become both the measure and the vehicle of man’s most generous impulses. Already it has provided–in the Middle East, in Asia, in Africa this year in the Congo–a means of holding man’s violence within bounds.

But the great question which confronted this body in 1945 is still before us: whether man’s cherished hopes for progress and peace are to be destroyed by terror and disruption, whether the “foul winds of war” can be tamed in time to free the cooling winds of reason, and whether the pledges of our Charter are to be fulfilled or defied–pledges to secure peace, progress, human rights and world law

In this Hall, there are not three forces, but two. One is composed of those who are trying to build the kind of world described in Articles I and II of the Charter. The other, seeking a far different world, would undermine this organization in the process.

Today, of all days our dedication to the Charter must be maintained. It must be strengthened first of all by the selection of an outstanding civil servant to carry forward the responsibilities of the Secretary General–a man endowed with both the wisdom and the power to make meaningful the moral force of the world community. The late Secretary General nurtured and sharpened the United Nations’ obligation to act. But he did not invent it. It was there in the Charter. It is still there in the Charter.

However difficult it may be to fill Mr. Hammarskjold’s place, it can better be filled by one man rather than three. Even the three horses of the Troika did not have three drivers, all going in different directions. They had only one–and so must the United Nations executive. To install a triumvirate, or any panel, or any rotating authority, in the United Nations administrative offices would replace order with anarchy, action with paralysis, confidence with confusion.

The Secretary General, in a very real sense, is the servant of the General Assembly. Diminish his authority and you diminish the authority of the only body where all nations, regardless of power, are equal and sovereign. Until all the powerful are just, the weak will be secure only in the strength of this Assembly.

Effective and independent executive action is not the same question as balanced representation. In view of the enormous change in membership in this body since its founding, the American delegation will join in any effort for the prompt review and revision of the composition of United Nations bodies.

But to give this organization three drivers–to permit each great power to decide its own case, would entrench the Cold War in the headquarters of peace. Whatever advantages such a plan may hold out to my own country, as one of the great powers, we reject it. For we far prefer world law, in the age of self-determination, to world war, in the age of mass extermination.

III

Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.

Men no longer debate whether armaments are a symptom or a cause of tension. The mere existence of modern weapons–ten million times more powerful than any that the world has ever seen, and only minutes away from any target on earth–is a source of horror, and discord and distrust. Men no longer maintain that disarmament must await the settlement of all disputes–for disarmament must be a part of any permanent settlement. And men may no longer pretend that the quest for disarmament is a sign of weakness–for in a spiraling arms race, a nation’s security may well be shrinking even as its arms increase.

For fifteen years this organization has sought the reduction and destruction of arms. Now that goal is no longer a dream–it is a practical matter of life or death. The risks inherent in disarmament pale in comparison to the risks inherent in an unlimited arms race.

It is in this spirit that the recent Belgrade Conference–recognizing that this is no longer a Soviet problem or an American problem, but a human problem–endorsed a program of “general, complete and strictly an internationally controlled disarmament.” It is in this same spirit that we in the United States have labored this year, with a new urgency, and with a new, now statutory agency fully endorsed by the Congress, to find an approach to disarmament which would be so far-reaching, yet realistic, so mutually balanced and beneficial, that it could be accepted by every nation. And it is in this spirit that we have presented with the agreement of the Soviet Union–under the label both nations now accept of “general and complete disarmament”–a new statement of newly-agreed principles for negotiation.

But we are well aware that all issues of principle are not settled, and that principles alone are not enough. It is therefore our intention to challenge the Soviet Union, not to an arms race, but to a peace race- -to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved. We invite them now to go beyond agreement in principle to reach agreement on actual plans.

The program to be presented to this assembly–for general and complete disarmament under effective international control–moves to bridge the gap between those who insist on a gradual approach and those who talk only of the final and total achievement. It would create machinery to keep the peace as it destroys the machinery of war. It would proceed through balanced and safeguarded stages designed to give no state a military advantage over another. It would place the final responsibility for verification and control where it belongs, not with the big powers alone, not with one’s adversary or one’s self, but in an international organization within the framework of the United Nations.

It would assure that indispensable condition of disarmament–true inspection–and apply it in stages proportionate to the stage of disarmament. It would cover delivery systems as well as weapons. It would ultimately halt their production as well as their testing, their transfer as well as their possession. It would achieve under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force. And it starts that process now, today, even as the talks begin.

Source: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

In short, general and complete disarmament must no longer be a slogan, used to resist the first steps. It is no longer to be a goal without means of achieving it, without means of verifying its progress, without means of keeping the peace. It is now a realistic plan, and a test–a test of those only willing to talk and a test of those willing to act.

Such a plan would not bring a world free from conflict and greed– but it would bring a world free from the terrors of mass destruction. It would not usher in the era of the super state–but it would usher in an era in which no state could annihilate or be annihilated by another.

In 1945, this Nation proposed the Baruch Plan to internationalize the atom before other nations even possessed the bomb or demilitarized their troops. We proposed with our allies the Disarmament plan of 1951 while still at war in Korea. And we make our proposals today, while building up our defenses over Berlin, not because we are inconsistent or insincere or intimidated, but because we know the rights of free men will prevail–because while we are compelled against our will to rearm, we look confidently beyond Berlin to the kind of disarmed world we all prefer.

I therefore propose on the basis of this Plan, that disarmament negotiations resume promptly, and continue without interruption until an entire program for general and complete disarmament has not only been agreed but has actually been achieved.

IV

The logical place to begin is a treaty assuring the end of nuclear tests of all kinds, in every environment, under workable controls. The United States and the United Kingdom have proposed such a treaty that is both reasonable, effective and ready for signature. We are still prepared to sign that treaty today.

We also proposed a mutual ban on atmospheric testing, without inspection or controls, in order to save the human race from the poison of radioactive fallout. We regret that the offer has not been accepted.

For 15 years we have sought to make the atom an instrument of peaceful growth rather than of war. But for 15 years our concessions have been matched by obstruction, our patience by intransigence. And the pleas of mankind for peace have met with disregard.

Finally, as the explosions of others beclouded the skies, my country was left with no alternative but to act in the interests of its own and the free world’s security. We cannot endanger that security by refraining from testing while others improve their arsenals. Nor can we endanger it by another long, uninspected ban on testing. For three years we accepted those risks in our open society while seeking agreement on inspection. But this year, while we were negotiating in good faith in Geneva, others were secretly preparing new experiments in destruction.

Our tests are not polluting the atmosphere. Our deterrent weapons are guarded against accidental explosion or use. Our doctors and scientists stand ready to help any nation measure and meet the hazards to health which inevitably result from the tests in the atmosphere.

But to halt the spread of these terrible weapons, to halt the contamination of the air, to halt the spiralling nuclear arms race, we remain ready to seek new avenues of agreement, our new Disarmament Program thus includes the following proposals:

–First, signing the test-ban treaty by all nations. This can be done now. Test ban negotiations need not and should not await general disarmament.

–Second, stopping the production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, and preventing their transfer to any nation now lacking in nuclear weapons.

–Third, prohibiting the transfer of control over nuclear weapons to states that do not own them.

–Fourth, keeping nuclear weapons from seeding new battlegrounds in outer space.

–Fifth, gradually destroying existing nuclear weapons and converting their materials to peaceful uses; and

–Finally, halting the unlimited testing and production of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, and gradually destroying them as well.

V

To destroy arms, however, is not enough. We must create even as we destroy–creating worldwide law and law enforcement as we outlaw worldwide war and weapons. In the world we seek, the United Nations Emergency Forces which have been hastily assembled, uncertainly supplied, and inadequately financed, will never be enough.

Therefore, the United States recommends that all member nations earmark special peace-keeping units in their armed forces–to be on call of the United Nations, to be specially trained and quickly available, and with advanced provision for financial and logistic support.

In addition, the American delegation will suggest a series of steps to improve the United Nations’ machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes–for on-the-spot fact-finding, mediation and adjudication–for extending the rule of international law. For peace is not solely a matter of military or technical problems–it is primarily a problem of politics and people. And unless man can match his strides in weaponry and technology with equal strides in social and political development, our great strength, like that of the dinosaur, will become incapable of proper control–and like the dinosaur vanish from the earth.

VI

As we extend the rule of law on earth, so must we also extend it to man’s new domain–outer space.

All of us salute the brave cosmonauts of the Soviet Union. The new horizons of outer space must not be driven by the old bitter concepts of imperialism and sovereign claims. The cold reaches of the universe must not become the new arena of an even colder war.

To this end, we shall urge proposals extending the United Nations Charter to the limits of man’s exploration of the universe, reserving outer space for peaceful use, prohibiting weapons of mass destruction in space or on celestial bodies, and opening the mysteries and benefits of space to every nation. We shall propose further cooperative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control. We shall propose, finally, a global system of communications satellites linking the whole world in telegraph and telephone and radio and television. The day need not be far away when such a system will televise the proceedings of this body to every corner of the world for the benefit of peace.

VII

But the mysteries of outer space must not divert our eyes or our energies from the harsh realities that face our fellow men. Political sovereignty is but a mockery without the means of meeting poverty and illiteracy and disease. Self-determination is but a slogan if the future holds no hope.

That is why my nation, which has freely shared its capital and its technology to help others help themselves, now proposes officially designating this decade of the 1960s as the United Nations Decade of Development. Under the framework of that Resolution, the United Nations’ existing efforts in promoting economic growth can be expanded and coordinated. Regional surveys and training institutes can now pool the talents of many. New research, technical assistance and pilot projects can unlock the wealth of less developed lands and untapped waters. And development can become a cooperative and not a competitive enterprise– to enable all nations, however diverse in their systems and beliefs, to become in fact as well as in law free and equal nations.

VIII

My country favors a world of free and equal states. We agree with those who say that colonialism is a key issue in this Assembly. But let the full facts of that issue be discussed in full.

On the one hand is the fact that, since the close of World War II, a worldwide declaration of independence has transformed nearly 1 billion people and 9 million square miles into 42 free and independent states. Less than 2 percent of the world’s population now lives in “dependent” territories.

I do not ignore the remaining problems of traditional colonialism which still confront this body. Those problems will be solved, with patience, good will, and determination. Within the limits of our responsibility in such matters, my Country intends to be a participant and not merely an observer, in the peaceful, expeditious movement of nations from the status of colonies to the partnership of equals. That continuing tide of self-determination, which runs so strong, has our sympathy and our support.

But colonialism in its harshest forms is not only the exploitation of new nations by old, of dark skins by light, or the subjugation of the poor by the rich. My Nation was once a colony, and we know what colonialism means; the exploitation and subjugation of the weak by the powerful, of the many by the few, of the governed who have given no consent to be governed, whatever their continent, their class, their color.

And that is why there is no ignoring the fact that the tide of selfdetermination has not reached the Communist empire where a population far larger than that officially termed “dependent” lives under governments installed by foreign troops instead of free institutions– under a system which knows only one party and one belief–which suppresses free debate, and free elections, and free newspapers, and free books, and free trade unions–and which builds a wall to keep truth a stranger and its own citizens prisoners. Let us debate colonialism in full–and apply the principle of free choice and the practice of free plebiscites in every corner of the globe.

IX

Finally, as President of the United States, I consider it my duty to report to this Assembly on two threats to the peace which are not on your crowded agenda, but which causes us and most of you, the deepest concern.

The first threat on which I wish to report is widely misunderstood: the smoldering coals of war in Southeast Asia. South Viet-Nam is already under attack–sometimes by a single assassin, sometimes by a band of guerrillas, recently by full battalions. The peaceful borders of Burma, Cambodia, and India have been repeatedly violated. And the peaceful people of Laos are in danger of losing the independence they gained not so long ago.

No one can call these “wars of liberation.” For these are free countries living under their own governments. Nor are these aggressions any less real because men are knifed in their homes and not shot in the fields of battle.

The very simple question confronting the world community is whether measures can be devised to protect the small and the weak from such tactics. For if they are successful in Laos and South Viet-Nam, the gates will be opened wide.

The United States seeks for itself, no base, no territory, no special position in this area of any kind. We support a truly neutral and independent Laos, its people free from outside interference, living at peace with themselves and their neighbors, assured that their territory will not be used for attacks on others, and under a government comparable (as Mr. Khrushchev and I agreed at Vienna) to Cambodia and Burma.

But now the negotiations over Laos are reaching a crucial stage. The cease-fire is at best precarious. The rainy season is coming to an end. Laotian territory is being used to infiltrate South Viet-Nam. The world community must recognize–and all those who are involved–that this potent threat to Laotian peace and freedom is indivisible from all other threats to their own.

Secondly, I wish to report to you on the crisis over Germany and Berlin. This is not the time or the place for immoderate tones, but the world community is entitled to know the very simple issues as we see them. If there is a crisis it is because an existing peace is under threat, because an existing island of free people is under pressure, because solemn agreements are being treated with indifference. Established international rights are being threatened with unilateral usurpation. Peaceful circulation has been interrupted by barbed wire and concrete blocks.

One recalls the order of the Czar in Pushkin’s “Boris Godunov:” “Take steps at this very hour that our frontiers be fenced in by barriers. . . . That not a single soul pass o’er the border, that not a hare be able to run or a crow to fly.”

It is absurd to allege that we are threatening a war merely to prevent the Soviet Union and East Germany from signing a so-called “treaty” of peace. The Western Allies are not concerned with any paper arrangement the Soviets may wish to make with a regime of their own creation, on territory occupied by their own troops and governed by their own agents. No such action can affect either our rights or our responsibilities.

If there is a dangerous crisis in Berlin–and there is–it is because of threats against the vital interests and the deep commitments of the Western Powers, and the freedom of West Berlin. We cannot yield these interests. We cannot fail these commitments. We cannot surrender the freedom of these people for whom we are responsible. A “peace-treaty” which carried with it the provisions which destroy the peace would be a fraud. A “free city” which was not genuinely free would suffocate freedom and would be an infamy.

For a city or a people to be truly free they must have the secure right, without economic, political or police pressure, to make their own choice and to live their own lives. And as I have often said before, if anyone doubts the extent to which our presence is desired by the people of West Berlin, we are ready to have that question submitted to a free vote in all Berlin and, if possible, among all the German people.

The elementary fact about this crisis is that it is unnecessary. The elementary tools for a peaceful settlement are to be found in the charter. Under its law, agreements are to be kept, unless changed by all those who made them. Established rights are to be respected. The political disposition of peoples should rest upon their own wishes, freely expressed in plebiscites or free elections. If there are legal problems, they can be solved by legal means. If there is a threat of force, it must be rejected. If there is desire for change, it must be a subject for negotiation, and if there is negotiation, it must be rooted in mutual respect and concern for the rights of others.

The Western Powers have calmly resolved to defend, by whatever means are forced upon them, their obligations and their access to the free citizens of West Berlin and the self-determination of those citizens. This generation learned from bitter experience that either brandishing or yielding to threats can only lead to war. But firmness and reason can lead to the kind of peaceful solution in which my country profoundly believes.

We are committed to no rigid formula. We see no perfect solution. We recognize that troops and tanks can, for a time, keep a nation divided against its will, however unwise that policy may seem to us. But we believe a peaceful agreement is possible which protects the freedom of West Berlin and allied presence and access, while recognizing the historic and legitimate interests of others in insuring European security.

The possibilities of negotiation are now being explored; it is too early to report what the prospects may be. For our part, we would be glad to report at the appropriate time that a solution has been found. For there is no need for a crisis over Berlin, threatening the peace– and if those who created this crisis desire peace, there will be peace and freedom in Berlin.

X

The events and decisions of the next ten months may well decide the fate of man for the next ten thousand years. There will be no avoiding those events. There will be no appeal from these decisions. And we in this hall shall be remembered either as part of the generation that turned this planet into a flaming funeral pyre or the generation that met its vow “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”

In the endeavor to meet that vow, I pledge you every effort this Nation possesses. I pledge you that we will neither commit nor provoke aggression, that we shall neither flee nor invoke the threat of force, that we shall never negotiate out of fear, we shall never fear to negotiate.

Terror is not a new weapon. Throughout history it has been used by those who could not prevail, either by persuasion or example. But inevitably they fail, either because men are not afraid to die for a life worth living, or because the terrorists themselves came to realize that free men cannot be frightened by threats, and that aggression would meet its own response. And it is in the light of that history that every nation today should know, be he friend or foe, that the United States has both the will and the weapons to join free men in standing up to their responsibilities.

But I come here today to look across this world of threats to a world of peace. In that search we cannot expect any final triumph–for new problems will always arise. We cannot expect that all nations will adopt like systems–for conformity is the jailor of freedom, and the enemy of growth. Nor can we expect to reach our goal by contrivance, by fiat or even by the wishes of all.

But however close we sometimes seem to that dark and final abyss, let no man of peace and freedom despair. For he does not stand alone. If we all can persevere, if we can in every land and office look beyond our own shores and ambitions, then surely the age will dawn in which the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

Ladies and gentlemen of this Assembly, the decision is ours. Never have the nations of the world had so much to lose, or so much to gain. Together we shall save our planet, or together we shall perish in its flames. Save it we can–and save it we must–and then shall we earn the eternal thanks of mankind and, as peacemakers, the eternal blessing of God.

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 November 18, 2022

***

New research reveals that the UK has the highest electricity bills. Brits pay more for their power than anywhere else on the planet.

A new study looked at Government data on electricity and gas prices from the past five years to analyse the impact of the worsening cost of living crisis and discover which countries have had the biggest year-on-year increase in energy prices. The data, compiled by BOXT, was shared with City A.M. today.

The UK’s energy price cap was recently raised from 28p to 34p per kWh.

Much like the rest of the world, prices have increased due to reduced supply from Russia due to the Ukraine conflict, as well as the after-effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

Ireland

The UK’s neighbours in the Republic of Ireland have the second highest electricity cost, paying 18.99p per kWh. That’s 53 per cent more expensive than the average of these 24 countries.

However, prices are slightly more affordable when it comes to gas in Ireland, which stands at 5.21p per kWh.

The countries with the highest electricity prices 

Residents of Spain are paying an average of 18.51p per kWh. Electricity prices in Spain recently hit a historical high and were recently capped at €130 (£112) per megawatt hour, down from €210 (£181).

Norway is the country with by far the biggest increase in electricity prices worldwide – 91 per cent increase in electricity cost in pence/kWh since 2016.

Top 10 countries with the biggest electricity bill price increase:

The second highest electricity rises are in Finland – Since 2016, Finnish residents have seen their electricity bills increase by almost two-fifths (37%) on average.

Tied in third place are the Czech Republic, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, with a 35% increase in electricity prices.

*

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 cityam.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate This Article 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 October 1, 2022

The war in Ukraine is basically about the US-NATO’s long-term plan to destroy Russia’s rise as a major player on the world stage.  In 2019, The Rand Corporation published ‘Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options’ which recommended several measures that would essentially disrupt Russia’s inevitable rise. 

The Rand Corporation’s measures are extremely dangerous and irresponsible, in fact, one of the measures that has been already implemented since the war began between Russia and Ukraine has resulted in serious consequences that can lead the world into a nuclear war:

“Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages”

The other measure that would be a direct threat to Russia which would have allowed NATO to place all sorts of military weapons in Ukrainian territory and that is something Russia would not allow close to its borders,

“Reposturing bombers within easy striking range of key Russian strategic targets has a high likelihood of success and would certainly get Moscow’s attention and raise Russian anxieties.”  

Lastly, deploying tactical nuclear weapons pointing at Russia as a measure would be an open invitation to a nuclear war between the West and Russia,

“deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to locations in Europe and Asia could heighten Russia’s anxiety enough to significantly increase investments in its air defenses.” 

To the West, it seems like a risk they are willing to take,

“In conjunction with the bomber option, it has a high likelihood of success, but deploying more such weapons might lead Moscow to react in ways contrary to U.S. and allied interests.”

The US-NATO alliance want Russian and Chinese leadership toppled so that they would become vassal states who will have to obey their Western adversaries. 

The West fears a new multipolar world order as it would enable smaller nations (who have been under Washington’s thumb) to extend their diplomatic and economic relationships with whomever they want instead of dealing with Western powers who has kept most of the global south in debt and in continuous wars for decades.  The world is ready for change.  The Russian Federation understands the dangers they are facing as they witnessed what has happened to countries who defied the US-NATO alliance such as in the case of Libya, who was targeted for their natural resources and for their idea of establishing an independent Africa by creating the African Dinar bypassing Western-based currencies and that was something Washington and Paris was not ready to except.

The North American Treaty Organization (NATO) is a danger to every nation on earth including those in Africa and the rest of the global south including the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.  NATO was created in 1949 by the US government to advance its military, economic and political power over Europe.

However, since the start of the 21st century, NATO has been involved in military operations in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and in North Africa including the Bosnian war in 1992, the war in Kosovo in 1999 and the war in Afghanistan, which lasted for more than 20 years, and in 2011, France and the United States under then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton bombed Libya and overthrew its president, Muammar Gaddafi.

The military operations were a prelude to a “Global NATO,” which is a plan mainly for future interventions in the global south.  NATO who backs Ukraine is now inching closer to a full-blown war against Russia which will be a complete disaster for the European continent and Washington could not care less because they will use NATO and Ukrainian troops until Russia is destabilized and finally destroyed but of course, that is highly unlikely.  China is also in NATO’s crosshairs as the Chatham House, a British think tank who published a commentary based on the Madrid summit last June by a former BBCjournalist and propagandist, Bill Hayton titled ‘NATO knows Asia is vital to protecting global security’ on how NATO is in the stages of creating a new strategy to contain Asia’s rising powers, including China and possibly others such as India, who might find themselves on NATO’s hit list one day if they continue to collaborate with the ‘BRICS’ nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO):

Neither of these changes means NATO aims to expand to include Asia but it shows the 30 NATO members are concerned about security threats from Asia expanding into Europe and North America. In a world of long-range missiles, cyber operations, and vulnerable supply chains, the concerns of ‘Euro-Atlantic’ countries have become global

Where does it end for NATO?  Who is next on their agenda for regime change on behalf of Washington?  Do they want to turn Russia, China, Iran into another Libya?  You bet.  Libya was destroyed in 2011 by NATO forces under Operation Unified Protector on behalf of French and American imperialists to control Libya, a resource rich African nation.  The aftermath of the destruction of Libya led to a civil war between armed factions vying for power to creating a renewed slave trade in North Africa that involved between 700,000 to 1 million African migrants and refugees.  One of the best speeches on NATO’s interventions in Libya was by the late president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe who criticized NATO’s actions at the 67^th UN General Assembly on September 18^th, 2012.  Here is part of his speech:

A year ago, we saw a barbaric and brutal death of the head of state of Libya, a representative of his country, a member of the African Union, that death occurred in the context in which NATO was operating supposedly in order to protect civilians.  As we in spirit join the United States in condemning that death, shall the United States also join us in condemning that barbaric death of the head of state of Libya Gaddafi, it was a loss, a great loss to Africa, a tragic loss to Africa occurring in circumstances in which NATO had sought the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the chapter 7 to operate in Libya in protection of civilians who were said to be at the mercy of the government of Libya led by colonel Gaddafi.

The mission was strictly to protect civilians, but it turned out that there was a hunt, a brutal hunt of Gaddafi and his family, and Gaddafi and his family were sought. NATO caught up with them, they suffered the brutal deaths that we know about, Gaddafi and some of his children.  And as the United States spoke, I’m sure they were aware  also that they were a NATO power, that they [the U.S.] alongside other NATO powers had the authority under Chapter VII to operate in protection–to operate in Libya in protection of civilians. But did it turn out to be that?

In a very dishonest manner, we saw the authority given under Chapter VII being used now as a weapon to rout a whole family, to commit the murders that occurred in the country. Bombs were thrown about in a callous manner, and quite a good many civilians died. Was that the “protection” that they had sought under Chapter VII of the Charter?

The US-NATO criminal cabal was led by Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, and French president Nicolas Sarkozy who basically targeted Libya’s vast wealth including its oil, gold, and silver.  Hillary Clinton’s email proved what was on the agenda and it was not to protect the people of Libya.  Here is the main section of one of the emails that Wikileaks published from April 2^nd, 2011, with the Subject heading ‘FRANCE’S CLIENT & QADDAFI’S GOLD’ that explains the premise behind the US-NATO destruction of Libya:

Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli. This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French. franc (CFA)

According to Clinton’s emails, Sarkozy’s regime had a plan after the destruction of Libya was complete, and that was to take a larger share of Libya’s oil production as well as to “Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world” and most importantly, to recolonize Africa where France once had total control because Qaddafi had “long-term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”  

On March 19, 2011, Clinton spoke about the situation in Libya in Paris, France and said that “The international community came together to speak with one voice and to deliver a clear and consistent message: Colonel Qadhafi’s campaign of violence against his own people must stop.”  The international community according to Clinton was mainly, the US and its subservient region of Europe.

The US gave the Gaddafi government terms that they had to comply with and “that means all attacks against civilians must stop; troops must stop advancing on Benghazi and pull back from Adjabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; water, electricity, and gas supplies must be turned on to all areas; humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.”  Clinton’s threat against Libya was clear “Yesterday, President Obama said very clearly that if Qadhafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences.”

Libya was in danger of being targeted for regime change after the September 11^th attacks when Washington singled out several countries in the Middle East and Africa.  General Wesley Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO’s forces who oversaw Operation Allied Force during the Kosovo War said on a liberal news media outlet ‘Democracy Now with Amy Goodman’ that Washington was planning to “take out 7 countries in 5 Years” including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya.

Once NATO invaded Libya, internal factions called the “Libyan Rebels” supported by the West were in fact, well-known members from terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda to create chaos within Libyan society.  There were a handful of what they called “independent revolutionary groups” who were employed in the business of regime change for Western empires.

That regime change operation was to remove the entire Gaddafi family from power.  One of the terrorist groups that was involved in the destruction of Libya was the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a jihadist group from the 1990s that still existed in Libya had re-emerged out of the shadows and was one of the actors who led a regime change insurgency for their Western masters against Muammar Gaddafi.  The aftermath of Libya was the creation of Western-backed terrorist enclave and a number of slave traders who sell African people to the highest bidder.  Then there was the oil factor, in 2016, WikiLeaks published yet another email from Blumenthal that was sent to Hillary Clinton on September 16^th, 2011, with the subject line ‘FRANCE, UK, ET AL, JOCKEYING IN LIBYA/OIL’ that clearly states their goal for future oil contracts with the new Libyan government:

According to knowledgeable individuals, as part of this effort, the two leaders, in private conversations, also intend to press the leaders of the NTC to reward their early support for the rebellion against Muammar al Qaddafi. Sarkozy and Cameron expect this recognition to be tangible, in the form of favorable contracts for French and British energy companies looking to play a major role in the Libyan oil industry. According to this source, Sarkozy feels, quite strongly, that without French support there would have been no revolution and that the NTC government must demonstrate that it realizes this fact. For his part, Cameron appears most concerned that despite British support for the rebels during the fighting, certain members of the NTC remain focused on the fact that the British government and oil industry had good relations with the Qaddafi regime, particularly the firm British Petroleum (BP).

At the same time, this source indicates that the government of France is carrying out a concerted program of private and public diplomacy to press the new/transitional government of Libya to reserve as much as 35% of Libya’s oil related industry for French firms,particularly the major French energy company TOTAL. Sources with access to the highest levels of Libya’s ruling NTC, as well as senior advisors to Sarkozy, stated in strict confidence that while much of this pressure is being exerted at very senior diplomatic and political levels, the French external intelligence service (Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure/General Directorate for External Security –DGSE) is using sources with influence over the NTC to press the French position. At present, as NTC leaders are consolidating their positions in Tripoli, they are attempting to balance the interests of the new government and the Libyan people against the need to recognize the support provided to them by France and other major powers in their struggle with Muammar al Qaddafi

Obviously, that “Support provided to them by France and other major powers” came in the form of providing arms and training to future terrorists in north Africa.

NATO’s Footprint in Africa

The invasion of Libya by NATO’s forces led to other conflicts and new agreements throughout Africa including France’s military invasion of Mali in 2013.  Then the G5 Sahel was created in the same year with a new political platform that unified 5 African states militarily in the Sahel including Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger.  The G5 was approved by the African Union.   On May 2014, NATO conveniently established a Liaison office at the headquarters of the African Union in the capital of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.  According to NATO’s website:

NATO and the African Union (AU) took a further step in advancing their cooperation, by signing on 8 May 2014 an agreement which formalizes the status of the NATO liaison office to the African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa. The completion of this technical agreement will facilitate greater cooperation between the two organizations in areas of mutual interest such as: strategic air and sea lift, interoperability of multinational forces, individual training, exercise planning, and lessons learned from operations. How to share experiences in implementing United Nations initiatives such as Women, Peace and Security, and Children and Armed Conflict, will also be examined

The war on Libya allowed NATO to expand its presence and recolonize Africa under the guise of installing peace and of course, fighting terrorists in Africa so they don’t have to fight them in the Western hemisphere.

How is Libya today?  What was the consequences of removing Muammar Gaddafi?  Before he was removed, Gaddafi had made Libya one of the best places in all of Africa.  The highest living standards in Africa was evident in Libya which was considered ‘very good’ according to the 2010 UN Human Development report.  Libya was ranked 53^rd in the world before NATO’s invasion according to the United Nation’s own studies.  In fact, in comparison to Brazil, Turkey and China at the time, Libya had a better quality of life including in the areas that measure annual income, education and health.  Although Libya was not perfect, it had its share of societal problems like in every country on earth, but under Gaddafi’s leadership, living standards had increased for the Libyan people.  Libya is a complex society, so Gaddafi’s governance was a difficult task, but his ideals for a better Libya was stopped in its tracks when US and it’s NATO allies decided to move forward with regime change and turn Libya into a living hell for its people.  The destruction of Libya created a pool of new terrorists that ended up in other warzones where the US government was heavily involved in including in places like Syria that turned into another cesspool of death and destruction.

Today Libya is living through a nightmare of an endless civil war between political rivals.  In late August, 32 people were killed with more than 159 people injured.  Al Jazeera reported that “the standoff for power in Libya has pitted the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU) under Abdul Hamid Dbeibah against a rival administration under Fathi Bashagha that is backed by the eastern-based parliament.”  The report admitted that “Libya has had little peace since the 2011 NATO-backed uprising that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and it split in 2014 between rival eastern and western factions, dragging in regional powers.”

Libya has been divided between east and west by rival factions, so for the globalists who caused this problem, it brings them the element of chaos they needed because they gained control over Libya’s natural resources, they enriched the arms industry by supplying both sides of Libya’s internal conflict.  They also created a new supply of terrorists to create more wars and overthrow governments on behalf of the West in other parts of Africa and the Middle East.  The goal was to destroy Libya and expand US-NATO operations throughout Africa.  But one of the main reasons for NATO’s invasion of Libya which I mentioned earlier was to stop the creation of the African Dinar which would have given the West a black eye during a time when most of the world is trying to stop their use of the world’s reserve currency and the US government’s economic weapon, the US dollar in favor of other currencies including the Chinese yuan and the Russian ruble.

The US-NATO Alliance is using the same formula for other countries who disobey their unipolar world order.  Russia and China understand this Western concept of divide and conquer as a threat to them and to the rest of the world.  Unfortunately, Libya was used as an example of what can happen to a country if they don’t follow the Western prescription for peace and stability.

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from SCN

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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.ca

a

***

“I close with the observation that, insofar as Americans participate in this anti-imperialist movement, their activities will be deeply patriotic, because they will be seeking to call our nation back to its moral ideals, which stand diametrically opposed to the values implicit in the global domination project.”

– David Ray Griffin [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Near the end of last month, the last fading breaths of a special person with extraordinary intellect offset by almost a humble and unassuming personality finally petered out, and left much of the public diminished in a fundamental way. [2]

A friend. A mentor. A prophet. A conspiracy theorist. David Ray Griffin was considered all of these things and more.

His philosophical journey which started in academia found a sideline into investigating and communicating about the truth about the problems with the official story of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. And it was not a diversionary track. For him, it was consistent with his commitment as a theologian and one who follows the truth no matter where it leads and no matter the cost to his reputation and life.

He may not have been the first voice out of the gate spreading the word, but with his background as an academic and his skills as a teacher, he was definitely a giant in the field of 9/11 investigation. He exposed the evidence that officials within the U.S. military, political and intelligence apparatus had full knowledge of the terrorist attacks in advance and either allowed or made them happen on purpose. People came to him by the hundreds, and tuned into radio by the thousands to hear about his understanding of what really happened on that horrible day.

The Global Research News Hour, and Global Research itself remain committed to similarly getting to the bottom of the vicious event which propelled the U.S. and the world into a new venture of war-making abroad and diminished rights at home. We recognize the particular importance of Dr Griffin on the roster of champions who would not be forced into silence when the growling hounds of conformity try to coerce a more “respectable” opinion out of him.

For the entire hour, we will get the perspectives of people who have been in contact with him and value his work, to share perspectives not only about his 9/11 work, but also in his other pursuits from theological studies to his role in revealing the U.S. empire in all its horrible glory. We coax them to reveal more about him on a personal level – both his strentgths and his Persian flaws. Our guests include Carol Brouillet, Ken Jennings, Richard Gage AIA, Barrie Zwicker and Elizabeth Woodworth.

David Ray Griffin may have shuffled off his mortal coil, but his memory and legacy will live on!

Carol Brouillet is Co-Founder of the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, and organizer of many, many, conferences, film festivals, rallies, marches. Mother, Congressional candidate, radio-show host for many years, concerned and active on many different issues, especially global economics. Her website is http://www.communitycurrency.org/.

Ken Jenkins helped co-found The Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance. HE has a degree in electrical engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University, and has done extensive postgraduate study in psychology. He has produced dozens of 9/11 DVDs – nine with leading 9/11 Truth author David Ray Griffin. His website is http://9-11tv.org

Richard Gage, AIA is a 30-year San Francisco Bay Area architect and member of the American Institute of Architects. He is the founder and former  CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. He now leads the charge for a new WTC investigation.His current site is RichardGage911.org

Barrie Zwicker is a former journalist and media critic. He wrote for the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Vancouver Province, Sudbury Star, Detroit News, and Lansing State Journal. He is the author of the 2006 book, Towers of deception: The Media Coverup of 9/11.

Elizabeth Woodworth, a career medical librarian and author/co-author of five books, worked with David Ray Griffin in various capacities from 2006-2022.  She did proof-reading/editing on about 12 of his books and many of his essays, co-authored two books with him directly, and has also written in-depth reviews of most of his books from the 2006-2022 period on Amazon.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 373)

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. David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott (2007), 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out’, Olive Branch Press, a division of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc.
2. https://www.globalresearch.ca/david-ray-griffin-1939-2022-man-his-work-synopsis/5800929

Author’s Note

Remember Black Monday, November 1997, which was ten followed by a deal with Wall Street on Christmas Eve, December 24, 1997. 25 years ago.

This article first published in July 2000 identifies the process whereby South Korean capitalism was literally hijacked at the height of the 1997-98 Asian Crisis. The objective was also to destabilize and its major business conglomerates as well as take  over its banking system. The IMF reforms triggered a string of bankruptcies and the downfall of industrial wages.

The IMF program applied to a advanced market economy was to undermine national sovereignty as well as shunt the process of reunification of North and South Korea.  The longer term objective is to open up North Korea to Western corporate capital as well as transform the DPRK  into a new cheap labor frontier of the global economy. That was the fate of Vietnam starting in the early 1990s upon the lifting of  US economic sanctions.

The deadly sanctions regime imposed on Pyongyang over a period of more than half a century combined with the relentless threat to wage a nuclear attack against North Korea are intended to eventually impose the “Free Market” on the DPRK Korea under the guidance of Wall Street and the IMF. 

An expanded and updated version of this text was subsequently included in the second edition of my book,  The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, Montreal, 2003. 

Michel Chossudovsky, April 6, 2013, December 17, 2022

*     *     *

The Recolonization of Korea

Seoul Black Monday. IMF Intervention in Korea

by Michel Chossudovsky

June 10, 2000

In the late days of November 1997 an IMF team of economists led by trouble-shooter Hubert Neiss was swiftly rushed to Seoul. Its mandate: to negotiate a Mexican-style bail-out with a view to rapidly restoring economic health and stability. An important precedent had been set: the IMF’s bitter economic medicine, routinely imposed on the Third World and Eastern Europe, was to be applied for the first time in an advanced industrial economy.

Washington had carefully set the stage in liaison with the US Embassy in Seoul. Barely a week before the arrival of the IMF mission, President Kim Young Sam had sacked his Finance Minister for having allegedly hindered negotiations with the IMF. A more acceptable individual was appointed on Washington’s instructions. Very convenient: the new negotiator and Finance Minister Mr. Lim Chang-yuel happened to be a former IMF and World Bank official. Also fired at short notice was presidential economic adviser Kim In-ho, for having spurned the IMF option and said Seoul would restore international credibility through its own efforts. (1)

Finance Minister Lim was accustomed to the Washington scene. No sooner had he been appointed, he was whisked off to Washington for negotiations with his former colleague IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer.

Seoul Black Monday

The government’s dealings with the IMF had been a closely guarded State secret. On Friday 21st of November, the government officially announced that it would be seeking an IMF bailout. On the following business day, November 24th, Seoul Black Monday, the stock market crumbled to a ten year low over feared IMF austerity measures and expected corporate and bank collapses. Faithfully obeying orders from Washington, Finance Minister Lim had removed all exchange controls from the currency market with the result of enticing further speculative assaults against the won. (2)

Two days later, November 26th, the IMF mission headed by Mr. Hubert Neiss arrived at Seoul’s Kimpo airport. And barely four days later on the 30th, the parties had already agreed on a Preliminary Agreement. The draft text had been prepared at IMF headquarters in Washington prior to the arrival of the mission. The policy solutions had already been decided in consultation with Wall Street and the US Treasury: no analysis or negotiation was deemed necessary.

Arm Twisting in the wake of the Presidential Race

But the deal was not yet wrapped up. The country was on the eve of a presidential election, and the front-runner opposition centre-left candidate Kim Dae jung remained firmly opposed to the IMF bailout agreement. He warned public opinion and accused the outgoing government of organising a massive sell-out of the Korean economy:

’Foreign investors can freely buy our entire financial sector, including 26 banks, 27 securities firms, 12 insurance companies and 21 merchant banks, all of which are listed on the Korean Stock Exchange, for just 5.5 trillion won,’ that is, $3.7 billion. (3)

Political turnaround

Barely two weeks later, upon winning the presidential race, Kim Dae jung had become an unbending supporter of strong economic medicine:

I will boldly open the market. I will make it so that foreign investors will invest with confidence; in a mass rally he confirmed his unbending support for the IMF Pain is necessary for reform and we should take this risk as opportunity. (4)

Succumbing to political pressure, Kim Dae jung, a former dissident, political prisoner and starch opponent of the US backed military regimes of Park Chung Hee and Chun Doo Hwan, had caved in to Wall Street and Washington prior to his formal inauguration as the country’s democratically elected president. In fact Washington had demanded in no uncertain terms that all three candidates in the presidential race commit themselves to adopting the IMF programme.

Enforcing Enabling Legislation through Financial Blackmail

Kim Dae jung had also given a green light to the Korean parliament. A special session of the Legislature was held on the following day, December 23. The four main government motions concerning the IMF Agreement were adopted virtually without debate. (5) Enforced through financial blackmail, legislation had also been approved which stripped the Ministry of Economy and Finance and of its financial regulatory and supervisory functions. South Korea’s Parliament had been transformed into a rubber stamp. Meanwhile, Moody’s Investor Service, the Wall Street credit agency, acting on behalf of US banking interests, had rewarded Korea’s compliance by downgrading ratings for Korean government and corporate bonds, including those of 20 banks, to ’junk bond’ status. (5)

Negotiating a $57 Billion Bailout: Timetable of the Heist

19 November 1997- 24 December 1997

19 November: Outgoing President Kim Young-sam fires Minister of Finance Kang Kyong-shik for hindering negotiations with the IMF. Kang is replaced by Mr. Lim Chang-yuel, a former Executive director of the IMF.

20 November: Finance Minister Lim is rushed off to Washington for talks with his former colleague, IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer.

21 November: The Repulbic of Korea (ROK) government formally announces that it will be seeking an Agreement with the IMF. The New Finance Minister is put in charge of negotiations with the IMF.

24 November: Seoul Black Monday. The Seoul stock market crumbles to a ten year low over feared IMF austerity measures and expected corporate and bank collapses.

26 November: The IMF mission arrives in Seoul headed by Mr. Hubert Neiss.

27 November: Shrouded in secrecy, talks between the IMF mission and ROK government officials commence.

30 November: After four days of negotiations, the IMF and the Government agree on a Preliminary Agreement.

1 December: The draft agreement is submitted to the approval of the ROK Cabinet.

3 December: IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus arrives in Seoul to wrap up the deal. US Undersecretary of the Treasury David Lipton in discussions with Camdessus states that the deal cannot be finalized unless all three presidential candidates give their support to the IMF bailout.

4 December: The final text of the Agreement is ratified by the IMF Executive Board which approves a stand by arrangement for 21 billion dollars out of a total package of 57 billion.

5 December: Presidential candidate Kim Dae-jung expresses his opposition to the IMF Agreement and warns public opinion on its devastating economic and social impacts.

18 December: Kim Dae-jung wins the Presidential election and immediately declares his unconditional support for the IMF programme

22 December: US Under-secretary of the Treasury David Lipton arrives in Seoul. Lipton demands Kim Dae Jung to agree to massive layoffs of workers.

23 December: A special session of the Legislature is called. The Legislature rubber stamps four key government motions regarding the IMF programme.

24 December: Wall Street bankers are called to an emergency meeting on Christmas Eve. At midnight, the IMF agrees to rush 10 billion dollars to Seoul to meet an avalanche of maturing short-term debts.

26 December: Boxing Day: President-elect Kim Dae jung commits himself to tough actions: Companies must freeze or slash wages. If that proves not enough, layoffs will be inevitable.

Wall Street Bankers meet on Christmas Eve

The Korean Legislature had met in emergency sessions on December 23. The final decision concerning the 57 billion dollar deal took place the following day, on Christmas Eve December 24th, after office hours in New York. Wall Street’s top financiers, from Chase Manhattan, Bank America, Citicorp and J. P. Morgan had been called in for a meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Also at the Christmas Eve venue, were representatives of the big five New York merchant banks including Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Salomon Smith Barney.(6)

And at midnight on Christmas Eve, upon receiving the green light from the banks, the IMF was allowed to rush 10 billion dollars to Seoul to meet the avalanche of maturing short-term debts. (7)

The coffers of Korea’s central Bank had been ransacked. Creditors and speculators were anxiously awaiting to collect the loot. The same institutions which had earlier speculated against the Korean won were cashing in on the IMF bailout money. It was a scam.

Dismantling the Chaebols

The IMF bailout had derogated Korea’s economic sovereignty, establishing a de facto colonial administration under a democratically elected president. It had plunged the country virtually overnight into a deep recession. The social impact was devastating. The standard of living collapsed; the IMF reforms depressed real wages and triggered massive unemployment.

The devaluation of the won, together with the stock market meltdown, generated a deadly chain of bankruptcies affecting both financial and industrial enterprises. The hidden agenda was to destroy Korean capitalism. The IMF program contributed to fracturing the chaebols.

Chaebol’s are conglomerates of many companies clustered around one holding company. The parent company is usually controlled by one family. In 1988, the 40 top chaebol grouped a total of 671 separate companies. Hyundai and Daewoo are examples. They produce widely differing products, everything from cars to TV sets. Chaebols do not, and this is important, control banks. (What is a chaebol?, at http://megastories.com/seasia/skorea/chaebol/chaewhat.htm)

The latter had been invited to establish strategic alliances with foreign firms meaning their eventual takeover and control by foreign capital. Acting directly on behalf of Wall Street, the IMF had demanded the dismantling of the Daewoo Group including the sell-off of the 12 so-called troubled Daewoo affiliate companies. Daewoo Motors was up for grabs. Korea’s entire auto parts industry was in crisis leading to mass layoffs and bankruptcies of auto-parts suppliers. (8)

Meanwhile, the creditors of Korea’s largest business empire, Hyundai, had demanded that group’s break-up. With the so-called spin off, meaning the fracture of Hyundai, foreign capital had been invited in to pick up the pieces, meaning Hyundai’s profitable car and ship building units,at good prices. Korea’s high tech, electronics and manufacturing economy was up for grabs. Western corporations had gone on a shopping spree, buying up industrial assets at rock-bottom prices. The devaluation of the won, combined with the slide of the Seoul stock market, had dramatically depressed the dollar value of Korean assets.

California and Texas Tycoons to the Rescue

America had come to the rescue of Korea’s ’troubled banks’. For a meager $454 million, a controlling share (51%) of Korea First Bank (KFB) was transferred to Newbridge Capital Ltd, a US outfit specializing in leveraged buyouts.(9) In one fell swoop, a California-based investment firm, with no visible prior experience in commercial banking, had gained control of one of Korea’s oldest banking institutions with 5,000 employees and a modern network of branch offices through out the country.

Under the terms of its agreement with Newbridge, the ROK government had granted so-called put back options to KFB (Korea First Bank) which entitled the new owners to demand compensation for all losses stemming from non-performing loans made prior to the sale.

What this meant in practice was a total cash injection by the ROK government (in several installments) into the KFB of 17.3 trillion won, an amount equivalent to 35 times the price Newbridge Capital had paid the government in the first place. (10)

In a modern form of highway robbery, a totally fictitious investment of 454 million dollars by Newbridge had enabled the new owners to cash in on a 15.9 billion dollar government hand-out. Not bad! And behind this lucrative scam, the Wall Street underwriter Morgan Stanley Dean Witter was also cashing in on fat commissions from both the ROK government and the new American owners of KFB.

And how was the government going to finance this multi-billion dollar handout? Through lower wages, massive layoffs of public employees including teachers and health workers, drastic cuts in social programs as well as billions of dollars of borrowed money.

Financed by the Korean Treasury, the new Texan and Californian owners of KFB had become domestic creditors of Korea’s troubled business conglomerates. Without having risked a single dollar, they now had the power to shake up, downsize or close down entire branches of Korean industry as they see fit, including electronics, automobile production, heavy industry, semiconductors, etc. Most of the business takeover proposals and spin-offs of the chaebols required the direct consent of Western financial interests. The fate of the workers of the chaebols was also in the hands of the new American owners.

The ROK government had not only lost control over the privatization program, it had allowed the entire financial services industry to be broken into. Chase Manhattan had purchased a majority interest in Good Money Securities. Goldman Sachs’ had acquired control of Kookmin Bank while New York Life had taken over its insurance arm Kookmin Life.(11)

The wholesale privatization of major public utilities had also been demanded, including Korea Telecom and Korea Gas. Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) was to be broken down into several smaller electricity companies prior to being placed on the auction block. Pohang Iron & Steel Corp. (POSCO) was also to become fully privatized. A similar fate awaits Hanjung, the State owned Korea Heavy Industries and Construction Company, slated to enter into a strategic alliance with Westinghouse.

Instating a System of Direct Colonial Rule

The system of indirect colonial rule first instated by the US Military under President Sygman Rhee in 1945 had been disbanded. Korea’s ruling business elites had been crushed. An entirely new system of government under President Kim Dae Jung had been established, geared towards the fracture of the chaebols and the dismantling of Korean capitalism. In other words, the signing of the IMF bailout Agreement in December 1997 marks an important and significant transformation in the structure of the Korean State. It also marks a decisive step in inter-Korean relations and Washington’s design to extend the free market to the entire Korean Peninsula.

Reunification and the Free Market

An IMF negotiating mission was rushed to Seoul in early June 2000, barely a few days before the historic inter-Korean Summit in Pyongyang between President Kim Dae jung and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Chairman Kim Jong il. Careful timing. The IMF’s presence in Seoul was barely noticed by the Korean press. Firmly behind Kim Dae jung, South Koreans had their eyes riveted on the promise of the country’s reunification. Other political issues were shoved to the sideline

Meanwhile backstage, removed from the heat of public debate, the IMF team was quietly putting the finishing touches on a new IMF Agreement to be duly signed by Finance Minister Lee Hun-jai, prior to his departure for the Pyongyang Summit.

It was a carefully planned sell-out: the June 2000 Agreement was more deadly than the first one signed in December 1997. In it, the ROK government renewed the IMF’s stranglehold on the Korean economy until 2003 without the occurence of any form of public debate or discussion. The dismantling and fracturing of South Korean capitalism was carefully outlined, to occur over a three year period, from 2000 to 2003. (12)

But the IMF mission had something else up its sleeve. In liaison with the US Embassy, the IMF mission briefed Finance Minister Lee Hun-jai, who was in charge of the Pyongyang Summit’s economic cooperation agenda. Lee was a faithful crony of the IMF. Prior to assuming the position of Finance Minister, he was in charge of the infamous Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), the powerful IMF sponsored Watch Dog, responsible for triggering the bankruptcy of the chaebols. Carefully briefed before his departure for Pyongyang, Finance Minister Lee was to uphold American business interests under the disguise of inter-Korean economic cooperation. Washington’s hidden agenda under the reunification process is the eventual recolonization of the entire Korean peninsula.

Colonizing North Korea

Under the inter-Korean economic cooperation program signed in Pyongyang, the Seoul government committed itself to investing in the North Korea. Hyundai, Korea’s largest conglomerate, was to invest and build factories in the North.

But the Korean chaebols, including Hyundai, are rapidly being taken over by American companies. In other words, inter-Korean economic cooperation may turn out to be a disguised form of foreign investment and a new window of opportunity for Wall Street. The new American owners of the chaebols in consultation with the US State Department will ultimately be calling the shots on inter-Korean economic cooperation including major investments in North Korea:

Kim Dae Jung’s strategy is to help Pyongyang with aid and development, tap its cheap labor and build goodwill and infrastructure that are also in South Korea’s interest Everyone has to keep up the pretense that nothing will happen to the North Korean regime, that you can open up and keep your power and we’ll help you make deals with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank… But ultimately, we hope it does undermine them. It’s the Trojan horse. (13)

The government of Nobel Peace Laureate President Kim Dae jung had set the stage on behalf of Washington. With US military might in the background, the promise of reunification, to which all Koreans aspire, could lead to the imposition of so-called free market reforms on Communist North Korea, a process which would result in the recolonization and impoverishment of the entire Korean peninsula under the dominion of American capital.

Notes

1.Agence France Presse , 19 November 1997.

2. Willis Witter, Economic Chief sacked in South Korean Debt Crisis; Emergency measures are introduced, Washington Times, 20 November 1997. See also International Monetary Fund, Korea: Request for IMF Standby, includes Letter of Intent and Memorandum on the Economic Programme, see para. 32, p. 44. The text can be consulted at http://www.chosun.com/feature/imfreport.html. Also quoted in Michael Hudson, Draft for Our World, Our World, Kyoto, 23 December 1997.

3. National Public Radio, 19 December 1997.

4. John Burton, Korea bonds reduced to junk status, Financial Times, London, 23 December 1997. P. 3.

5. Financial Times, 27-28 December 1997, p. 3.

6. Agence France Presse, Paris, 26 December 1997.

7. Autoparts makers step up resistance to Foreign Control of Daewoo Motor, Korea Herald, 28, June 2000.

8. See Michael Zielenziger, A rebounding but unreformed South Korea making investors, officials nervous, Knight Ridder Tribune News Service, 11 June 1999

9. More Tax Money for KFB, Korea Herald, Seoul, 17 August 2000, p. 1

10 Ibid

11. Struggle to survive will intensify amid M&As, Business Korea, Vol 17, No 2, February 2000, p. 30-36.

12. Text of Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies and Letter of Intent, June 14, Ministry of Finance, Seoul, 2000, published in the Republic of Korea Economic Bulletin, June 2000 at http://epic.kdi.re.kr/home/ecobul/indexlist.htm. Also published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) at http://www.imf.org/external/NP/LOI/2000/kor/01/INDEX.HTM. The Memorandum grants management rights to Deutsche Bank over KFB.

13 Los Angeles Times,  June 16, 2000

Order directly from Global Research

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.

First published on November 21, 2021

In this essay, I will be addressing the following issues: 

• US war crimes committed against the Korean Nation (1950-53),
• Fire and Fury and the Nuclear Issue: From the Cold War to the Present
• The debate on Reunification and the Sunshine Movement
• The Candlelight Movement which led to the impeachment of president Park Guen hye
• The formulation of a North-South peace proposal involving the repeal of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) under the OPCON (Operational Control) agreement

The text concludes with a section entitled:

Reunification and the Road Ahead: There is Only One Korean Nation.

The “real alliance” is that which unifies and reunites North and South Korea through dialogue against foreign intrusion and aggression.

The US is in a state of war against the entire Korean Nation. And what this requires is: 

the holding of bilateral talks between the ROK and the DPRK with a view to signing an agreement which nullifies the Armistice Agreement of 1953 and which sets the terms of a bilateral “Peace Treaty”.

In turn, this agreement would set the stage for the exclusion of US military presence and the withdrawal of US forces stationed in South Korea.  

1. US War Crimes committed against the Korean Nation (1950-53)

“Fire and Fury” was not invented by Donald Trump. It is a concept deeply embedded in US military doctrine. It has characterized US military interventions since the end of World War II.  

What distinguishes Trump from his predecessors in the White House is his political narrative at the 2017 United Nations  General Assembly. 

President Harry Truman from the very outset of the Korean War (1950-53) was a firm advocate of “Fire and Fury” against the people of both North and South Korea. General Douglas MacArthur, who had actually carried out the atrocities directed against the Korean people, appeared before the US Senate and acknowledged the crimes committed against the Korean Nation:

“I have never seen such devastation,” the general told members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. At that time, in May 1951, the Korean War was less than a year old. Casualties, he estimated, were already north of 1 million.

“I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man,” he added, ” (quoted by the Washington Post, August 10, 2017)

Confirmed by US military documents, both the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have been threatened with nuclear war for sixty-seven years.

In 1950, Chinese volunteer forces dispatched by the People’s Republic of China were firmly behind North Korea against US aggression.

China’s act of solidarity with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was carried out barely a few months after the founding of the PRC on October 1, 1949.

Truman had contemplated the use of nuclear weapons against both China and North Korea, specifically as a means to repeal the Chinese Volunteer People’s Army (VPA) which had been dispatched to fight alongside North Korean forces. [Chinese Volunteer People’s Army, 中國人民志願軍;  Zhōngguó Rénmín Zhìyuàn Jūn].

It is important to stress that US military action directed against the DPRK was part of a broader Cold War military agenda against the PRC and the Soviet Union, the objective of which was ultimately to undermine and destroy socialism.

Extensive war crimes were committed against the Korean Nation in the course of the Korean war and its aftermath.

Every single family in North Korea has lost a loved one in the course of the Korean War.

In comparison, during the Second World War the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the US lost 0.32%. During the Korean war, North Korea lost 30% of its population.

These figures of civilian deaths in North Korea should also be compared to those compiled for Iraq by the Lancet Study (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health). The Lancet study estimated a total of 655,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, in the three years following the US-led invasion (March 2003 – June 2006).

The US never apologized for having killed up to 30 percent of North Korea’s population. Quite the opposite. The main thrust of US foreign policy has been to demonize the victims of US-led wars.

There were no war reparations. The issue of US crimes against the people of Korea was never addressed by the international community. And today, the DPRK is tagged by the Western media as a threat to the security of the United States.

For more than half a century, Washington has contributed to the political isolation and impoverishment of North Korea. Moreover, US-sponsored sanctions on Pyongyang have contributed to destabilizing the country’s economy.

North Korea has been protrayed as part of an “axis of evil”. For what?

The unspoken victim of US military aggression, the DPRK is portrayed as a failed war-mongering “Rogue State”, a “State sponsor of terrorism” and a “threat to World peace”. In the West but also in south Korea, these stylized accusations become part of a consensus, which we dare not question.

The Lie becomes the Truth. North Korea is heralded as a threat. America is not the aggressor but “the victim”.

Washington’s intent from the very outset was to destroy North Korea and demonize an entire nation. The US has also stood in the way of the reunification of North and South Korea.

People across America should put politics aside and relate to the suffering and hardships of the people of North Korea. War veteran Brian Willson provides a moving assessment of the plight of the North Korean people:

“Everyone I talked with, dozens and dozens of folks, lost one if not many more family members during the war, especially from the continuous bombing, much of it incendiary and napalm, deliberately dropped on virtually every space in the country. “Every means of communication, every installation, factory, city, and village” was ordered bombed by General MacArthur in the fall of 1950. It never stopped until the day of the armistice on July 27, 1953. The pained memories of people are still obvious, and their anger at “America” is often expressed, though they were very welcoming and gracious to me. Ten million Korean families remain permanently separated from each other due to the military patrolled and fenced dividing line spanning 150 miles across the entire Peninsula.

Let us make it very clear here for western readers. North Korea was virtually totally destroyed during the “Korean War.” U.S. General Douglas MacArthur’s architect for the criminal air campaign was Strategic Air Command head General Curtis LeMay who had proudly conducted the earlier March 10 – August 15, 1945 continuous incendiary bombings of Japan that had destroyed 63 major cities and murdered a million citizens. (The deadly Atomic bombings actually killed far fewer people.).Eight years later, after destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.”It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerance of another.

Virtually every person wanted to know what I thought of Bush’s recent accusation of North Korea as part of an “axis of evil.” I shared with them my own outrage and fears, and they seemed relieved to know that not all “Americans” are so cruel and bellicose. As with people in so many other nations with whom the U.S. has treated with hostility, they simply cannot understand why the U.S. is so obsessed with them.” (Brian Willson, Korea and the Axis of Evil, Global Research, October 12, 2006 emphasis added)

The Nature of US Atrocities against the People of Korea

The DPRK’s Foreign Minister’s Cable to the United Nations Security Council confirmed the nature of the atrocities committed by the US against the people of North Korea, acting under the banner of the United Nations:

See original below. [original text in Korean]

“ON JANUARY 3 AT 10:30 AM, AN ARMADE OF 82 FLYING FORTRESSES LOOSED THEIR DEATH-DEALING LOAD ON THE CITY OF PYONGYANG. …

HUNDREDS OF TONS OF BOMBS AND INCENDIARY COMPOUND WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY DROPPED THROUGHOUT THE CITY, CAUSING ANNIHILATING FIRES. IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE EXTINCTION OF THESE FIRES, THE TRANS-ATLANTIC BARBARIANS BOMBED THE CITY WITH DELAYED-ACTION HIGH-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS WHICH EXPLODED AT INTERVALS THROUGHOUT FOR A WHOLE DAY, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PEOPLE TO COME OUT ONTO THE STREETS. THE ENTIRE CITY HAS NOW BEEN BURNING, ENVELOPED IN FLAMES, FOR TWO DAYS. BY THE SECOND DAY 7,812 CIVILIANS’ HOUSES HAD BEEN BURNT DOWN. THE AMERICANS WERE WELL AWARE THAT THERE WERE NO MILITARY OBJECTIVES LEFT IN PYONGYANG. …

THE NUMBER OF INHABITANTS OF PYONGYANG KILLED BY BOMB SPLINTERS, BURNT ALIVE AND SUFFOCATED BY SMOKE IS INCALCULABLE, SINCE NO COMPUTATION IS POSSIBLE. SOME FIFTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS REMAIN IN THE CITY, WHICH BEFORE THE WAR HAD A POPULATION OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND.”

It was all for a good cause: the fight against “evil communism”. The doctrine of fighting communism acted as a powerful ideological instrument during the Cold War era.

Our message to US military servicemen and women at all levels of the military hierarchy.

Reverse the course of History. Abandon the Battlefield, Refuse to Fight!

For complete text of the cable addressed to the UN Security Council click UN Repository.

2. “Fire and Fury” and the Nuclear Issue: 

From the Cold War to the Present

In the post Cold War era, under Donald Trump’s “Fire and Fury”, nuclear war directed against Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is “On the Table”.

What distinguishes the October 1962 Missile Crisis to Today’s Realities:

1. Today’s president Donald Trump does not have the foggiest idea as to the consequences of nuclear war.

2. Communication today between the White House and the Kremlin is at an all time low. In contrast, in October 1962, the leaders on both sides, namely John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev were accutely aware of the dangers of nuclear annihilation. They collaborated with a view to avoiding the unthinkable.

3. The nuclear doctrine was entirely different during the Cold War. Both Washington and Moscow understood the realities of mutually assured destruction. Today, tactical nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity (yield) of one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb are categorized by the Pentagon as “harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”.

4.  A one trillion ++ nuclear weapons program, first launched under Obama, is ongoing.

5. Today’s thermonuclear bombs are more than 100 times more powerful and destructive than a Hiroshima bomb. Both the US and Russia have several thousand nuclear weapons deployed.

Moreover, an all-out war against China is currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon as outlined by a RAND Corporation Report commissioned by the US Army.

Washington is actively involved in creating divisions between China and its neighbours including the DPRK and the ROK.

The objective is to draw South East Asia and the Far East into a protracted military conflict by creating divisions between China and ASEAN countries, most of which are the victims of Western colonialism and US military aggression: extensive crimes against humanity have been committed against Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia. In a bitter irony, these countries are now military allies of the United States.

Who Is the Aggressor?

The Soviet Union had tested its first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949 in response to Washington’s design to wage nuclear war against the USSR, first formulated in September 1945.

According to analysts, the Soviet atomic bomb was instrumental in the Truman administration’s decision to eventually stall US nuclear war preparations against North Korea and China. The project  was scrapped in June 1951. 

In March 1949, President Truman approved National Security Council Memorandum 8/2, which identified the entire Korean peninsula “as an area where the principles of democracy were being matched against those of Communism.” (see P. K. Rose, Two Strategic Intelligence Mistakes in Korea, 1950, Perceptions and Reality, CIA Library, Apr 14, 2007.)

The NSC Memorandum 8/2 paved the way for the June 1949 guerrilla attacks on the DPRK:

“Inquiry uncovers secret of series of attacks by South on North. South Korean troops attacked the North a year before the Korean war broke out, researchers have claimed in the latest disturbing revelation about the conflict which almost led to global war. More than 250 guerrillas from the South are said to have launched an attack on North Korean villages along the east coast in June 1949. The incident has been confirmed by a South Korean army official.  (John Gittings, Martin Kettle, The Guardian, 17 January 2000)

Washington’s objective was to extend its geopolitical zone of influence over the entire Korean Nation, with a view to taking over all the Korean colonial territories which had been annexed to the Japanese Empire in 1910. The Korean war was also directed against the People’s Republic of China as confirmed by president Truman’s November 1950 statements (see transcript below), which intimated in no uncertain terms that the atomic bomb was intended to be used against the People’s Republic of China.

According to military analyst Carl A. Posey in Air and Space Magazine:

Truman’s decision to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons is confirmed in Truman’s historic November 30, 1950 Press Conference.

(Excerpts below, click to access complete transcript)

THE PRESIDENT. We will take whatever steps are necessary to meet the military situation, just as we always have.

[12.] Q. Will that include the atomic bomb ?

THE PRESIDENT, That includes every weapon that we have.

Q. Mr. President, you said “every weapon that we have.” Does that mean that there is active consideration of the use of the atomic bomb?

THE PRESIDENT. There has always been active consideration of its use. I don’t want to see it used. It is a terrible weapon, and it should not be used on innocent men, women, and children who have nothing whatever to do with this military aggression. That happens when it is used.³

³Later the same day the White House issued the following press release:

“The President wants to make it certain that there is no misinterpretation of his answers m questions at his press conference today about the use of the atom bomb. Naturally, there has been consideration of this subject since the outbreak of the hostilities in Korea, just as there is consideration of the use of all military weapons whenever our forces are in combat.

“Consideration of the use of any weapon is always implicit in the very possession of that weapon.

“However, it should be emphasized, that, by law, only the President can authorize the use of the atom bomb, and no such authorization has been given. If and when such authorization should be given, the military commander in the field would have charge of the tactical delivery of the weapon.

“In brief, the replies to the questions at today’s press conference do not represent any change in this situation.”

…

Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could retrace that reference to the atom bomb? Did we understand you clearly that the use of the atomic bomb is under active consideration?

THE PRESIDENT. Always has been. It is one of our weapons.

Q. Does that mean, Mr. President, use against military objectives, or civilian–

THE PRESIDENT. It’s a matter that the military people will have to decide.  I’m not a military authority that passes on those things. [refutes his earlier statement on not using it “against civilians”]

Q. Mr. President, perhaps it would be better if we are allowed to quote your remarks on that directly?

THE PRESIDENT. I don’t think–I don’t think that is necessary.

Q. Mr. President, you said this depends on United Nations action. Does that mean that we wouldn’t use the atomic bomb except on a United Nations authorization ?

THE PRESIDENT. No, it doesn’t mean that at all. The action against Communist China depends on the action of the United Nations. The military commander in the field will have charge of the use of the weapons, as he always has. [intimates that the use of atomic bomb is “against Communist China”]

[15.] Q. Mr. President, how dose are we to all-out mobilization.

THE PRESIDENT. Depends on how this matter we are faced with now works out.

[16.] Q. Mr. President, will the United Nations decide whether the Manchurian border is crossed, either with bombing planes or–

THE PRESIDENT. The resolution that is now pending before the United Nations will answer that question.

Q. Or with troops?  … (emphasis added

In December 1949, a detailed top secret National Security Council (NSC) report was addressed to president Truman:

“Development of sufficient military power in selected non-Communist nations of Asia to maintain internal security and to prevent further encroachment by communism….

Gradual reduction and eventual elimination of the preponderant power and influence of the USSR in Asia

… The United States should continue to provide for the extension of political support and economic, technical, military and other assistance to the democratically-elected Government of the Republic of Korea.

(NSC top secret report, December 1949)

Beneath the facade of spreading democracy, Washington’s ultimate objective was to establish a proxy state in South Korea.

America’s appointee Sygman Rhee was flown into Seoul in October 1945, in General Douglas MacArthur’s personal airplane, Rhee became president in 1948, with a mandate to curb political dissent including the arrest, torture and assassination of thousands of alleged Communist opponents.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) evolved in the wake of the launching of the Soviet atom bomb in August 1949. Prior to that, the US resolve was to use nukes on a first strike basis against the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

However, at the outset of the Korean war in 1950, confirmed by Truman’s statements, no clearcut distinction was made between a nuclear weapon and a conventional weapon. The Truman administration’s nuclear doctrine consisted in using nuclear weapons within the framework of a conventional war theater.

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which characterized the Cold War was based on the recognition that the use of nuclear weapons “by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender”.

China was first threatened by the US with nuclear war in 1950, a year after the inauguration of the People’s Republic of China.  Some 14 years later in October 1964, China tested its first 16-ton nuclear bomb.

3. The Candlelight Movement, 

The Demilitarization of the Korean Peninsula

The 1987 June Democratic Uprising was a nationwide grassroots movement in the Republic of Korea (ROK) directed against the military regime of president Chun Doo-hwan, a ROK army general who came to power in 1979  following a military  coup and the assassination of President General Park Chung-hee. 

Chun Doo-hwan (1979-1987) had announced the appointment of a new military dictator: Army General Roh Tae-woo as the next unelected president of the ROK.

This self-proclaimed decision in defiance of public sentiment was conducive to the June 1987 mass movement in support of constitutional reform with a view to instating the holding of direct presidential elections. While the June movement put an end to unelected military rule, what was achieved was a military-civilian transition whereby General Roh-Tae-woo, was instated through the conduct of presidential elections. (In 1996, Roh was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison on bribery, mutiny and sedition charges.)

While the June movement was a landmark, it did not modify the social hierarchy, the corrupt political and corporate networks, the authoritarian nature of the leading corporate giants (Chaebols), not to mention the shadow decision making processes within the military and intelligence apparatus, conducted in liaison with Washington.

Thirty years later, the irony of history is that another grassroots protest movement, The Candle Light Movement in part inspired by the 1987 June Uprising successfully sought the impeachment of president Park Guen-hye, daughter of  General Park Chung-hee who ruled the ROK from 1963 to 1979.

According to media reports, the mega protests gained impetus on November 12, 2016 with one million protesters, rising to 1.9 million on November 19, and culminating on December 3, with 2.3 million. “The 2.3 million mega-protest … was a critical turning point that halted Park’s last attempt to escape impeachment.”

The government backlashed on grassroots organizations and the labor movement. In turn, under Mrs. Park’s presidency, the neocolonial relationship exerted by the US was reinforced with particular emphasis on expanded militarization.

Rep. Lee Seok-ki of the United Progressive Party (UPP) was accused without evidence of “plotting to overthrow the ROK government” of president Park Guen hye.

That government was indeed overthrown, by the people’s Candlelight movement, by a democratic process which was ratified by the constitutional court.

Convicted on charges of bribery, corruption, abuse of power, coercion and leaking government secrets (in a total of 18 cases), Park Guen-hye faces between 10 years to life in prison.

Bear in mind, these accusations are but the tip of the iceberg, they do not include Ms. Park’s orders to arbitrarily arrest her political opponents and repeal fundamental civil rights.

In a bitter irony, it was the constitutional court under pressure from the Conservative Party, which ratified president Park’s baseless accusations against Rep. Lee Seok-ki, which led to his imprisonment.

That erroneous decision by the Constitutional Court, which was in part upheld by the Supreme Court, invoking the 1948 National Security Act must be challenged and annulled.

Park Geun-hye at the Seoul central district court in South Korea. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock 

4.  The Sunshine Policy

The Sunshine policy initially established under the government of Kim Dae-jung with a view to seeking North-South cooperation had already been abolished by Park Guen-hye’s predecessor president Lee Myung-bak (2008-2013). In turn, this period was marked by a heightened atmosphere of confrontation between North and South, marked by successive war games.

The administrations of both presidents Lee and Park were largely instrumental in repealing the Sunshine Policy which had been actively pursued during the Roh Moo-hyun administration (2003-2008), with increased public sentiment in favor of reunification of North and South Korea.  

Sunshine 2.0. The Demilitarization of the Korean Peninsula

The legacy of history is fundamental: From the outset in 1945 as well as in the wake of the Korean war (1950-53), US interference and military presence in the ROK has been the main obstacle to the pursuit of democracy and national sovereignty.

Washington has consistently played a role in ROK politics, with a view to ensuring its hegemonic objectives in East Asia. The impeached president Mrs. Park served as an instrument of the US administration.

Will the popular movement against the impeached president prevail?

It was conducive to the conduct of new presidential elections leading to the election of Moon Jae-in as president of the ROK.

Supported by the Candle Light movement, Moon Jae-in’s presidency potentially constitutes a watershed, a political as well as geopolitical landmark, an avenue towards national sovereignty in defiance of US interference, a potential break with a foregone era of authoritarian rule.

President Moon Jae-in had worked closely with president Roh Moo-hyun as his chef de cabinet. He has confirmed his unbending commitment in favor of dialogue and cooperation with Pyongyang, under what is being dubbed the Sunshine 2.0 Policy, while also maintaining the ROK’s relationship with the US.

While President Moon Jae-in (left) is firmly opposed to the DPRK’s nuclear program, he nonetheless took a firm stance against the deployment of the US-supplied Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence Missile Defence System (THAAD).

In recent developments, the ROK Defense Ministry acting behind his back took the initiative (May 30, 2017) of bringing in four more launchers for the THAAD missile system. “President Moon said that it’s ‘very shocking’ after receiving a report” on the incident from his national security director.” (Morningstar, May 30, 2017)

President Moon’s commitment to cooperation with North Korea coupled with demilitarization, will require redefining the ROK-US relationship in military affairs. This is the crucial issue.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads: How will the policies of President Moon’s administration affect the broader East Asia geopolitical context marked by US threats of military action (including the use of nuclear weapons) not only against North Korea but also against China and Russia?

In the present context, the US has de facto control over ROK foreign policy as well as North-South Korea relations. Under the OPCON agreement, the Pentagon controls the command structure of the ROK armed forces.

Ultimately this is what has to be addressed with a view to establishing a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula and the broader East Asian region.

5. The Repeal of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) 

Towards a Bilateral North-South Peace Agreement 

In 2014, the government of  President Park Geun-hye postponed the repeal of the OPCON (Operational Control) agreement “until the mid-2020s”. What this signified is that “in the event of conflict” all ROK forces would be under the command of a US General appointed by the Pentagon, rather than under that of the ROK President and Commander in Chief.

It goes without saying that national sovereignty cannot reasonably be achieved without the annulment of the OPCON agreement as well as the ROK – US Combined Forces Command (CFC) structure.

As we recall, in 1978 a bi-national Republic of Korea – United States Combined Forces Command (CFC), was created under the presidency of General Park (military dictator and father of impeached president Park Guen-hye). In substance, this was a change in labels in relation to the so-called UN Command.

“Ever since the Korean War, the allies have agreed that the American four-star would be in “Operational Control” (OPCON) of both ROK and US military forces in wartime …. Before 1978, this was accomplished through the United Nations Command. Since then it has been the CFC [US Combined Forces Command (CFC) structure]. (Brookings Institute)

Moreover, the Command of the US General under the renegotiated OPCON (2014) remains fully operational inasmuch as the 1953 Armistice (which legally constitutes a temporary ceasefire) is not replaced by a peace treaty.

The 1953 Armistice Agreement

What underlies the 1953 Armistice Agreement is that one of the warring parties, namely the US has consistently threatened to wage war on the DPRK for more than 60 years.

The US has on countless occasions violated the Armistice Agreement. It has remained on a war footing. Casually ignored by the Western media and the international community, the US has actively deployed nuclear weapons targeted at North Korea for more than half a century in violation of article 13(b) of the Armistice agreement. More recently it has deployed the so-called THAAD missiles largely directed against China and Russia.

The US is still at war with North Korea. The armistice agreement signed in July 1953 –which legally constitutes a “temporary ceasefire” between the warring parties (US, North Korea and China’s Volunteer Army)– must be rescinded through the signing of a long-lasting peace agreement.

The US has not only violated the armistice agreement, it has consistently refused to enter into peace negotiations with Pyongyang, with a view to maintaining its military presence in South Korea as well as shunting a process of normalization and cooperation between the ROK and the DPRK.

If one of the signatories of the Armistice refuses to sign a Peace Agreement, what should be contemplated is the formulation  of a comprehensive Bilateral North-South Peace Agreement, which would de facto lead to rescinding the 1953 armistice.

What should be sought is that the “state of war” between the US and the DPRK (which prevails under the armistice agreement) be in a sense “side-tracked” and annulled by the signing of a comprehensive bilateral North-South peace agreement, coupled with cooperation and interchange.

This proposed far-reaching agreement between Seoul and Pyongyang would assert peace on the Korean peninsula –failing the signing of a peace agreement between the signatories of the 1953 Armistice agreement.

The legal formulation of this bilateral entente is crucial. The bilateral arrangement would in effect bypass Washington’s refusal. It would establish the basis of peace on the Korean peninsula, without foreign intervention, namely without Washington dictating its conditions. It would require the concurrent withdrawal of US troops from the ROK and the repeal of the OPCON agreement.

Bear in mind, the US was involved in the de facto abrogation of paragraph 13(d) of the Armistice agreement, which forecloses the parties from entering new weapons into Korea. In 1956, Washington brought in and installed nuclear weapons facilities into South Korea. In so doing, the U.S. not only abrogated paragraph 13(d), it abrogated the entire Armistice agreement through the deployment of US troops and weapons systems in the ROK.

Moreover, it should be noted that the militarization of the ROK under the OPCOM agreement, including the development of new military bases, is also largely intent upon using the Korean peninsula as a military launchpad threatening both China and Russia. Under OPCOM, “in the case of war”, the entire force of the ROK would be mobilized under US command against China or Russia.

The THAAD missiles are deployed in South Korea, against China, Russia and North Korea.  Washington states that THAAD is solely intended as a Missile Shield against North Korea.

Similarly, the Jeju island military base is largely intended to threaten China.

THAAD System

The Jeju island military base is also directed against China. 

Less than 500km from Shanghai

Moreover, Washington is intent upon creating political divisions in East Asia not only between the ROK and the DPRK but also between North Korea and China, with a view to ultimately isolating the DPRK.

In a bitter irony, US military facilities in the ROK (including Jeju Island) are being used to threaten China as part of a process of military encirclement. Needless to say, permanent peace on the Korean peninsula as well as in the broader East Asia region as defined under a bilateral North-South agreement would require the repeal of both the Armistice agreement as well as OPCOM, including the withdrawal of US troops from the ROK.

It is important that the bilateral peace talks between the ROK with DPRK under the helm of President Moon Jae-in be conducted without the participation or interference of outside parties. These discussions must address the withdrawal of all US occupation forces as well as the removal of economic sanctions directed against North Korea.

The exclusion of US military presence and the withdrawal of the 28,500 occupation forces should be a sine qua non requirement of a bilateral ROK-DPRK Peace Treaty.

6. Reunification and the Road Ahead.

There Is Only One Korean Nation

America’s neo-colonial practice applied both prior and in the post World War period has been geared towards weakening the nation state. Washington seeks through military and non-military means  the partition and fracture of independent countries (eg. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Central America, Iraq, Syria, Sudan). This foreign policy agenda focussing on fracture and partition also applies to Korea.

There is only one Korean Nation. Washington opposes reunification because a united Korean Nation would weaken US hegemony in East Asia.

Reunification would create a competing industrial and military power and nation state (with advanced technological and scientific capabilities) which would assert its sovereignty, establish trade relations with neighbouring countries (including Russia and China) without the interference of Washington.

It is worth noting in this regard, that US foreign policy and military planners have already established their own scenario of “reunification” predicated on maintaining US occupation troops in Korea. Similarly, what is envisaged by Washington is a framework which would enable “foreign investors” to penetrate and pillage the North Korean economy.

Washington’s objective is to impose the terms of Korea’s reunification. The Neocons’ “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) published in 2000 had intimated that in a “post unification scenario”, the number of US troops (currently at 28,500) should be increased and that US military presence should be extended to North Korea.

In a reunified Korea,  the stated military mandate of the US garrison would be to implement so-called “stability operations in North Korea”:

While Korea unification might call for the reduction in American presence on the peninsula and a transformation of U.S. force posture in Korea, the changes would really reflect a change in their mission – and changing technological realities – not the termination of their mission. Moreover, in any realistic post-unification scenario, U.S. forces are likely to have some role in stability operations in North Korea.

It is premature to speculate on the precise size and composition of a post-unification U.S. presence in Korea, but it is not too early to recognize that the presence of American forces in Korea serves a larger and longer-range strategic purpose. For the present, any reduction in capabilities of the current U.S. garrison on the peninsula would be unwise. If anything, there is a need to bolster them, especially with respect to their ability to defend against missile attacks and to limit the effects of North Korea’s massive artillery capability. In time, or with unification, the structure of these units will change and their manpower levels fluctuate, but U.S. presence in this corner of Asia should continue. 36 (PNAC, Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, p. 18, emphasis added)

Washington’s intentions are crystal clear.

It should be understood that a US led war against North Korea would engulf the entire Korean nation.

The US sponsored state of war is directed against both North and South Korea. It is characterised by persistent military threats (including the use of nuclear weapons) against the DPRK.

It also threatens the ROK which has been under US military occupation since September 1945. Currently there are 28,500 US troops in South Korea. Yet under the US-ROK OPCON (joint defense agreement) discussed earlier, all ROK forces are  under US command.

Given the geography of the Korean peninsula, the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea would inevitably also engulf South Korea. This fact is known and understood by US military planners.

What has to be emphasized in relation to Sunshine 2.0 Policy is that the US and the ROK cannot be “Allies” inasmuch as the US threatens to wage war on North Korea.

The “real alliance” is that which unifies and reunites North and South Korea through dialogue against foreign intrusion and aggression.

The US is in a state of war against the entire Korean Nation. And what this requires is:

The holding of bilateral talks between the ROK and the DPRK with a view to signing an agreement which nullifies the Armistice and sets the term of a bilateral “Peace Treaty”. In turn this agreement would set the stage for the exclusion of US military presence and the withdrawal of the 28,500 US forces.

Moreover, pursuant to bilateral Peace negotiations, the ROK-US OPCON agreement which places ROK forces under US command should be rescinded.  All ROK troops would thereafter be brought under national ROK command.

Bilateral consultations should also be undertaken with a view to further developing economic, technological, cultural and educational cooperation between the ROK and the DPRK.

Without the US in the background pulling the strings under OPCON, the threat of war would be replaced by dialogue. The first priority, therefore would be to rescind OPCON.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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 “Oppression Olympics” – the victimization hierarchy in which more extreme victimhood equals higher social status – is an odd outgrowth of the wider helicopter-mom, “everybody-gets-a-trophy,” “Nerf-the-world” culture that saturated everything circa the 90s. It proliferated from there under the guises of “tolerance” and “equity.”

In the last few years, the unofficial Twitter-based Olympics commission introduced a new category of oppression: disability.

One might flippantly assume that nature or fate – a bad genetic role of the dice or an unfortunate accident – might be to blame for disability. But it’s actually “ablest” society, according to the “disability community.”

Society, according to disability culture, is designed to weed out the disabled and exclude them from participation. The challenges that disabled people face aren’t due to their disabilities per se; they’re due to society’s failure to properly accommodate them.

"She can't get inside the building because of her wheelchair."

No. She can't get inside because the building is not accessible. The building has a barrier that does not let her in. The wheelchair is not the problem; the building's lack of access is the problem.

Words matter.

— Elena Hung (@ElenaHung202) October 4, 2022

Nothing is ever their fault, or their own issue to handle. Everything is society’s fault, and society’s problem to fix.

*

The oppression matrix is multifaceted – or, to borrow an expression from Social Justice©, “intersectional.” Various markers of oppression converge to determine an individual’s ultimate victimhood score and, accordingly, their place in the hierarchy.

A non-exhaustive list of the ever-expanding victimized classes include:

• Races other than white (sometimes Asians are excluded as well)
• Non-white women
• Gender identities other than cisgender men or women
• Fat people (and other differently sized demographics)
• Religions other than Christianity
• Disabled people

Disability, like the other markers of victimhood, is a virtue – a currency that members can cash in on for higher rank.

It’s an arms race to the bottom, to continually innovate new oppressed categories of disability, the end goal being to claim the ultimate set and win the game. It’s like Pokémon but the objects are autism and ADD instead of Squirtle and Pikachu.

Gotta catch ’em all.

Given the social incentives, it’s not surprising that normies with no real disabilities are fakin’ it ’til they make it – much like Rachel Dolezal pretending to be black or trans-trenders transitioning for the social media clout.

Misery loves company. If disability activists had their druthers, they’d be content to lock down society in a permanent state of Public Health© forever-emergency, with everyone else shuttered alone inside, anguished and afflicted and deathly afraid of everything – which is how they mostly live their own lives anyway.

“A lot of abled people are freaking out about quarantine, and disabled people are not as much. My day-to-day life so far in my apartment hasn’t changed that much… I’m used to not seeing my friends that often. I’m used to not going outside that often.”

The American Association of People With Disabilities (AAPD) succinctly confirms that COVID-19 was a boon for the disability industry. As the biomedical security state’s biggest cheerleaders, they never want it to end.

The pandemic is not over.

The pandemic is not over.

The pandemic is not over.

— AAPD (@AAPD) September 20, 2022

How and why does a person voluntarily commit to victimhood as their primary identity?

From the 10,000-foot view, disability culture isn’t much different than the ongoing fentanyl epidemic or the recent suicide spike. It’s a coping mechanism.

Of course, there’s the perverse social prestige angle that we’ve covered already.

But, at a deeper level, the primary driving force of all these phenomena is lack of meaning and atomization. The French sociologist Émile Durkheim termed it “anomie.” To fill the void, humans embark on a desperate search to recover a sense of identity – often finding it in the strangest of places, like a blind man feeling his way through a maze.

“God is dead,” as Nietzsche asserted – a widely misinterpreted declaration that didn’t refer to the literal death of God as a celebration of nihilistic triumph. Rather, it referenced the loss of meaning in a society that derived it, up until the post-Enlightenment period, from religion.

Their disabilities are all the activists have to cling to. Spiritual decay is the real disability.

Their disability is their identity, that from which they derive their sense of purpose and place in place of a more nourishing identity. They don’t want to get better, because to lose the former would mean the loss of the latter.

To preserve their identity, therefore, they adopt a religious conviction that they will never achieve physical/mental normality, no matter what evidence to the contrary presents itself, or what opportunities they are offered to recover.

Happily saying to a chronic illness patient who has not been formally diagnosed with anything but is feeling terrible, "Great news, all your tests came out looking normal," is smug and condescending, and you know exactly what you're doing when you do so.

— Dr. Eric Oh So Good MD 🗨 (@EdoajoEric) October 7, 2022

“Happily saying to a chronic illness patient who has not been formally diagnosed with anything but is feeling terrible, ‘Great news, all your tests came out looking normal,’ is smug and condescending, and you know exactly what you’re doing when you do so.”

They are martyrs for a war that they invented against their own bodies, and are the only ones fighting. Professional campaigners build their careers around creating spectacles of themselves highlighting their cruel oppression.

“Disability campaigner” Jennie Berry explains her harrowing experience via Huffington Post:

“I asked to go to the toilet and they just said ‘no we don’t have an aisle chair onboard’, with no suggestions of what I was to do… thankfully as I have good upper body strength I proceeded to drag myself down the aisle towards the toilet.”

This is narcissistic self-marketing masquerading as civil rights activism.

Notice that the video is credited to the “disability campaigner” herself, which means that this woman made a whole production out of her airplane bathroom experience, premeditatedly deploying a videographer to record her crawling to the airline toilet like Jesus bearing the cross. Persecution by an ableist society is her martyrdom.

Obvious logistical questions that any normal person might ask arise like: why wouldn’t the person filming have just put the phone down and helped her out? Also, what would this lady have the airlines do?

Airplanes are uncomfortably cramped for everyone. Dealing with airlines sucks for everyone. She’s not special.

If avoiding embarrassment and retaining her dignity truly were her goal, she would have failed miserably. Sacrificing her dignity out of desperation to discover meaning in a senseless, hollow world is the point.

*

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.

Featured image is from TDB

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.

***

During the December 13-15 White House-Africa summit, the Biden administration sought to persuade leaders and officials from 49 states that the United States wants an equal partnership with the continent.

This was the first of such meetings since 2014 when the administration of former President Barack Obama was in office.

The tenure of Obama’s successor, former President Donald Trump, was marked by open hostility towards Africa where he never visited while in office. Nonetheless, the Biden administration has made no substantial shifts in its policy towards the continent. In actual fact, President Joe Biden has sought to further utilize the 55 member-states African Union (AU) as an appendage in the renewed 21st century cold war between NATO and the Russian Federation.

During the first day of the summit, the position of African governments were that they favored a diplomatic resolution to the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. The continuing conflict over the last 10 months has resulted in the further aggravation of supply chain problems plaguing the global economy since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Obviously, the administration in Washington wants to remain in dialogue with African heads-of-state despite the rapidly developing trade, political and military relations between the AU member-states with the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation. However, as it relates to infrastructural and security questions, Beijing and Moscow now are far more advanced in regard to building long term relationships.

Biden promised to facilitate investment of $55 billion into African economies while pledging to visit several countries on the continent in 2023. Some of the funds are designed to purportedly support the capacity of African governments to conduct democratic elections. Biden reportedly reflected on the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. The attacks were aimed at preventing the results of the November 2020 elections from being certified by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Differences over Key Issues in U.S.-Africa Relations

The divergence of opinion between the African leaders and the White House over Ukraine policy was not the only point of disagreement at the summit. Some of the participants questioned the U.S.’s commitment to the security of the continent.

On the second day of the summit, the Department of Defense under Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III, hosted a session entitled the “Peace, Security and Governance Forum.” Much of the discussion on the part of Pentagon, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) attending the gathering represented a repackaging of the language already present in the briefing documents of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). See this.

Although the Pentagon has established a separate command for Africa since 2008, insecurity in key geo-political regions is worsening. A series of military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Conakry and Chad with an attempted seizure of power also taking place in Sao Tome in early December, illustrate the failure of AFRICOM to carry out its stated mission. Criticisms among the people and those in government are growing over the role of AFRICOM along with French military forces.

Almost all of the coup makers over the last decade in West Africa are graduates of Pentagon military training programs conducted both inside the U.S. and on the continent. Joint military operations between the Pentagon and various African military structures have become routine. These annual maneuvers and war games operations represent the degree to which imperialism has penetrated military forces on the continent.

Even though there are clear connections between the military usurpation of power from civilian-led governments and the Pentagon, those who have taken power in Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea-Conakry were not invited to the White House. The State of Eritrea was not present as well since the government in the Horn of Africa state is often on the receiving end of punitive measures by Washington. The presidents of key countries such as the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Zimbabwe sent their foreign ministers as representatives to the summit. (See this)

Senegalese President Macky Sall, who is the current Chair of the AU, said of the differences over U.S. legislative policy and sanctions against the Republic of Zimbabwe that:

“Sall criticized pending U.S. legislation that he said unfairly ‘targeted’ Africa, an apparent reference to a measure titled ‘Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa.’ Lawmakers sponsoring the bill say the legislation is intended to prevent Moscow from using Africa to bypass U.S. sanctions imposed after the invasion of Ukraine. Sall also raised concerns about years-long U.S. sanctions against Zimbabwe for corruption and human rights violations, saying that it was time to lift the penalties so the nation could ‘fight against poverty and underdevelopment.’ Earlier this week, the U.S. Treasury Department announced it was hitting four Zimbabwean people, including the adult son of President Emmerson Mnangagwa, and two companies with new sanctions, accusing them of roles in undermining democracy and facilitating high-level graft.” (See this)

Washington Views Moscow and Beijing as Strategic Competitors

Undoubtedly, this summit at the White House was planned as a public relations campaign directed against China, Russia and other international powers which have held multilateral meetings with the AU member-states. However, in real terms, the U.S. has decreased its level of direct investment in Africa since the Obama administration.

U.S. preoccupation with military interventions has dominated its foreign policy imperatives since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist countries in Eastern Europe. These destabilization campaigns, aerial bombings, proxy wars and direct occupations have objectively weakened the political legitimacy of Washington in various geo-political regions internationally.

Beijing over the last two decades through the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and other structures has become the largest trading partner with the AU member-states. The U.S. Peace Information Center says of the contemporary situation:

“China is Africa’s largest two-way trading partner, hitting $254 billion in 2021, exceeding by a factor of four U.S.-Africa trade. China is the largest provider of foreign direct investment, supporting hundreds of thousands of African jobs. This is roughly double the level of U.S. foreign direct investment. While Chinese lending to African countries has dipped of late, China remains by far the largest lender to African countries. It is to be expected that China’s commercial activity in Africa would increase with the dramatic rise of its economy to become the second largest in the world, especially given China’s need for raw materials to support its very large manufacturing base. But this growth also represents a determined Chinese government-driven effort to make significant inroads in Africa.”

As it relates to Moscow, the historic relations between the Soviet Union and African independence movements and post-colonial governments marked a sharp departure from the neo-colonial approach of the U.S. Both the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China advanced a foreign policy which was supportive of liberation struggles, sovereignty as well as non-capitalist development.

In recent years, the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin has established the Russia-Africa Summit which was held in 2019 in Sochi. Another summit announced earlier in 2022 has not yet convened.

Russian trade with Africa is far less than China’s. However overall, the volume of trade between the African continent and Russia has grown substantially in recent years. Agricultural products such as grain are heavily imported into Africa. Also, agricultural inputs like fertilizers are essential in local farming efforts.

Statista.com website says:

“The annual volume of trade between Russia and countries located on the African continent reached 14.5 billion U.S. dollars in 2020, marking a decrease from the previous year. The revenue from Russian exports from and imports into the region more than doubled between 2013 and 2018. Russia’s leading trade partner on the continent was Egypt. The value of goods and services exchanged with Egypt accounted for roughly one third of the total trade volume between Russia and African countries.”

Russia-Africa trade relations are not the major concern of Washington in regard to the role of Moscow. More worrisome for the White House, the State Department and Pentagon are the volumes of arms sales from Russia to the African continent. In addition, the presence of the Wagner Group, a military services company based in Russia, which has been contracted by Mali and the Central African Republic to assist with national security, has been a cause for concern. France has claimed to have withdrawn its armed forces from Mali due to criticism from the military government led by Col. Assimi Goita along with the presence of Wagner. Secretary of Defense Austin during the White House summit referred to Wagner as “mercenaries” yet did not acknowledge the destructive character of AFRICOM in Libya, Somalia and other states where they are engaged in military surveillance and offensive operations.

One source on Russian weapons transfers to Africa notes:

“Russia’s arms sales to Africa have increased by a quarter over the last four years. In fact, Russia accounts for nearly half of major arms exports to Africa, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, with Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and Angola as the biggest customers (all of which, except Egypt, abstained in the UN vote to condemn Russia). And all across Africa, Russia has military trainers on the ground who are supporting the sales of the popular Mi-17 and Mi-35 helicopters and other equipment, according to U.S. intelligence reports.

Moreover, the support for Russia on a grassroots level among the workers and youth has been revealed in mass demonstrations in Burkina Faso and Mali. These factors are often considered by African heads-of-state in their public comments and actions at the United Nations and other international forums.

U.S. imperialism provides no other viable alternatives to Africa other than the pursuit of its non-aligned policy. Africa cannot be genuinely liberated and sovereign until the people defeat U.S. influence on the continent and around the world.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular 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.

***

Up until about a decade ago, an average of 80 to 100 satellites per year were launched into varying orbits. Some reentered Earth’s atmosphere quickly, while others will remain in orbit for decades.

This now seems quaint. In the last five years, driven largely by the rise of communications networks such as SpaceX’s Starlink and a proliferation of small satellites, the number of objects launched into space has increased dramatically.

In 2017, according to the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, the annual number exceeded 300. By 2020, the annual number of objects launched exceeded 1,000 for the first time. This year, the total has already surpassed 2,000. With more broadband-from-space networks like Amazon’s Project Kuiper on the way, further growth can be expected.

This radically increasing number of satellites, most of which are orbiting within 1,000 km of the Earth’s surface, comes as low-Earth orbit is ever more cluttered with debris. For example, just last month, a Chinese Long March 6A rocket’s upper stage unexpectedly broke apart after delivering its payload into orbit. There are now more than 300 pieces of trackable debris at an altitude from 500 to 1,000 km. And in November 2021, Russia shot down its own Cosmos 1408 satellite, creating more than 1,000 fragments in orbit. NASA’s International Space Station still has to dodge this debris to this day.

At some point, the heavens above will reach a breaking point. Yes, space is big, but there is so much junk out there.

Scientists and engineers estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of orbital debris about the size of a blueberry that cannot be tracked. Given their velocities of many times the speed of sound, these small objects have the kinetic energy of a falling anvil. Then there are tens of thousands of pieces of trackable debris the size of a softball or larger that have the kinetic energy of a large bomb. While some of this debris gets dragged down into Earth’s atmosphere and burns up every day, humans are rapidly creating more of it.

To get a sense of this threat and how humans might clean up their act, Ars spoke with Moriba Jah, an astrodynamicist from the University of Texas at Austin. Jah is a superstar in the field of orbital debris and one of the foremost voices sounding the alarm about the rising tide of space junk and calling for humanity to preserve low-Earth orbit. He also serves as chief scientist for Privateer Space, a company he co-founded with Apple Computer co-founder Steve Wozniak to better collect and share debris tracking data.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

Sustainable or not?

Ars: Given what has happened over the last few years and what is expected to come, do you think the activity we’re seeing in low-Earth orbit is sustainable?

Moriba Jah: My opinion is that the answer is no, it’s not sustainable. Many people don’t like this whole “tragedy of the commons” thing, but that’s exactly what I think we’re on a present course for. Near-Earth orbital space is finite. We should be treating it like a finite resource. We should be managing it holistically across countries, with coordination and planning and these sorts of things. But we don’t do that.

I think it’s analogous to the early days of air traffic and even maritime and that sort of stuff. It’s like when you have a couple of boats that are coming into a place, it’s not a big deal. But when you have increased traffic, then that needs to get coordinated because everybody’s making decisions in the absence of knowing the decisions that others are making in that finite resource.

Ars: Is it possible to manage all of this traffic in low-Earth orbit?

Jah: Right now there is no coordination planning. Each country has plans in the absence of accounting for the other country’s plans. That’s part of the problem. So it doesn’t make sense. Like, if “Amberland” was the only country doing stuff in space, then maybe it’s fine. But that’s not the case. So you have more and more countries saying, “Hey, I have free and unhindered use of outer space. Nothing legally has me reporting to anybody because I’m a sovereign nation and I get to do whatever I want.” I mean, I think that’s stupid.

Ars: In the United States, right now, much of the regulation of satellite activity is conducted by the Federal Communications Commission. But it seems like they’re pretty pro-business, so they’re mostly permissive.

Jah: I’m also pro-business in space. The thing is the manner in which we do it. At the end of the day, based on international law codified in treaties and conventions from 1967 to 1972, liability for damage and harmful interference falls squarely on the shoulders of states party to the treaty. So governments are responsible, ultimately. Companies bear no liability for their behavior. Countries do.

Countries have the responsibility to authorize and provide continuing supervision of all activities of non-state actors. Governments, because they’re licensing and authorizing, get to hold their own people accountable. The thing that needs to happen is countries need to be passing national space laws that incentivize environmental protection and sustainability. Basically, they need to require that the people that they authorize to do stuff in space—businesses or whatever—adhere to those laws and are held accountable for them.

Ars: What about country-to-country interactions? What happens if a SpaceX Starlink satellite hits China’s Tiangong Space Station and causes serious damage?

Jah: Basically, the United States is liable for damage to China for that; the companies aren’t. So China could go to the United Nations and say, you know, based on the Convention on liability and damage, I am filing a complaint for compensation. The framework is there.

What can be done?

Ars: You mentioned that governments need to hold companies accountable. What other sensible things could the United States and other nations be doing from a policy standpoint?

Jah: I think a couple of things. The United States could take the lead in developing a circular space economy, one that focuses first and foremost on the prevention of pollution through minimizing single-use satellites and rockets. Just like we’re trying to minimize single-use plastics, the United States could incentivize minimizing single-use satellites and rockets, making them reusable and recyclable.

For the ones that can’t be reused and recycled, we’re going to then incentivize a framework for responsible disposal, which is not uncontrolled reentry. That framework for space is one that the United States must lead on. This idea actually underscores the whole thing coming out of the White House with wanting in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing. If you want to create this whole ecosystem of doing things on orbit, recycling, refueling, servicing, then basically the government establishing the circular space economy is required.

Also, the official database of objects in space is developed and maintained by the US military, which is not a transparent organization, for many obvious reasons. That has to be transferred to a civil entity. With Space Policy Directive No. 3 that Trump signed in 2018 and some other things that followed from there congressionally, there was the idea that the Office of Space Commerce was going to lead this under Richard DalBello. But where’s his money to do this?

So Congress needs to actually get to the business of appropriating funds and providing the resources to the Office of Space Commerce. Because then the Office of Space Commerce can share data and information in a more transparent and freer way globally, with countries like China and Russia. We’re not going to give them data from military sensors, but we have commercial entities in the United States, companies that have their own sensors, radars, and telescopes. We, the government, are going to purchase those things, and we’re going to make those available to other people around the globe so that we can have a combined pot of evidence to monitor space.

Ars: Is that really about trying to establish norms with data sharing so that other countries around the world will follow along?

Jah: I think “norms” is a weighted term because groups of people want to be the lead in norms, and they want to be the lead in establishing what they call “best practices,” which really pisses me off. Because I think “best practices” basically alienates anybody who wasn’t in that original group. I think “effective practices” is better and it requires inclusivity, which means diversity that gets to influence the outcomes.

So I think the best way forward, to be honest with you, is to start relationships at technical and scientific levels. I know my scientific counterparts in Russia and China, we actually want to collaborate with each other. We want to exchange things that don’t have any sort of semblance of violating national security or trade secrets. Let’s do that first and experimentally show what’s viable and what isn’t. And then that practice of exchanging data and information in a way that doesn’t harm anybody but actually has a benefit can then lead the way for governments to come together. Governments can wrap a framework around it because it’s already something that is established and which people like.

Ars: It’s not like companies want to trash space, right? It’s in their best interest to keep space viable for commerce, too. What are some strategies for governments to work with companies on this issue? 

Jah: They should look at what has been successful so far in waste management and environmental protection on Earth. Things like giving carbon credits to people. There’s something called a space sustainability rating led by the World Economic Forum that I participated in developing. There’s a way to wrap incentives around these sorts of things. Maybe you get tax benefits. So yeah, I think government has a suite of things that it could use to incentivize people because it’s in everybody’s best interest.

How bad will it get?

Ars: I’m curious what you think will actually unfold over the rest of this decade because you’ve outlined some hopeful strategies. But it has only been a year since Russia shot down its Cosmos satellite. In the US, the Wolf Amendment precludes a lot of the cooperation you referred to—or at least certainly has a chilling effect. China had its uncontrolled reentry of a Long March 5 rocket last month. So I see some progress, but I certainly don’t see enough progress to offset the rate at which we’re putting these satellites up into an increasingly congested low-Earth orbit.

Jah: This is where I put my realist hat on. I think we are going to lose the ability to use certain orbits because the carrying capacity is going to get saturated by objects and junk. Orbital capacity being saturated means “when our decisions and actions can no longer prevent undesired outcomes from occurring.” So if we’re trying to minimize having to move out of the way or bumping into each other, and no matter what we do we can’t avoid that, that means that for all intents and purposes, that orbit highway is no longer usable.

I predict that that’s going to happen. And I also predict that we will see a loss of human life by (1) school-bus sized objects reentering and surviving reentry and hitting a populated area, or (2) people riding on this wave of civil and commercial astronauts basically having their vehicle getting scwhacked by an unpredicted piece of junk. I predict that both those things are going to happen in the next decade.

Ars: So if one or both of these happen, and I certainly think that’s a possibility, might that spur the regulation and activity necessary to clean up our act? To put it another way, does something really bad have to happen before we get serious about addressing this problem?

Jah: To me, it’s a bit of the “frog in the pot with a slow boil” sort of thing. When I speak to people, they say, “Do we need to see something really bad happen?” I’m like, worse than Russia blowing up its satellite in this orbit, which clearly has an impact on the United States through Starlink? When you talk to SpaceX, it’s very clear that the destruction of this Russian satellite likely had the intent of harmfully interfering with the Starlink satellites. They’ve already had to maneuver several thousand times out of the way of the debris. It’s an impact to their operations. That was not random. That was not haphazard.

To me, flexing geopolitical muscles in space to harm others has already happened. The bad thing has already happened. But why is that not enough? I think that if any of the things I just described happen, like a school-bus sized [object] killing a bunch of people on the ground, people are gonna raise their arms in uproar and condemnation for a couple of weeks, and then that’s just gonna kind of disappear. So yeah, It’s hard for me to have hope. What is the event that kind of boils us over? There is this environmental thing that happened years ago with a river that caught fire…

Ars: Yeah, the Cuyahoga River, near Cleveland, about 50 years ago…

Jah: Exactly. So it’s like, how many times does the river have to catch on fire before people say, ‘Oh, this is an issue.’

The founders of Privateer Space, from left: Moriba Jah, Steve Wozniak, and Alex Fielding.

Ars: Is there anything out there that gives you hope about the next five to 10 years of spaceflight?

Jah: For many people, there’s a feeling of despair on this issue. But if people are given the opportunity to act empathetically to solve problems, I think they will. When I travel around the world and talk to people, they’re like, ‘Hey, I have some really cool ideas. I’d love to try them out. What I don’t have is access to data and information for me to try my ideas.’ That’s one of the things that we’re trying to do with Privateer Space. It’s basically a platform company. How do we make data and information accessible to humanity in such a way to bring in the great ideas and have people develop their own applications that dwarf anything that somebody like me could come up with? That’s what we’re trying to do.

*

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.

Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA, and author of the book Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.

Featured image: Moriba Jah is an astrodynamicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

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.

***

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.

***

Canada at the United Nations just finalized its vote AGAINST a resolution which affirms the inalienable right of Indigenous Palestinian Semites to the Occupied Palestinian Territories’ natural resources, and demands Israel cease any exploitation, damage, or depletion of them. It passed 159-8.

By joining four small Pacific island states that always vote with the United States (Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and Micronesia which have a combined population of 204,000, smaller than that of Richmond Hill, Ontario) Canada’s UN vote demonstrates that “Israeli exceptionalism” is a Canadian value emboldening apartheid Israel to violate international law and the inalienable rights of the Indigenous Semitic Palestinian people with impunity.

*

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: A sign stating ‘Danger, demolition. Entry is prohibited’ was placed by Israeli authorities on top of the rubble of the Khalialehs’ houses (MEE\Sondus Ewies)

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 primary purpose of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is to deceptively “rebrand” the offensive use of nuclear weapons as a justifiable act of defense. The new criteria for using these lethal WMD has been deliberately maligned with the clear intention of providing Washington with a green light for their use and proliferation. Accordingly, US foreign policy warhawks have established the institutional and ideological framework needed to launch a nuclear war without fear of legal reprisal. These arduous preparations were carried out with one objective in mind, to preserve America’s steadily-eroding position in the global order through the application of extreme violence.

Vladimir Putin is worried. Very worried.

In a recent press conference, the Russian President expressed his concern that the United States might be planning a nuclear strike on Russia. Naturally, Putin did not state the matter in such crude terms, but his comments left little doubt that that’s what he was talking about. Here’s part of what he said:

The United States has a theory of a ‘preventive strike’…Now they are developing a system for a ‘disarming strike’. What does that mean? It means striking at control centres with modern high-tech weapons to destroy the opponent’s ability to counterattack.”

Why would Putin waste time on the various theories circulating among foreign policy wonks in the United States if he wasn’t concerned that these ideas were actionable?

The only explanation is that Putin is worried, and the reason he is worried is because he knows that these ideas (preemption and ‘disarming strike’) hold-sway among the elite cadres of powerbrokers who decide these matters in Washington. Putin probably realizes that there is a sizable constituency in Washington that support the use of nuclear weapons and who believe they are essential to preserving the “rules-based order”. In short, Putin believes these ideas are “actionable” which is why he expressed concern.

So, let’s think about the point Putin is trying to make. He’s saying that the US tacitly supports a preemptive “first strike” policy, that is, if the US feels sufficiently threatened, then it claims the right to launch nuclear missiles at an enemy whether that enemy has attacked the United States or not.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

And what about Russia; does Russia support the same policy?

No, it doesn’t. Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine explicitly precludes the first use of nukes. Russia will not launch a first strike. Period. Russia will only use Nuclear weapons in retaliation and only in the event that the nation faces an ‘existential threat’. In other words, Russia will only use nuclear weapons as a last resort.

US Nuclear Doctrine is the polar opposite of Russia’s because the US will not abandon its support for a first strike. And what’s more troubling, is that US Doctrine has been so grossly expanded that could be construed to include almost anything. For example, according to the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review(NPR), nuclear weapons can be used: “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”

Chew on that for a minute. That could include anything from a serious threat to national security to the sudden emergence of economic rival. Are we going to nuke Beijing because their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is projected to be bigger than America’s within the decade?

We can’t answer that, but it certainly meets the NPR’s grossly expanded criteria.

Can you see why Putin might be concerned about all this? Can you see why Biden’s unwillingness to jettison the “first strike” policy might make Washington’s adversaries a bit nervous? Can you see why these new watered-down standards for the use of nuclear weapons might send up red flags in Capitols around the world?

Putin wants people to know what’s going on. That’s why he’s speaking-out at public venues. He wants everyone to know that the United States no longer regards its nuclear arsenal as purely defensive. It is now seen as an essential instrument for preserving the “rules-based order”. Can you see that?

And this is just part of what Putin said in a very short press conference. He also said this:

Now they (the US) are developing a system for a ‘disarming strike’. What does that mean? It means striking at control centres with modern high-tech weapons to destroy the opponent’s ability to counterattack.”

The “disarming strike” meme is all the rage among Washington’s foreign policy warhawks. It is based on the idea that the US can knock-out enough of Russia’s decision-centers and hardened missile sites to eliminate the threat of massive nuclear retaliation. And while it’s true that the idea could wind up reducing a large part of the world to smoldering rubble; it’s also true that the theory is supported by a powerful constituency that is determined to see their theories on low-yield “usable” nukes put into play. Like I said earlier, there are powerful actors in the political establishment and deep state who would like to see the taboo on nuclear weapons lifted so they can be used in more situations and with greater frequency. This is from the World Socialist Web Site:

The Nuclear Posture Review, a department official stated, “establishes a strategy that relies on nuclear weapons to deter all forms of strategic attack. This includes nuclear employment of any scale, and it includes high-consequence attacks of a strategic nature that use non-nuclear means.”

(Note: So the US can use nukes on enemies that don’t have nuclear weapons.)

The publication of the document was rapidly condemned by arms control experts. “The Biden administration’s unclassified Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is, at heart, a terrifying document,” wrote the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

“It not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk,” the UCS argued, by claiming that “the only viable U.S. response is to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, maintain an array of dangerous Cold War-era nuclear policies, and threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.”

(Note: This is the path ‘we are already on.’)

This marks a significant development from Trump’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which largely referred to the use of military force to secure economic interests in the negative—asserting that it was China that was doing so. While this was the clear implication of the 2018 document, the definition of “national interests” advanced by the Pentagon’s 2022 document to include “economic prosperity” constitutes an even more open step toward advocating the doctrine that war is an acceptable means to secure economic aims.”

(Note: So, I was right, we are going to nuke China for growing their economy!)

A section of the 2022 National Defense Strategy:

These documents, which were not seriously discussed in the US media, make clear the fundamental falsehood that the massive US military buildup this year is a response to “Russian aggression.” In reality, in the thinking of the White House and Pentagon war planners, the massive increases in military spending and plans for war with China are created by “dramatic changes in geopolitics, technology, economics, and our environment.”

These documents make clear that the United States sees the economic rise of China as an existential threat, to be responded to with the threat of military force. The United States sees the subjugation of Russia as a critical stepping stone toward the conflict with China.” (“Pentagon national strategy document targets China”, Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site)

Repeat: “These documents make clear that the United States sees the economic rise of China as an existential threat, to be responded to with the threat of military force.”

This fact—and it is a fact—should be fairly obvious to anyone that hasn’t been living under a rock for the last decade. What it tells us is that the United States is no longer competitive. Western elites have run up $31 trillion in National Debt, hollowed out America’s industrial base, savaged their own Capital markets with endless debt-generating Ponzi-scams, and balanced the entire crooked system on a currency that is crumbling before our very eyes.

So how do western elites intend to preserve their grip on global power when the economy is built on a foundation of pure quicksand?

They’re going use raw military force, relentless propaganda, and Mafia-like coercion. That’s what they’re going to do. They’re are going to skip the diplomatic niceties and impose their will with an iron fist. Is there any doubt about that? Here’s more from Putin:

The United States has a…concept of a preventive strike…We do not. Our Strategy talks about a retaliatory strike…. But if a potential adversary believes it is possible to use the preventive strike theory…this still makes us think about the threat that such ideas…pose to us.

“If [a country] doesn’t use [nukes] first under any circumstances, it means that it won’t be the second to use it either, because the possibility of using it in case of a nuclear strike on our territory will be sharply limited,” Putin said.

This sounds vaguer than it is. What Putin means is that ‘if the US launches a massive nuclear attack on Russia, then Russia’s ability to retaliate could be greatly compromised. That is why Putin added this: “Perhaps we should think about using…their ideas about how to ensure their own security.” In other words, if “preemption” and “disarming strikes” are the only way to defend one’s national security, then maybe Russia should follow Washington’s example. Putin was being sardonic, but his point is clear: ‘If defending our own security requires that we engage in reckless and destabilizing behavior then, perhaps, that’s what we should do.’

In any event, you can understand Putin’s dilemma. He does NOT support preemptive nuclear attacks, but—at the same time—he realizes that if he doesn’t act preemptively, he might not be able to respond in the future. This is the conundrum he faces.

In my opinion, the reason Putin has discussed this issue on two occasions in the last week, is because he really didn’t think there was the remotest possibility that the US would attack a country that has the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. He believed that US actions would be shaped by obsolete theories of Deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction. But now, he is beginning to realize that we have entered a Brave New World where calculations are based on more proactive theories that ignore the threat of retaliation because the perpetrators believe they can effectively “disarm” their adversary.

And so, Putin is worried; he’s genuinely worried. And his confused response (“Perhaps we should think about using…their ideas about how to ensure their own security.”) suggests that he has not yet figured out what to do.

So the question is: What do you do? How can you defend your country when a nuclear-armed superpower has decided that you are an obstacle that must be removed to achieve their own geopolitical ambitions? How do you stave off a civilization-ending attack when your enemy wholeheartedly believes that nuclear war is the only way he can preserve his dominant position in the global order?

It’s a conundrum.

*

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). 

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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.

***

Medical pathologists from Heidelberg University Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany have published direct evidence showing how people found dead after mRNA vaccination died. As this team of six scientists explore in their study, these mRNA-vaccinated patients suffered from heart damage because their hearts were attacked by their own immune cells. This autoimmune attack on their own heart cells then leads to their damaged hearts beating so many times per second that, once the tachycardia unexpectedly started, they died in minutes.

The article, “Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination,” was published on Nov. 27, 2022, in the journal Clinical Research in Cardiology, the official journal of the German Cardiac Society. The research team autopsied 25 victims of different ages who were found dead at home within 28 days of vaccination. They looked at their heart tissue under the microscope to find out why these people died of cardiac rhythmic disruption when they had no apparent underlying heart disease.

In the authors’ own words: “Our findings establish the histological phenotype of lethal vaccination-associated myocarditis.”

Histological phenotype means direct observation of microscopic tissue.

In a video analyzing the results, nurse educator Dr. John Campbell, who is based in the United Kingdom, told his audience: “This is peer-reviewed. This is proper science, and a definitive pathological diagnosis by a group of leading German pathologists.” Campbell’s video has been viewed 918,000 times. He has 2.58 million subscribers on his channel.

Died of Ventricular Tachycardia or Fibrillation

Ventricular tachycardia is when the heart begins beating so fast that it doesn’t have time to refill with blood between beats, so it is not adequately pumping blood. The problem originates from the ventricles: the chambers that push the blood out of the heart to the rest of the body.

Fibrillation is when, instead of the heart actually beating, it starts to just quiver. This problem can originate from the ventricles or the atria. The atria are the upper chambers that basically suck blood into the heart by expanding and contracting. Though more people are familiar with A-Fib (atrial fibrillation), ventricular fibrillation is much more dangerous, and usually lethal within minutes.

The deceased whose hearts were autopsied in this study were found dead at home, each having died of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation within 28 days of mRNA vaccination.

Visibly Damaged Hearts

Macrophages are large cells that are part of our immune system. When the immune system is functioning properly, our bodies use macrophages to attack infectious agents and other foreign matter. Macrophages are a key part of the innate immune system, helping with normal tissue development as well as with repairing damaged tissue, according to researchers from Northwestern University.

But in the case of the people who died suddenly within a month of being vaccinated, the body’s own macrophages permeated their heart muscle, chewing up the muscle and causing spots that disrupted the heart rhythm. This macrophage invasion appeared to have literally short-circuited the heart’s conduction of the electrical impulses, causing the heart to beat irregularly.

The irregular heartbeats led to a negative feedback loop, making the heart race faster and faster as it tries to right itself. When that happens, the heart is effectively pumping no blood, and the victim dies within seconds or minutes unless there is a defibrillator nearby—to deliver an electrical shock to the heart to help it get back into rhythm—and someone knows to use it immediately.

The peer-reviewed study from German researchers included microscope images showing the damage to the victims’ heart cells, the presence of lymphocytes (another kind of smaller immune cell) in the heart muscle, and invasive macrophages in the heart muscle. Both macrophages and lymphocytes called T-helper cells were found in the heart tissue. The immune cells were concentrated in spots, each of which is called a focus. Spots of damaged heart tissue like this can generate offbeat signals that disrupt the heart’s smooth rhythm.

There are thousands of cardiac cells in the heart. These cells aren’t passive, like the cells in your biceps that need separate nerves to make them move. Instead, cardiac cells generate their own electrical impulses.

The cells of cardiac muscle act like nerves as well, conducting signals to and from adjacent muscle cells. This synchronizes their contractions, as well as perpetuates the regular continuity of the heartbeat.

Once a heart is beating, it takes a lot to stop it. A focus that breaks up this rhythm is like a bad drummer in a middle-school band. It can cause a cascade of chaos that prevents the heart from pumping blood productively.

Myocarditis: A Recognized Vaccine Adverse Event

The WHO and the CDC do recognize myocarditis post-mRNA vaccination. Both regulatory agencies consider it a “recognized but rare complication.” Most doctors also dismiss myocarditis cases as “mild.”

But the deceased subjects of the German study, as Campbell points out, also had supposedly “mild” myocarditis. The myocarditis appeared only in microscopic spots here and there. However, the electrical disruption of these spots caused rapid and dramatic deaths. In other words, there is no mild myocarditis, as one parent of an mRNA-vaccine-injured teen named Aiden Ekanayake, said.

Campbell recommended that clinicians have a “high index of suspicion” that mRNA-vaccinated people might be subject to this autoimmune myocarditis so that they can diagnose and treat it while the people are still alive. Clinicians pretending that this vaccine injury is “rare and mild,” has led to countless potentially avoidable tragedies.

Your Body Attacking Your Own Heart Cells

To be clear, this is not the mRNA vaccine directly damaging the heart—it is worse. The mRNA is injected into your muscle cells, turning the cell into a factory producing COVID-19 spike proteins.

As a result of the mRNA immunization, your body generates an immune response against COVID-19 spike proteins.

Since your own muscle cells were used to make the COVID-19 spike proteins and may have them on the cell surface, your newly-weaponized immune cells targeting the spike protein may start attacking your own healthy muscle cells.

This new German study shows photographic evidence that this happens and has killed people.

Correlation or Causation?

An original investigation published earlier this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that there were many cases of myocarditis in unexpected populations, especially in boys and young men, following mRNA vaccination.

Sir Austin Bradford Hill was an English medical statistician who established a set of epidemiological guidelines in 1965, now called the Bradford Hill criteria, which help prove cause and effect. If we apply the Bradford Hill criteria to this new research, it shows that the lethal myocarditis of these patients was indeed caused by mRNA vaccines. The German research demonstrated Bradford Hill’s criteria of strength (the more two things happen at the same time, the more likely one causes the other, even for rare events); consistency (the finding of sudden death from mRNA-vaccine-induced myocarditis has been happening consistently in different places and populations); specificity (for Bradford Hill, this is when a single cause produces a single effect. In this case the cause is the mRNA vaccine and the effect is myocarditis); and several more.

Indeed, the German researchers eliminated the possibility that the lethal myocarditis could have been caused by something else. Their study also showed “coherence,” another Bradford Hill criterion, which is when the same effect is found in both epidemiological studies and in laboratory samples.

Another Bradford Hill criterion is analogy: Is this cause-and-effect relationship similar to other medical issues that we already understand? In this case, the criterion of analogy is satisfied because we already understand that auto-immune reactions to one’s own heart can cause Giant-Cell Myocarditis, a life-threatening condition that causes ventricular tachycardia and sudden death in over two-thirds of those diagnosed with it.

For cause and effect to be established, Bradford Hill also asks whether the relationship is plausible: is there a mechanism by which one thing can cause the other? Plausibility was also proven by these autopsies: the German researchers clearly showed the mechanism. As Campbell said in his video review: “You can’t argue with a photograph taken under the microscope.”

For cause-and-effect to be established using Bradford Hill’s criteria, just one or two of the nine viewpoints must be satisfied. This study showed that for mRNA vaccines and heart damage, seven of Bradford Hill’s nine criteria were satisfied—an epidemiological slam-dunk.

The evidence is in: mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis, by leading your own immune cells to attack your heart, which can lead to sudden death by ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation.

*

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.

Our thanks to Mark Taliano, CRG Research Associate, for bringing this article to our attention.

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning journalist and author of “Your Baby, Your Way: Taking Charge of Your Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Parenting Decisions for a Happier, Healthier Family.” A Fulbright awardee and mother of four, she has worked on a child survival campaign in West Africa, advocated for an end to child slavery in Pakistan on prime-time TV in France, and taught post-colonial literature to non-traditional students in inner-city Atlanta. Learn more about her at JenniferMargulis.net

Joe Wang, Ph.D., was a molecular biologist with more than 10 years of experience in the vaccine industry. He is now the president of New Tang Dynasty TV (Canada), and a columnist for the Epoch Times.

Featured image: mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis by leading your own immune cells to attack your heart, which can lead to sudden death by ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. (Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock)

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.

***

In September, former president Bill Clinton said Russia did not go into Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion. “The former president said the U.S. and NATO never meant to threaten Russia and that the nations of Eastern Europe had a right to live in security after decades of being dominated by Russia,” Politico reported at the time.

No mention of Clinton’s betrayal of Russia. Or that of George H.W. Bush, James Baker, and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. All had promised NATO would not push its troops up against Russia’s border, an obvious national security threat for Russia. It does not have similar troops and war materiel lined up against the borders of Canada and Mexico.

In a speech delivered in 2007, well before the current crisis, Vladimir Putin “reserved his bitterest complaints… for the US drive to expand Nato into former Soviet eastern Europe and for the plans to deploy parts of the missile shield in central Europe. ‘Why do you need to move your military infrastructure to our borders?’” he asked.

I’m not sure why Putin posed this as a question. It’s obvious, even here in the Land of Psychopathic Lies, that the USG and its NATO attack dog have long hungered to destroy Russia and turn it into another Libya in the bloody wake of Obama and NATO’s vicious attack and assassination of the Libyan leader, Moammar Gadaffi.

There is but one reason for this: the elimination of any competitor to the neoliberal order. Clinton, a skilled pathological liar and model psychopath, set the stage for what we are now witnessing.

“Americans generally have no idea what life was like for Russians during the 1990s. They naively assume that because Russia swiftly adopted capitalism, the result was great economic prosperity. The reality was quite different,” writes Caleb Maupin.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin took office and dramatically re-organized Russia’s economy on free market [neoliberal] lines. When Bill Clinton was elected as President of the United States, it was widely understood that Yeltsin was “Clinton’s man.” According to the US Bureau of Public Affairs, Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton were very close. The official US government website states: “Clinton was strongly inclined not only to like Yeltsin but also to support his policies, in particular, his commitment to Russian democracy.” US President Bill Clinton met with Boris Yeltsin 18 times while he was in office.

I doubt Clinton was “close” to Yeltsin. Psychopaths are unable to form “close” relationships. Yeltsin, a notorious drunk and buffoon, was manipulated by Clinton, and the Russian people paid for his befuddled compliance.

Maupin notes that a mere 6% of Russians approved of Yeltsin’s USG-contrived economic “reforms.” According to the US Bureau of Public Affairs, “at the time, and periodically throughout his term in office, Yeltsin faced growing opposition at home to his efforts to liberalize the economy and enact democratic reforms in Russia.”

And rightly so. The USG, World Bank, and IMF imposed “reforms” resulted in

not the establishment of a free market paradise, but rather a huge catastrophe. US Senator Bill Bradley explained it this way: “30% unemployment, rampant inflation, pensions gone, savings gone, 30 or 40 years… it’s all gone. No jobs. A few people doing very well, who bought all assets from the state, but the average person, no.”

In “The Shock Doctrine,” Naomi Klein writes how between 1991 and 1998 “more than 80 percent of Russian farms had gone bankrupt and roughly seventy thousand state factories had closed creating an epidemic of unemployment.” This resulted in 74 million Russians living below the poverty level. Klein adds “25 percent of Russians—almost 37 million people—lived in poverty described as ‘desperate.’”

During the 1990s, when Yeltsin was dramatically changing the country under the direction of the Clinton administration, the rate of drug addiction in Russia increased by 900 percent. The suicide rate almost doubled. HIV, which had previously only infected no more than fifty thousand Russians, became a nationwide epidemic with millions contracting AIDs.

Bradley described the neoliberal mindset in crude, albeit accurate, terms.

An entire population of people who had lived with guaranteed employment, guaranteed healthcare, old age pensions, and a planned economy saw the social safety net swept from underneath them, as widely unpopular policies, backed by Washington, were imposed on the country. US Senator Bill Bradley describes the tone of US diplomats in their interactions with Russia, saying Clinton administration officials spoke of “stuffing shit down Boris throat,” gleefully taking pleasure in ordering him to wreck his country’s economy.

This wrecking ball approach to taking out a possible future competitor resulted in the premature death of millions. Russian academic Vladimir Gusev, according to Klein, said “The years of criminal capitalism have killed off 10 percent of our population.”

Russia’s population decreased by 6.6 million between 1992 and 2006. Klein quotes US Economist Andre Gunder Frank calling what took place in Russia as “economic genocide.” Russian Vice President Alexander V. Rutskoi used the same words as the policies were beginning in 1992, saying it would have catastrophic results for children and the elderly.

Clinton was selected to be president precisely because he is a high-level psychopath able to usher in neoliberal policies that result in immense suffering and death. Like all psychopaths, he does not experience remorse, conscience, guilt, or anxiety. It does not bother him (or his equally psychopathic wife) that old people and children starved to death while oligarchs made fortunes off their misery.

Putin and the Russian people are attempting to avoid a repeat of this criminal experience of the 1990s. Millions remember the privation and widespread suffering as the USG forced “shit down Boris’ throat” and the country slipped into third-world status, perilous close to becoming a failed state.

Of course, thanks to the lying and duplicitous corporate war propaganda media, the majority of Americans are completely ignorant of this previous attempt to take out Russia. Instead, remaining ignorant in the face of a possible life-terminating thermonuclear war, they are fed a toxic amalgam of lies and fabrication that distort reality like a funhouse mirror.

Millions believe Russia is the new Nazi Germany, and Putin is the New Hitler, determined to regain and expand Russia’s lost Soviet empire and wantonly commit genocide in the process.

The idiocy of this transparent narrative and its acceptance by a large number of Americans demonstrates how easy it is for the ruling elite to gain consensus for mass murder and war crimes.

False and deceptive narratives paved the way for demonizing and destroying a raft of countries, notably Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and other nations reluctant to force millions into misery and privation at the behest of an inhumane neoliberal order willing to steal, starve, and murder in its unquenchable thirst for control and power.

*

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

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 British Royal Marines have carried out high-risk special operations on the ground in Ukraine, according to the former head of the elite unit, who said UK commandos have been deployed to the country on more than one occasion this year.

Writing in the Royal Navy’s official magazine, the Globe and Laurel, Lieutenant General Robert Magowan said some 350 Marines were sent to Ukraine for two missions since January, starting with an operation to help relocate UK diplomatic staff to Poland just ahead of Russia’s invasion.

The second occurred in April, soon after Moscow’s withdrawal from the region surrounding the Ukrainian capital, according to Magowan, who was once the commandant general of the Royal Marines and now serves as a senior official under the Chief of the Defense Staff.

“In April, they returned into the country to re-establish the diplomatic mission, providing protection to critical personnel,” the general said. “During both phases, the commandos supported other discreet operations in a hugely sensitive environment and with a high level of political and military risk.”

Though Magowan did not elaborate on what those “other” missions entailed, he is the first British official to publicly confirm special operations in the country since Russia’s attack began in February. The UK Defense Ministry previously acknowledged that soldiers were sent to protect embassy staff, but has never discussed missions on the scale described by Magowan and rarely comments on covert ops.

Asked about the general’s claims, a Royal Navy spokesman would only say that Marines were “deployed to Ukraine to support the UK’s diplomatic presence,” but stressed that “they served no combat function.”

The Marine unit sent for both deployments, known as 45 Commando, now reportedly specializes in “Arctic warfare,” according to the Times, but previously took part in the Falklands conflict, as well as the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Troops from 45 Commando were stationed in Norway for winter exercises when they were called to assist evacuation efforts from Ukraine to Poland earlier this year. The neighboring state has served as a staging area for Western military aid to Kiev and foreign volunteers looking to join the fight.

Magowan also hailed the Marines for their help in training Ukrainian forces on foreign territory, saying they have been “heavily involved” in the process and are now planning to train up “Ukraine marines.”

British military trainers were ostensibly withdrawn early this year to avoid potential clashes after Russian troops entered the country, but special operators have continued the training efforts since, local commanders previously told the Times. Ukrainian officers said UK soldiers returned to the Kiev area in April to instruct recruits on how to use British-supplied weapons, such as the NLAW anti-tank weapon. Though that training would have coincided with one of the deployments reported by Magowan, it’s unclear whether those soldiers were Royal Marines.

*

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.

Will Porter is assistant news editor at the Libertarian Institute and a staff writer at RT. Find more of his work at Antiwar.com and Consortium News.

Featured image: Royal Marines with the elite 45 Commando unit are seen during exercises in Norway’s High North Region. (Credit: UK Defense Ministry / Nick Tryon)

Four Minutes of Undiluted Truth on Mainstream TV

Mike Whitney, December 9 , 2022

Look Up! Wake Up, People! You Are Being “Suicided in Warp Speed”.

Peter Koenig, December 14 , 2022

Sleeping with the Enemy?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 14 , 2022

Many People Fully Vaccinated for COVID Are Now Going Blind

Ethan Huff, December 14 , 2022

Where Did this “New World Order” Coup Come From? The Rockefeller’s “Social Engineering Project”

Jens Jerndal, December 5 , 2022

Ukraine, Russia, and the New World Order

Fyodor A. Lukyanov, December 10 , 2022

Putin Shrugs-Off Washington’s Provocations and ‘Sticks to Business’

Mike Whitney, December 13 , 2022

The Third Opium War: The Agenda Behind the COVID-19 Assault on China

Emanuel Pastreich, December 9 , 2022

Dr. David Martin Blasts Health Authorities for Turning Roughly 4 Billion People into “Bioweapons Factories”

Belle Carter, December 12 , 2022

Top Oncologist: Cancer in Patients Exploding After COVID Shots

Art Moore, December 11 , 2022

Digital Currency: The Fed Moves Toward Monetary Totalitarianism

André Marques, December 12 , 2022

A Hair Trigger on Endgame

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, December 12 , 2022

The Big Lie: Worldwide Energy Shortage Plus Multiple Crises – All Manufactured – Meant for Destruction of Western Civilization

Peter Koenig, December 11 , 2022

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 14 , 2022

You’d Better Watch Out: The Surveillance State Is Making a List, and You’re On It

John W. Whitehead, December 14 , 2022

The Dark Origins of the Davos Great Reset

F. William Engdahl, December 11 , 2022

New Autopsy Report Reveals Those Who Died Suddenly Were Likely Killed by the COVID Vaccine

Will Jones, December 12 , 2022

New Study Confirms What We Knew All Along : mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Are Associated with More Serious Harms Than Originally Claimed

Paul Anthony Taylor, December 12 , 2022

Russia’s Winter Offensive and NATO’s Response

James W. McConnell, December 11 , 2022

Germany and Peru Coup Attempts? WEF Engineered False Flags?

Peter Koenig, December 14 , 2022

European Values: French General Suggests Bombing Russian Victory Parade

By Kurt Nimmo, December 16, 2022

The parade, held in Red Square on May 9, celebrates Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany. Russia lost close to 30 million people during the war, beginning with Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia and Eastern Europe by Hitler. For Russians, the parade signifies the defeat of an exceptionally vicious external enemy determined to exterminate them as subhumans, Untermenschen.

Is Russian Restraint Averting the Risk of Nuclear War – or Inviting It?

By James George Jatras, December 16, 2022

Among realists who don’t accept the Kiew siegt an allen Fronten! narrative it is widely assumed that Russia will soon begin, perhaps in dramatic and decisive fashion, a winter offensive. This would come just as Kiev is hitting “empty” on all key manpower and materiel indicators, exacerbated by the Zelensky regime’s continued insistence on squandering them on strategically meaningless attacks on hardened Russian positions.

The Activities of Far-right Death Squads in Interwar Germany

By Shane Quinn, December 16, 2022

With the prompt return of the Weimar government politicians to Berlin from Stuttgart after the Kapp Putsch’s fall, the German capital city, restless and war weary, was no place for General Ludendorff to stay in. He sought residence near the Bavarian city of Rosenheim, in the rural town of Stephanskirchen, positioned at the far south of Germany beside the Austrian border.

The Inflation Hoax

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, December 16, 2022

Yes, prices are rising, but not for the reasons the Federal Reserve says. When I say inflation is a hoax, I mean the purported cause is a hoax. The Fed is fighting a consumer inflation, a “demand-pull” inflation.  But what we are experiencing is a supply-side inflation caused by the Covid lockdowns and economic sanctions that closed businesses, disrupted supply chains, and broke business relationships while reducing energy supplies to the UK and European countries, thus forcing up costs in a globalized economy.

Patriot Missiles in Ukraine – NATO’s Bluff or Real Escalation?

By Drago Bosnic, December 16, 2022

In what can be described as a major escalation, the United States announced they are sending “Patriot” SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems to the Kiev regime. CNN claims that their chief Pentagon correspondent confirmed the information through multiple sources, including unnamed US defense officials, apparently also involving a senior member of the Biden administration.

US Sanctions Are Killing Syrians and Are a Human Rights Violation

By Steven Sahiounie, December 16, 2022

Damascus is now bitterly cold and is soon to be blanketed with snow. About 12 million Syrians are facing a deadly winter without heating fuel, gasoline for transportation, and dark houses each evening without electricity. Aleppo, Homs, and Hama are also extremely cold all winter.

The Climate Farce and More

By Peter Koenig and Daniel Estulin, December 16, 2022

On 5 December 2022, Daniel Estulin, doctor of conceptual intelligence, researcher writer, public speaker and geopolitical analyst, interviewed Peter Koenig, economist and geopolitical analyst, for the Estulin TV Program. Prime topic was the climate farce. Also discussed was the Green Agenda, the neofascist “New Green Deal”, as well as the coming Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) – and more.

“Recycled Food”: Black Market in Broad Daylight

By Lauren Smith, December 16, 2022

Operating in the shadows is easy in the United States secondary food market, as few question what happens to food that exceeds its expiration date in leading supermarket chains across the nation. Well, truth be told, expired food gets reprocessed, repackaged, relabeled, and resold to institutions, discount retailers and restaurants.

The Chains of the “Free Market”. The Prices of Petrol Continue to Rise

By Manlio Dinucci, December 16, 2022

The “free market is the globalist thought Word, the yardstick by which the democracy degree of a country is measured. But it is precisely its preachers who demonstrate how free it actually is. The situation in Italy is emblematic.

Green New Deal and Vegan Bullying

By Julian Rose, December 16, 2022

Perhaps some vegans would agree with the World Economic Forum’s attempt to sell the idea that only a dictatorship can ensure that methane emitting cows, real food supporters and mixed farmers will not disrupt the path of global salvation set out by the proponents of a ‘Green New Deal’.

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.

***

Among realists who don’t accept the Kiew siegt an allen Fronten! narrative it is widely assumed that Russia will soon begin, perhaps in dramatic and decisive fashion, a winter offensive. This would come just as Kiev is hitting “empty” on all key manpower and materiel indicators, exacerbated by the Zelensky regime’s continued insistence on squandering them on strategically meaningless attacks on hardened Russian positions.

The assumption of a bold Russian shift to the offensive may not be valid, though, as it’s clear that among Moscow’s primary intentions is to avoid triggering a direct clash with NATO forces, which, they reasonably believe, could escalate uncontrollably to the strategic nuclear level. (That’s why it appears Moscow has abandoned its longstanding no-first-use nuclear doctrine for launch-on-warning See: Paul Craig Roberts: A Hair Trigger on Endgame – LewRockwell)

So instead of taking decisive action, Moscow may prefer to incrementally escalate the “slow grind” chewing up Kiev’s forces, while continuing to dismantle Ukraine’s infrastructure, which also contributes to accelerating depopulation of Ukraine as cities and towns become uninhabitable. (As Moon of Alabama suggests: “It does not look like an imminent all out attack on the Ukrainian front lines is in the cards. The expected large winter attack may not be coming at all. Instead the new forces will rotate through the frontline and only attack locally whenever they see an opportunity.” MoA – Ukraine SitRep – Catastrophic Losses, Failing Wonder Weapons, NATO Escalation (moonofalabama.org)

The key question, though, is this: Is the slow grind (versus dramatic and decisive knockout) less likely to cause uncontrollable escalation, or does it invite it?

Mike Whitney suggests that NATO (i.e., the US) wants to bait Moscow into an action that would justify direct introduction of NATO (or “Coalition of the Willing”) forces. (See Whitney: Putin Shrugs-Off Washington’s Provocations and ‘Sticks to Business’, by Mike Whitney – The Unz Review) Accordingly, Moscow wisely (in Whitney’s view) is avoiding anything that could be a tripwire. (It’s fair to ask, though: if NATO/CotW is so keen on getting in, why do they need a pretext from Moscow? One can always be invented from whole cloth. Ask Iraq, Serbia, Syria… )

Paul Craig Roberts, on the other hand, suggests that Russian restraint sends the exact opposite message: that Moscow will tolerate provocation after provocation, escalation after escalation, which itself invites the very outcome Moscow seeks to avoid. (See Roberts: The Prospect of Nuclear War Is Getting too Close for Comfort – LewRockwell):

A Russian official has charged that the CIA and NSA were involved in the attack by drones deep inside Russia. So here we see the total validity of my warnings that Putin’s Goody Two Shoes behavior invites more and more reckless provocations. It is the inability of Putin to understand that Russia is at war with Ukraine and the US/NATO and that his “limited military operation” is nothing but his own delusion that is leading to nuclear war.

The United States government has now attacked Russia twice, not counting the attacks on the former Russian territory Russia has reincorporated, such as this. The attack on the Nord Stream pipelines and now drone attacks deep inside Russia are beyond Ukraine’s unassisted capability. Washington feels comfortable in these reckless acts, because Washington has dismissed Putin’s declared, but never defended, ‘red lines’ as meaningless.

One wonders what is wrong with Putin and with the Kremlin in general that Russia forever complains but never acts. It should be self evident to the Kremlin that the longer the conflict and anti-Russian propaganda continue, the harder for the West to bow out. Prestige and predictions are at risk. a network of relationships develops. Powerful interest groups such as armaments corporations acquire stake in the conflict. With Ukraine facing defeat, there will be agitation for committing US and European soldiers. At first the claim will be that only one division is needed to bolster Ukraine at this or that point. Then to save that division another will be needed. We saw it all in Vietnam.

Will Putin finally realize that Russia is at war when Moscow goes up in smoke?

That would be a bit too late. Putin now admits that he waited too late to intervene in Ukraine, thus giving Washington time to build a Ukrainian military force. So why wait too late again? Can Putin learn from his mistakes? My fear is that Putin is unrealistic and does not comprehend the likely consequences of his Goody Two Shoes behavior. Putin’s restrained behavior gives the green light to greater provocations from Washington. These provocations are accelerating. Russia needs to use the force necessary to quickly end the war before it spins out of control.

Such concerns are bolstered by Putin’s recent comments on former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent confession that she deliberately deceived the Russians over Minsk 2. Putin just now figured that out? One has to ask: if he still harbored illusions regarding his western “partners,” has he even now woken up and smelled the kvass? Does he still, even now, think he’s dealing with people who can be reasoned with? (Regarding Putin’s admission that more decisive action in 2014 might have been appropriate, militarily, the advantage would have been very much in Moscow’s favor. Whether Russia could at that time have withstood the sanctions she is weathering in good form now is another question.)

Indeed, it has been suggested to me (in a private email) that Moscow is still entertaining illusions, despite all the evidence to the contrary:

I completely agree with your argument. I said the same thing a couple of years ago when I wrote that Putin should have taken a page from Khrushchev’s playbook and threatened ‘We will bury you,’ pounded his shoe on a desk, etc.

This civilized, decent Putin is an open invitation to NATO/US to escalate straight to and across the nuclear red line. But is anyone listening in the Kremlin?

Conversely, another correspondent suggests that Russian restraint is deliberate, focused on a long game toward Europe, especially Germany (lightly edited):

I too agree that the slow grind will persist. Russia needs to demonstrate to the EU (Germany specifically) that despite having incredible military strength Russia is judicious in the application of that military strength and respects international law – all of this in contrast to the USA. The reason for this is that Russia is waiting for the ongoing economic troubles in the EU to create regime change in EU states, to regimes which reconcile with Russia and distance themselves from the US. Russia’s larger strategic goal is to facilitate the liberation of Europe from US control, and that can only come by indigenous regime change. Russia’s displays of its military technology also signals to Europe that only Russia, not the US, can provide strategic defense for them. The slow grind, as Colonel Doug Macgregor stated in his interview by Michael Vlahos, is an excellent way to de-militarize Ukraine without having long supply-lines or maneuvering outside Anti-Access/Area Denial operational zones.

Bottom line: what Moscow does next will not only determine the course of the war in Ukraine but whether the world goes up in radioactive smoke. Does restraint and non-response to provocation make the apocalyptic scenario more likely, or less? Conversely, would a rapid, decisive move by Moscow widen that window or help close it?

Finally, which course is Moscow likely to take? (My guess: the slow grind, nothing dramatic.) Whether that’s the right move, we will soon find out.

*

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 TRPIPP

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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.

***

Despite the occasional polite nod to Alfred Nobel, the committee — which will name this year’s award on Saturday — has never made known his vision of peace through global demilitarization, writes Fredrik S. Heffermehl.

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.

***

Following the failure of the far-right Kapp Putsch in Berlin (13–17 March 1920) General Erich Ludendorff, Germany’s military ruler during the latter half of World War I and who had partaken directly in the coup, relocated by train in late March 1920 to the southern German state of Bavaria.

With the prompt return of the Weimar government politicians to Berlin from Stuttgart after the Kapp Putsch’s fall, the German capital city, restless and war weary, was no place for General Ludendorff to stay in. He sought residence near the Bavarian city of Rosenheim, in the rural town of Stephanskirchen, positioned at the far south of Germany beside the Austrian border.

Ludendorff was granted refuge on the country estate of Baron von Halkett. Another conspirator in the coup, Lieutenant-Commander Hermann Ehrhardt, a former German naval officer, joined Ludendorff in Bavaria after the collapse of the Kapp Putsch, named after Dr. Wolfgang Kapp, a politician and civil servant who fled Berlin to Sweden after the putsch folded on 17 March 1920.

Ehrhardt, a diehard German soldier who had plenty in common with the older Ludendorff, became personally known to the general during the Kapp Putsch. Shortly after the coup’s disintegration, the 38-year-old Ehrhardt and his Marine Brigade paramilitary unit – which had executed the Kapp Putsch – were invited to Bavaria by Ernst Pöhner, Bavaria’s notorious Chief of Police. He was a hardline anti-Semite and anti-communist.

Pöhner offered Ehrhardt the role of Chief of the Emergency Police in Bavaria, a position that Ehrhardt, who was a fugitive, gratefully accepted. It is ironic that Ehrhardt was given such a post, while at the same time he was wanted by the Berlin police for his part in the Kapp Putsch. Ludendorff could not forever remain a lodger on Baron von Halkett’s estate in Stephanskirchen. Later in 1920 he moved the short distance to the village of Ludwigshöhe, just outside Munich, where he acquired a large villa encompassed by spacious gardens and high walls. At Ludwigshöhe, Ludendorff was closer to the operations of Ehrhardt and his soldiers in Munich.

With Ludendorff under perhaps genuine threat of assassination from leftist militants, Ehrhardt went out to see Germany’s former autocrat at his Ludwigshöhe house, so as to become reacquainted with the general. In agreement with Ludendorff, Ehrhardt dispatched a contingent of his men to guard the Ludwigshöhe residence at all hours of the day, until the perceived leftist menace was eliminated.

From late 1920 and into early 1921 Ehrhardt established a fascist murder association, known as the Organization Consul, which went about its business in high secrecy. It consisted of around 5,000 men and was formed from members of Ehrhardt’s Marine Brigade. Historian Robert Waite, who often focused on fascism in Germany, noted that the Organization Consul was indeed a murder group which inflicted instant death upon “traitors” of Germany. (1)

The Organization Consul would be one of the most feared terrorist factions to operate in Germany after the First World War, rivalling even Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party. The left-wing groups sometimes claimed that Hitler was capitalism’s last despairing effort to ward off the inevitable victory of communism. This was a convenient explanation and not a true one. Hitler was the result of all of the history that had gone on before and especially of the First World War. Defeat in that conflict, humiliation, injustice and economic hardships were all life-giving blood to the Nazis.

The Organization Consul was also a by-product of World War I. A German political author Emil Julius Gumbel wrote in 1923, “There have, without doubt, been no political murders in Germany in the recent past in which the Organization Consul has not participated”. Gumbel outlined that there were hundreds of killings perpetrated in Germany from 1918 to 1922. The Organization Consul was responsible for at least 354 assassinations from late 1920.

Rather disturbing, in only 27 of the 354 murder cases were the Organization Consul killers punished, Gumbel estimated. For those convicted the sentences were usually light. The German judges were accused of abetting terrorism by their flagrant bias to rightist assassins. Out of 22 murders committed by leftist assassins, 17 of them were convicted.

According to a close colleague of Ehrhardt, Manfred von Killinger, in 1919 the Marine Brigade received three million marks of state money to fund Ehrhardt’s military actions. Most of the cash remained unspent into 1920, and it seems probable that much of this state funding ended up in the coffers of Ehrhardt’s Organization Consul.

The Organization Consul’s main goals were as they stated “the widest cultivation and dissemination of the national idea” and “the combating of everything anti-national and international, Jewry, social democracy, and the left radical parties, the combating of the anti-national Weimar constitution in word and print” and “to make disarmament impossible and to preserve for the people its army and armaments”.

The Organization Consul unleashed its assassinations with the approval, and assistance, of the Bavarian police under Pöhner. When Pöhner was approached by “an alarmed statesman” who said to him there are nationalist death squads operating in Germany, Pöhner replied, “I know – but there are too few of them!” (2). While Pöhner was collaborating with Ehrhardt’s assassins he had tried to purge Bavaria of “Eastern Jews”, following the defeat of the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic at the beginning of May 1919.

The victims of Organization Consul were Republican politicians and Jewish people, individuals who revealed secret arms depots to the Allied Control Commission, and also rival members of the many patriotic societies, ex-servicemen’s associations and defense leagues in Bavaria. Despite such developments, Germany overall was a fine place to live during the years it was led by the Weimar government, before degenerating to Hitler’s dictatorship from early 1933.

American philosopher and analyst Noam Chomsky stated, “The peak of Western civilization in many ways was Germany in the 1920s in the arts, the sciences, and even as a model for democracy. Within 10 years, it had descended to the depths of barbarism in a post-fact society. The propaganda was extremely effective in creating a world of illusion in which the Aryan race was under attack by Jews and Bolsheviks, and only Nazi Germany could protect the white Aryan race from destruction”. (3)

Among the most prominent victims of Organization Consul, meanwhile, was Matthias Erzberger, the former German Minister of Finance and a member of parliament (MP). Erzberger had been regarded as a traitor by the radical German right, ever since he signed the armistice with the Western Allies at Compiègne, France, on 11 November 1918 officially ending the First World War.

On the rainy afternoon of 26 August 1921, when Erzberger was walking in the Black Forest of southwest Germany, he was approached by two of Ehrhardt’s underlings, ex-naval officers Heinrich Tillessen and Heinrich Schulz. They asked Erzberger to identify himself. Erzberger replied and was then shot 12 times in the head by the gunmen. He was left lying there on the wet grass. Tillessen and Schulz eventually escaped to Hungary.

On the morning of 24 June 1922 Walther Rathenau, the new German Foreign Minister, and who pragmatically favored fulfilling the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, was driving through central Berlin unaware of who was approaching his vehicle from behind. As Rathenau reached a bend in the street called the Königsallee, pulling up alongside him were three members of the Organization Consul, named Ernst Werner Techow, Erwin Kern and Hermann Fischer. Techow was driving their car, a Mercedes, while Kern and Fischer sat in the back seats.

When the pursuers were level with Rathenau’s vehicle, the bullets of a submachine gun were fired by Kern into the politician’s body. A hand grenade was then thrown into Rathenau’s car by Fischer resulting in a dreadful explosion. Rathenau was killed within seconds by the hail of bullets. Rathenau, who had been a leading member of the center-left German Democratic Party, was assassinated in part because of his Jewish origins; the Organization Consul was also deeply anti-Semitic.

Almost three weeks before Rathenau’s killing, on 4 June 1922 the Organization Consul targeted Philipp Scheidemann, a founder of the Weimar Republic, ex-leader of the Social Democratic Party and a German MP. While Scheidemann was out walking with his daughter, two Organization Consul members, Hans Hustert and Karl Oehlschläger, approached him by foot. As they came close to Scheidemann they threw prussic acid at his face (4). The acid did not enter Scheidemann’s nose and mouth. Though shaken, Scheidemann, who went armed with a gun, was not seriously hurt remarkably enough. The above-mentioned Hustert later served as an adjutant to SS chief Heinrich Himmler.

What would General Ludendorff have thought of the murderous activities taking place in Germany? We can assume that he would have approved. Ludendorff said repeatedly, “If I once get back to power there will be no quarter. I should hang up Ebert, Scheidemann and their comrades with a clear conscience and watch them dangle!” Friedrich Ebert, who Ludendorff mentioned, became the first German president on 11 February 1919.

In the late spring of 1923, Ludendorff was visited at his Ludwigshöhe residence by a young Rudolf Hess, one of Hitler’s earliest followers. Hess had to make his way past Ehrhardt’s troops who were still guarding Ludendorff’s villa. On entering, Ludendorff asked Hess to sit down; and Hess began to speak about an organization founded quite recently in Munich called the Nazi Party (5). After Hess rambled on for a while, he finally suggested that the Nazi Party leader, Hitler, come out and see Ludendorff at his home. The general agreed.

A few days later Hitler, aged 34, arrived at Ludendorff’s house. This may not have been Hitler’s first meeting with Ludendorff, as has been claimed. Author Michael Kellogg wrote that Ludendorff was introduced to Hitler as early as March 1921, under the umbrella of the Aufbau Vereinigung, a far-right conspiratorial group based in Munich. (6)

Two years later, having entered Ludendorff’s study, Hitler outlined his views and the Nazi Party’s aims to the older man. Ludendorff was impressed with what he described as Hitler’s “driving determination”, along with his opinions on what Germany’s future should hold. Ludendorff agreed with much of what Hitler said, he often thought the same things. Nor was Ludendorff put off by Hitler’s coarse manners and street talk. Like Hitler, Ludendorff came from a modest background, which had not helped his career in the German Army.

Ludendorff found nothing socially objectionable to the rough and brutal Nazis. That Ludendorff would soon be collaborating openly with the Nazis on the streets of Munich, shows how far he had fallen since the war years. During the war he had worked in harmony with Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, a figure of moderation and stability in Germany.

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky.

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

Notes

1 Howard Stern, The Organization Consul, Jstor

2 Arthur D. Brenner, “Feme Murder: Paramilitary ‘Self-Justice’ in Weimar Germany”, link.springer.com

3 Noam Chomsky talks Trump, Free Speech, and the Virtues of Resistance, Chomsky.info, 12 January 2017, Updated 14 June 2017

4 Wolfram Wette, The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality (Harvard University Press, 2 November 2007)

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, Ludendorff: Soldier: Dictator: Revolutionary (Hart-Davis, 1 January 1966)

6 Michael Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Emigres and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945 (Cambridge University Press; First Edition, 2 February 2001)

Featured image: Bundesarchiv Bild 119-1983-0007, Kapp-Putsch, Marinebrigade Erhardt in Berlin (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

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.

***

Yes, prices are rising, but not for the reasons the Federal Reserve says. When I say inflation is a hoax, I mean the purported cause is a hoax. The Fed is fighting a consumer inflation, a “demand-pull” inflation.  But what we are experiencing is a supply-side inflation caused by the Covid lockdowns and economic sanctions that closed businesses, disrupted supply chains, and broke business relationships while reducing energy supplies to the UK and European countries, thus forcing up costs in a globalized economy.  One of the many neglected problems of globalism is that inflations and recessions are no long simply a national problem. Interconnectedness sends adversity globally, although in varying degrees. 

The Fed thinks that the inflation is the result of the trillions of dollars of Covid payments that were dumped into the economy.  To the extent that this money was simply replacing the lost wages, salaries, and business earnings from the lockdowns, there would be no net addition of money, just a replacement.  I don’t have the data on the lost earnings from the lockdowns, but it is obvious that there was a large supply disruption.

Monetarists think that the inflation was caused by 12 years of Quantitative Easing during which the Fed’s balance sheet expanded five-fold.  But it is not supposed to take 12 years for monetary expansion to result in inflation.  All the while the Fed, still believing in the Phillips Curve that President Reagan’s supply-side policy had eliminated, said it was trying to get inflation up to 2% annually, which neoliberal economists, junk economics in Michael Hudson’s view with which I agree, say is the inflation needed to spur economic growth.  

Demand side inflations appear gradually and rise with a booming economy.  They don’t suddenly appear overnight as the present inflation has.  It is sudden supply shortages that produce instantly higher prices.

The Fed fights a demand-pull inflation by reducing the growth of money and credit, thereby reducing sales and employment.  But this and the higher interest rates reduce supply.  If sales fall off, so does production.  Higher interest rates raise costs and adversely impact supply.  Thus, the Fed’s interest rate policy can raise, rather than lower, inflation.

The way inflation is measured today adds to the problem. Inflation is no longer measured in terms of weighted prices in a constant basket of goods.  The goods in the basket change as items with smaller price rises are substituted for those with larger rises.  There is a subjective element in this substitution. Also, some price rises are attributed to quality improvements, and this decision also has a subjective element.  If the agenda is to have a lower inflation rate, there can be more substitution and more quality improvements.  If the agenda needs a higher inflation rate, minimize the substitutions and quality improvements.   

If inflation is coming down, and it is not just a product of manipulating subjective elements, how do we know it is not from increased supply from reopened businesses and repaired supply chains? If there is reliable data, this could be studied.  But neoliberal economists are locked into explaining everything in terms of demand.  I have spent 40 years trying to teach them supply-side economics, but they are incapable of learning.

Just as inflation was redefined by changing its measurement, now recession is being redefined. Whether or not 3 down quarters mean a recession, the view is that the second half of next year will be bad and that the Fed will stop raising interest rates and begin lowering them.  At that point or earlier if sufficiently anticipated, the stock and bond markets will begin another rise.  Recession means that the Fed injects liquidity and the financial markets rise with liquidity. 

This is the way it has been, but the landscape has changed, and we are faced with a new development.  Gradually over the years government through the many welfare programs, which in the Biden regime includes handing money to illegal immigrant-invaders, has accumulated a constituency that is paid but does not work.  These people have money to spend on goods and services, but do not contribute to the supply of goods and services. This constituency introduces an inflationary bias and this constituency is rapidly growing with the millions of immigrant-invaders who are allowed to enter the country each year.  If a substantial part of the population is supported with purchasing power but does not work, whether because welfare exceeds their prospective wages or it is illegal to employ them or they prefer sustainable leisure to work and higher income, consumer demand grows relative to output.  This gives us demand-pull inflation with a vengeance.  Military spending is similar to welfare. The associated wages and salaries pump money into consumer demand, but there are no corresponding goods and services to absorb it.  Consumers do not purchase tanks, missiles, fighter aircraft, and warships. The size of the US military budget makes it inflationary.

What can the Fed do?  Throwing people out of work reduces demand from the productive part of the population, not from the subsidized part.  Throwing productive people out of work also reduces supply, which acts on prices in a counter direction to reduced demand. Which force prevails?

Large cities tend to accumulate subsidized populations  that boost consumer demand but not supply. Even rich cities can find themselves with budget outlays that exceed their revenues. I will use New York to illustrate it, with thanks to Nicole Gelinas writing in the Autumn 2022 issue of City Journal.

New York City, the home of Wall Street and the largest banks, is a high income city.  But only in part and less and less as the city fills up with welfare dependent people.  New York City and its host state today have to rely on vice to bring in the revenues to keep  afloat. NYC has gone from a lottery, to a planned casino in Manhattan, to sports gambling, to legalizing cannabis, all of which can be taxed, and now the city is talking about legalizing prostitution  in order to benefit from taxing the revenues.  What is the future if New York has to turn into Sodom and Gomorrah in order to survive?

The Democrat vote is forcing the richest city in the US  to go into the business of marketing vice industries that its police formerly arrested the Mafia for operating.  To me this shows desperation.  If NYC cannot cope without creating and marketing vice industries for revenue purposes, what can, for example, St. Louis, once one of America’s great cities, do?

St. Louis was one of America’s cities devastated by the offshoring of manufacturing jobs.  Its population has shrunk.  The city is 45% black, and its government is in black hands.

What is the black mayor doing?  She has created a commission to decide on reparations paid by white St. Louis residents to black residents.  In other words, white residents of St. Louis, none of whom ever owned a slave and only a minuscule number descended from plantation owners who did, are targeted to have some portion of their income or wealth confiscated and given to black beneficiaries of St. Louis’ reparations scheme. See this.

Here we see the inability of St. Louis’ mayor to think.  Why live in St. Louis if you have to pay a tax to blacks to live there?

Like every other tax, once institutionalized the tax  will rise.  It is the United States of America that is resurrecting the feudal order in which there are class rights and whites are the underclass paying tribute to black aristocrats like serfs paid to lords.  You can pretend this is not the case.  But it is.

What incentive does this give whites to be productive, or to stay in areas under black political control?

The United States is already merely a name as the states are clearly disunited. Will the country devolve into separate political entities on a racial basis and even into city states?

The Democrat Party has turned its back on white Americans, labeling them “Trump deplorables,” “white supremacists,” and “threats to democracy.”  The Rino Republican Party will not defend white Americans or stand by any politician, such as Trump, who does.  What stake do Trump Americans have in a country in which they are labeled as undesirables?

The white liberals, indoctrinated into their racial guilt, will simply submit, but the “Trump deplorables” will organize into separate communities.  They will be aided by US over-reach abroad and the subsequent demise of the dollar and empire as the rising power of a reinvigorated China and Russia take the lead from the culturally exhausted Western world.  

Meanwhile the Fed yesterday raised interest rates another half a percentage point in the face of expectations of a bad recession in the coming year.  This is the high level of incompetence that today rules Americans.

Personally, I am suspicious of this inflation.  If it is, as I believe, the result of supply disruptions, the resumption of productive activity following the disastrous lockdowns would itself have brought prices down without need of Fed action.  I also suspect that the inflation resulted in part from announcements of its arrival, in which announcements executives and boards saw opportunity to boost profits and obtain their bonus rewards by raising prices.  A lot goes on that passes unnoticed by economists and pundits.

*

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.

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article  was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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 what can be described as a major escalation, the United States announced they are sending “Patriot” SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems to the Kiev regime. CNN claims that their chief Pentagon correspondent confirmed the information through multiple sources, including unnamed US defense officials, apparently also involving a senior member of the Biden administration. The sources claim the White House is “currently finalizing plans to send Patriot missile defense systems to Ukraine.”

“The Biden administration is finalizing plans to send the Patriot missile defense system to Ukraine that could be announced as soon as this week, according to two US officials and a senior administration official. The three officials told CNN that approval is expected,” the report states.

If the reports are true, the move could trigger a wider escalation. Thus far, the SAM systems NATO sent were mostly short to mid-range and were largely inconsequential as they provide little to no protection against Russian long-range cruise missiles. However, Patriot missiles, although hardly groundbreaking weapons, are much more advanced, as their capabilities are closer to those of the older S-300 variants the Kiev regime forces already operate. How helpful this could be to the Neo-Nazi junta is up for debate and it also depends on the number of systems the political West is ready to provide. For months, the US has been quiet and hasn’t provided a public response to pleas by the Kiev regime officials regarding their requests for the deployment of “Patriot” batteries to Ukraine. The US has been reluctant to do so, as there are many risks involved. The Guardian also analyzed the dangers of sending the SAM system. According to the London-based daily:

“Long sought by the Ukrainians, the missiles have a range of up to 300 km, but so far the US and its allies, including the UK, have declined to supply them because they could be used to hit targets inside Russia. Supplying them would help ‘bring the war to an end as soon as possible,’ former UK prime minister Boris Johnson said.”

The alleged Western “concerns” about the system being used against targets within Russia are quite laughable, as the Kiev regime forces have already targeted Russian bases hundreds of kilometers away from Ukraine. However, the actual concerns are most likely connected with the performance of the “Patriot”, as well as the strong possibility of the system being destroyed by the Russian military. The VKS (Russian Aerospace Forces) have already conducted numerous SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) operations and neutralized hundreds of mid to long-range SAM systems operated by the Kiev regime forces, including the S-300 and “Buk” air defense systems which are generally comparable to the “Patriot”.

The US SAM system’s capabilities against Soviet-made missiles are questionable at best, since it hasn’t provided much protection to neighboring Poland. Although it has already been deployed there for months, on November 15 the “Patriot” showed it provides only a false sense of security after it failed to intercept missiles fired by the Kiev regime forces which hit a Polish border village of Przewodow, killing two civilians. Still, the Neo-Nazi junta has been quite persistent in its requests to have the systems deployed in Ukraine. Their insistence has also been supported by former UK prime minister Boris Johnson, who urged the political West to send “Patriot” missiles in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal last week. According to CNN, the deployment of the SAM systems is likely to take some time given that the Kiev regime forces will need months of training. They are expected to be instructed on operating the “Patriot” systems at the US Army base in Grafenwoehr, Germany.

For its part, Moscow doesn’t seem particularly concerned by the announcement. According to Reuters, “the Kremlin said on Wednesday that US ‘Patriot’ missile [air] defense systems would be a legitimate target for Russian strikes, should the United States authorize them to be delivered to support Kiev.” Deputy Head of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev responded to the reports in a statement on his Telegram account:

“If, as Stoltenberg hinted, NATO supplies Kiev fanatics with ‘Patriot’ complexes along with NATO personnel, they will immediately become a legitimate target of our Armed Forces. I hope the Atlantean impotents understand this.”

On the other hand, the Washington Post reports that “the plan is not yet approved by President Biden or Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, but it could be soon, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail sensitive internal deliberations.” It further notes that the “Patriot-launched missiles can fly to altitudes as high as 79,000 feet [24 km], with an operational range, depending on the type of munition used, from a dozen to 100 miles [160 km], for use against ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as aircraft. It was not clear what kind of munitions the Pentagon will propose supplying.”

As the report states, it’s still unclear which of the many variants of the system could be sent to the Kiev regime forces, but it’s highly unlikely it will be the latest version, as it can take years to properly train even NATO personnel to operate such weapons. In addition, the risk of losing expensive systems such as the “Patriot” SAM is far greater in a fight against countries like Russia. The SAM system’s combat performance record left much to be desired both against Iraq during the 1991 US-led invasion of the country and more recently over Saudi Arabia against Houthi drones and missiles. The weapons that the “Patriot” failed to intercept in both cases were technologically over half a century behind those fielded by the Russian military nowadays.

*

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.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

Damascus is now bitterly cold and is soon to be blanketed with snow. About 12 million Syrians are facing a deadly winter without heating fuel, gasoline for transportation, and dark houses each evening without electricity. Aleppo, Homs, and Hama are also extremely cold all winter. 

Imagine being ill and having to walk to the doctor or hospital.  The ambulances in Syria will now respond only to the most life-threatening calls because they must conserve gasoline, or face running out entirely. Gasoline on the black market costs Syrians an equivalent of 50 US dollars for a tank of 20-liter fuel.

Sanctions against Syria were imposed by the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, the Arab League, as well as other countries beginning in 2011. The sanctions were aimed at overthrowing the Syrian government, by depriving it of its resources. US-sponsored ‘regime change’ has failed but the sanctions were never lifted.

For 12 years the US and EU have been imposing economic sanctions on Syria which have deprived the Syrians of their dignity and human rights.

New UN report asks for lifting sanctions on Syria

UN Special Rapporteur on human rights, Alena Douhan, urged sanctions to be lifted against Syria, warning that they were adding to the suffering of the Syrian people since 2011.

“I am struck by the pervasiveness of the human rights and humanitarian impact of the unilateral coercive measures imposed on Syria and the total economic and financial isolation of a country whose people are struggling to rebuild a life with dignity, following the decade-long war,” Douhan said.

After a 12-day visit to Syria, Douhan said the majority of Syria’s population was currently living below the poverty line, with shortages of food, water, electricity, shelter, cooking and heating fuel, transportation, and healthcare. She spoke of the continuing exodus of educated and skilled Syrians in response to the economic hardship of living at home.

Douhan reported that the majority of infrastructure was destroyed or damaged, and the sanctions imposed on oil, gas, electricity, trade, construction, and engineering have diminished the national income, which has prevented economic recovery and reconstruction.

The sanctions prevent payments from being received from banks, and deliveries from foreign manufacturers. Serious shortages in medicine and medical equipment have plagued hospitals and clinics. The lack of a water treatment system in Aleppo caused a severe Cholera outbreak in late summer, and the system cannot be bought, installed, or maintained under the current US sanctions against Syria.

Douhan said,

“I urge the immediate lifting of all unilateral sanctions that severely harm human rights and prevent any efforts for early recovery, rebuilding, and reconstruction.”

US sanctions are not effective

In 1998, Richard Haass wrote, ‘Economic Sanctions: Too Much of a Bad Thing’.  He cautioned US foreign policymakers that sanctions alone are ineffective when the aims are large, or the time is short.  The overthrow of the Syrian government is a massive aim, and the sanctions did not accomplish that goal.

Haass predicted that sanctions could cause economic distress and migration.  In the summer of 2015 about half a million Syrians walked through Europe as economic migrants and were taken in primarily by Germany.

There is a moral imperative to stop using sanctions as a foreign policy tool because innocent people are affected, while the sanctions have failed.

The US steals Syrian oil, and will not allow imported oil to arrive

According to the US government, the sanctions on Syria “prohibits new investments in Syria by US persons, prohibits the exportation or sale of services to Syria by US persons, prohibits the importation of petroleum or petroleum products of Syrian origin, and prohibits US persons from involvement in transactions involving Syrian petroleum or petroleum products.”

There is a waiver that can be requested from the Department of Commerce, to circumvent the sanctions; however, it only applies to sending items to the terrorist-occupied area of Idlib. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria and is the only terrorist group now holding territory in Syria.

On October 22, the media Energy World reported the US occupation forces had smuggled 92 tankers and trucks of Syrian oil and wheat stolen from northeastern Syria to US bases in Iraq. The theft is ongoing and continuous.

The US has partnered with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) which is a Kurdish militia that has a political wing following the communist ideology begun by the PKK’s Abdullah Ocalan. President Trump ordered the US military to remain to occupy northeastern Syria and he ordered the US soldiers there to steal the Syrian oil so to prevent the Syrian people in the rest of the country from benefiting from the gasoline and electricity produced from the wells.

The Syrian Oil Ministry said in August that the US forces were stealing 80 percent of Syria’s oil production, causing direct and indirect losses of about 107.1 billion to Syria’s oil and gas industry.

Because the Damascus government is deprived of the oil its wells produce, it is forced to depend on costly imported oil, usually from Iran. The US routinely commandeers Iranian tankers, such as the incident recently when the US Navy took a tanker hostage off the coast of Greece on its way to Syria but was eventually released by Greece.

Gasoline shortage 

The government has instituted a three-day weekend for schools and civil offices, as well as suspended sports events to save fuel.

Maurice Haddad, Director of the General Company for Internal Transport in Damascus, told the al-Watan newspaper that the government has set stricter diesel quotas, leading to fewer daily bus services.

Athar-Press news website reported that several bakeries in Damascus have had to shut down because of the lack of fuel.

Fuel is needed to generate electricity in Syria, and the lack of domestic or imported fuel means most homes in Syria have about one hour of electricity at several intervals each day, and the amount is diminishing daily.

Sanction exemptions for Idlib and the Kurds only

The only two areas in Syria which are not under the Damascus administration are Idlib in the northwest and the US-sponsored Kurdish region in the northeast.  The US sanctions are exempt from sending items to those two places only. But, those two places represent a small number of Syrians in comparison to the civilians across the country, and the main cities of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Hama, and Latakia.  The US makes sure the people who are against the Syrian government continue to be rewarded with supplies and reconstruction, while the millions of peaceful civilians are kept in a constant state of suffering and deprivation.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Eva Bartlett

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.

***

For nearly 60 years, the Israeli state believed that by duping US President JFK by the covert building of a secret nuclear bomb facility in the Negev Desert, it would be outside the inspection of the UN’s IAEA or subject to any control whatsoever by international agreements or treaties, and that by assuming a position of ‘nuclear ambiguity’ within the international, global community, it would afford the Israeli state a unique and unchallengeable position within world affairs.

That strategy might have had some validity a half a century ago, but in 2022, it means that the Israeli state holds the dubious title of being the only undeclared, nuclear weapon state in the world: estimates of its unknown arsenal varying between 40-400 nuclear warheads plus other WMD, either chemical or biological, or both. Such a profile being hardly advantageous, rather it means that such a state is a constant danger to world peace, and could well be the point of ground-zero, where WW3 will start.

Israel today, has the largest number of ethnic Russians, outside Russia itself. At least one million Israeli citizens have Russian as their mother tongue and they form nearly 15% of the population.  Most have roots and relatives in Russia, their acculturation being Russian not Israeli.

Netanyahu and Putin have been close political partners for many years and when Russia declared war upon Ukraine, the Israeli government was in a quandary – which side to choose, its trading partners and arms suppliers in the west, or its political allies in the east? Eventually Netanyahu chose the west which it needs to survive economically and politically.  Unfortunately, he backed the wrong horse when he failed to foresee a close military alliance between Russia and Iran, and that means that, at a stroke, Israel’s future as an independent state is now in jeopardy because Putin has the most comprehensive and advanced nuclear weapons program in the world.

Just one, 10 or 20 k-ton nuclear bomb detonated 50m above Tel Aviv, would mean that Israel would cease to exist, within minutes.

Whether Netanyahu would manage to fire-off one of his own ICBM’s in retaliation, from its underground silo in Dimona, is probably not the point. The damage would have been done. Israel would have ceased to exist and the US would doubtless respond, but how exactly?  By declaring WW3 on Russia that would ensure their global destruction?

Russia is reported to be offering Iran an unprecedented level of military and technical support that will transform the current relationship into a full-bodied, defence partnership that will impact both the Middle East and the world, as the most powerful, global, nuclear entity of WMD.

*

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.

Hans Stehling (a pen name) is a regular 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.

***

On 5 December 2022, Daniel Estulin, doctor of conceptual intelligence, researcher writer, public speaker and geopolitical analyst, interviewed Peter Koenig, economist and geopolitical analyst, for the Estulin TV Program.

Prime topic was the climate farce. Also discussed was the Green Agenda, the neofascist “New Green Deal”, as well as the coming Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) – and more.

See the 45-min video: The Climate Farse – and More – Interview Daniel Estulin with PK

*

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.

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.

***

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.

***

Operating in the shadows is easy in the United States secondary food market, as few question what happens to food that exceeds its expiration date in leading supermarket chains across the nation. Well, truth be told, expired food gets reprocessed, repackaged, relabeled, and resold to institutions, discount retailers and restaurants.

With scant regulations in place for repurposed food, and institutional purchasing specifications silent, food liquidators underbid their competitors and win contracts nearly every time. In the secondary food market, you get what you pay for, and never has the saying “garbage in, garbage out” been more appropriate.

No matter how much hot sauce or gravy is added as camouflage, spoiled food products are unfit for human consumption and cause foodborne illness. Here, what you don’t know can kill you.

In its most recent public report posted on its website, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimate that, each year, roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases. However, “recent” is a misnomer here as the CDC’s report is shamelessly outdated by more than ten years. It was issued in January 2011.

Considering that food poisoning is an embarrassing indicator that reveals in its gory horror the systemic corruption of what turns out to be an unregulated food market, it is highly probable that there was undercounting back in 2011—especially in institutional settings. And it is more than likely that things are even worse in 2022.

When oversight agency reports are no longer published, it is clearly because industry statistics and agency performance metrics do not look good. Cover-ups at the federal level are routinely done by appointing incompetent or industry-compromised agency heads, and by defunding key reporting departments, and reducing analytic staff positions and field inspectors.

Despite oversight agency neglect, both schools and prisons have been independently studied for foodborne illness outbreaks. While these reports/articles are also outdated, their shallow analysis remains current. The accepted prevailing narrative blames foodborne illness outbreaks on food handlers that failed to follow U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) protocols for cleanliness and neglected to maintain the proper temperatures for food storage and service.

While not to detract from standards set by the USDA, there are no reports that expose the lethal dangers of the secondary food market. Moreover, unlike the primary food market, these repackaging facilities are not inspected, despite their erroneous claims of USDA or FDA certifications.

A media spokesperson for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) explained that “the FDA doesn’t oversee meat and poultry, only dairy products.” And that “expiration dates are not regulated, only food safety.”

This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, food that is spoiled, contaminated, or toxic but within its expiration date is unquestionably unfit for human consumption. On the other hand, expiration dates are necessary as packaging, coloring and processing conceal food quality from consumers, as well as purchasing agents and food handlers.

When a food product’s expiration date is concealed by repackaging and relabeling, all food safety bets are off. The reselling of expired food is a black market in broad daylight.

Source: daily.slickdeals.net

Most individuals interviewed at the BOP for this article were not familiar with the existence of the secondary food market. Interviews included procurement personnel, a dietitian, an attorney, a policy analyst, and two media representatives. Only the National Food Service Administrator (NFSA) understood that, when bid specifications are silent on this fundamental go/no go criterion, food vendors selling fresh primary market products cannot compete fairly against secondary market expired food liquidators.

Undeniably, recycled food has a lower price point than fresh food. Thus, secondary food liquidators can dominate the market by selling inferior products.

Within this context, rigged specifications may be considered a form of procurement fraud. Publicizing bid tabulations for the lowest three bidders would level the playing field.

Value and Shelf Life

However, in procurement, value and shelf life need to be decision-making factors, as well as the acquisition cost. For example, if cafeteria meals make school children, hospitalized patients, and prison inmates sick and perishable food products are being thrown out prematurely—because their shelf life was already compromised prior to delivery—the initial cost savings is immaterial.

Further, any acquisition cost savings realized in purchasing food from the secondary market is dwarfed by incidences of foodborne illnesses. Symptoms of food poisoning require costly medical attention, result in higher staff absences and increased overtime for alternate staff, and increase cleaning costs to manage uncontrolled bodily fluids.

Additionally, foodborne illnesses bring psychological stress to all involved—especially when there is a significant outbreak. According to the CDC, a foodborne illness outbreak in prison affects, on average, 60 inmates.

One complaint shared in nearly all prison riots is the quality and quantity of subsistence food. Riots are dangerous to inmates and correction officers, expensive to taxpayers, and can significantly damage facilities. In Texas, inmates set a jail ablaze in 2009, and in Michigan, a 2017 riot cost taxpayers nearly one million dollars.

When asked why BOP’s national bid documents do not specify that food is purchased fresh from the primary food market, BOP’s NSFA explained that “this requirement is left up to each facility’s discretion.”

However, research showed that BOP headquarters sets bid specification standards, and these standards are replicated downstream. Local procurement staff do not reinvent base specifications.

After reviewing multiple national BOP and Miami FDC bid solicitations on SAM.gov and Unison Marketplace, it was confirmed that “New Food” specifications are utterly absent. Specifications set by headquarters and replicated at the local level only require that kitchen equipment be “New” as detailed below:

“New Equipment ONLY; NO remanufactured or ‘gray market’ items. All items must be covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.”

Based on this research, institutional specifications could require:

New Food ONLY; NO repackaged or reconditioned “secondary market” food items.

The specification that “Manufacturer’s letters will NOT be accepted in lieu of labeling” sounds good at face value. However, what is the point of a label if its only purpose is to hide the fact that expired food was reconditioned and repackaged?

Reporting “Problems with Food”

Presently, consumers can report “a problem with food” at “restaurants,” or they can report a rotten “egg,” etc., on the FoodSafety.gov website or on the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) webpage. However, evidence is required, such as the original container or packaging. This information is not readily available in institutional settings as most subsistence meals are devoid of their original packaging. It appears, by design, there is intentionally no place to report unsafe institutional food.

Recommendations are made on the FoodSafety.gov website to contact local health departments to report foodborne illnesses. However, in the case of federal prisons, no oversight authority inspects its kitchens.

A cornered representative from BOP’s press office reluctantly admitted their kitchens are only inspected by BOP personnel but countered this unsavory news with the fact that there is a “food safety manual.” Unfortunately, the manual, like BOP’s procurement process, is full of holes but more about that later.

Source: thecrimereport.org

Problems with Administrators, Oversight Authorities, and Elected Officials

Personal negligence and corruption are revealed when elected officials refuse to ask agency administrators hard questions or demand reports that enable meaningful analysis. Reports from agencies that provide services such BOP, as well as oversight authorities such as the FDA, USDA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the CDC are essential for a functional government that is answerable to its constituents (taxpayers and not just lobbyists).

The revolving door between industry and regulatory authority personnel is well documented, as is the negative impact on democracy that industry lobbyists hold over elected officials. And let’s not forget how donations by “charitable” organizations are used not only to achieve tax evasion but to push agendas that serve their principals’ profitable business ventures.

Not only has this trifecta of foul play led to agency capture and the outright abandonment of taxpayer rights and consumer protections, but it violates international human rights law. The United Nations’ Pocketbook of International Human Rights Standards for Prison Officials requires “wholesome and adequate food” be provided to the incarcerated.

Lack of Indicators that Measure Performance in Institutions and Oversight Authorities

If they exist, indicators that reveal operational issues, measure performance, and provide a cost/benefit analysis in institutions and their oversight authorities are often concealed and require Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. FOIA requests take months, if not years, to produce and often require lengthy litigation due to agency obstructionist claims that releasing “sensitive” information somehow compromises industry trade secrets, privacy laws, etc.

In BOP, a simple request for a line-item budget and an analysis comparing various prison allocations and expenditures was claimed to compromise its security. It shouldn’t; they don’t. Budget figures given in aggregate that do not drill down to specific medical and food costs are intentionally impossible to analyze, as shown here in the DOJ’s 2023 budget. It only lists “Inmate Care and Programs,” totaling just $3 billion, or 37.5%, from a nearly $8 billion budget.

According to a representative from BOP’s research/policy area, “line-item budgets and comparative facility analytics can be misinterpreted and are rightly protected by FOIA.” So FOIA, in effect, protects the public from learning the truth about high costs, failed programs, mismanagement, and malfeasance. So, are white-collar criminals running the prisons? More about this later.

CDC Reports

Often symptoms of food poisoning such as vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain—and flu-like symptoms such as fever, headache, and body-ache—are dismissingly attributed to stomach viruses or influenza by institutional administrators. However, when food poisoning cannot be concealed due to a large number of students or inmates affected, it may be reported to the CDC. Allegedly, the CDC maintains an active Foodborne Outbreak Surveillance System; but it has not issued a report since 2017.

Its 2017 report indicates that only eight outbreaks of foodborne illness occurred in schools and on average 31 students were affected, with the total number of cases at 253. Additionally, it revealed that only twelve cases of foodborne illness occurred in jails/prisons and on average 60 inmates were affected, for a total of 724 cases.

As foodborne illness is more easily reported when it occurs in restaurants, as explained in the section titled Problems with Food, it is dominant in the CDC’s analysis. But on average, a restaurant outbreak only affects ten patrons (which is still terrible in its own right). Also, restaurant patrons are not captive customers. They can elect not to return to a restaurant, whereas students, hospital patients and inmates are dependent on institutional cafeteria food for sustenance.

Secondary Food Market

Yes, there are many ways to contract food poisoning in any kitchen by unclean conditions and the food handlers’ failure to observe USDA/FDA protocols, but the probability of illness is increased exponentially when food products are delivered already expired.

Also, repackaging temperature changes, more staff and equipment handling, and re-exposure to air additionally compromise the already marginal shelf life of these highly perishable food products. Modifications that hide the identity of expired poultry, beef, pork and fish, such as grinding these products into hot dogs, beef patties, sausages, chicken nuggets and fish sticks are gross—as is turning expired milk and eggs into dehydrated/powdered products. It is disgusting to know that these food products are routinely sold to institutions and restaurants nationally.

According to the USDA media representatives, the USDA’s FSIS does not inspect secondary food processing facilities. Therefore, repackaging facilities that advertise they have FDA and USDA certifications misrepresent themselves. However, most secondary food market liquidators do not have websites or list principals. This omission allows LLCs to form and dissolve easily when their contractual performance issues become so severe that their principals are debarred from bidding on government contracts.

Green Eggs and Ham/Cat in the Hat

One major subsistence food service provider with Miami FDC is named Wholesome Food Products, LLC. It has no website and lists no principals. In what is believed to be a tribute to Dr. Seuss, it is comprised of two mysterious LLCs named, Thing1. LLC and Thing2. LLC.

Source: corporationwiki.com

Consider that there is no limit to the secondary market’s reselling capabilities. Expired food products travel a conga line until the liquidator finds a buyer so desperate, inept, or corrupt that it will purchase anything. For example, food rejected by restaurants and discount stores can be sold to schools. Food rejected by schools can be sold to hospitals and prisons. Finally, when prisons reject the delivery, it is sold to the military. Consider that every delivery and site inspection affects temperature and deducts time from expired products’ shelf life. Unquestionably, both factors further reduce product safety.

A former sailor stationed aboard the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in the Persian Gulf during Operation Enduring Freedom reported that a food delivery contained beef stamped with REJECTED DOC (Department of Corrections). Still, the kitchen staff was ordered to cook and serve it because there was “a ship full of sailors and not enough food to last them until the next delivery.”

In prisons, food handlers who complain about serving meals that are not fit for human consumption are disciplined, relocated or fired.

“They had about 100 bags of rotten potatoes,” Pine said. “You could smell them,” and “they had black and green mold all over them.”

“They told me I was trying to start a riot,” Pine said. “I said: ‘No, you’re serving rotten potatoes. That’s going to get to the yard.”

BOP’s Food Safety Manual

The BOP’s Food Safety Manual does not follow USDA basic protocols which are based on fresh food procured from the primary food market and processed by facilities under FSIS inspections.

As discussed in the section titled Secondary Food Market, repurposed and reprocessed foods are not inspected by the USDA/FSIS and have a shorter shelf life. This results in the inevitable serving of spoiled food and beverages—even when its manual’s recommended storage time duration and temperatures are precisely followed.

BOP’s manual instructs staff that food storage must be limited to a maximum of “5 days or the manufacturers’ use by date.” Since the food is not in the manufacturers’ packaging, this “use by date” requirement is merely window dressing. Five days for fresh food is too long, according to the USDA for poultry and seafood, which specifies one to two days of storage before cooking or freezing and refrigeration for three to four days after cooking for all foods.

The below-listed paragraph is from the BOP Food Safety Manual, Chapter 10, page 47:

FOOD SAFETY LIMITATION OF GROWTH OF ORGANISMS OF PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN

“Refrigerated, ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared and packaged by a USDA-inspected food processing plant [they don’t exist according to USDA and FSIS media spokespersons in the secondary food market], and not offered for immediate service when the original container is opened, or unused portions of these items from any meal, are clearly marked to indicate the date by which the food must be consumed or discarded. The date is based on a 5-day maximum when stored at 41 [degrees], not exceed a manufacturer’s use-by date.” [With frequent rehandling over five days, it is a no-brainer that a 41-degree temperature cannot be maintained.]

The below-listed paragraph is from the USDA’s website:

USDA KNOWLEDGE ARTICLE

“Refrigeration slows but does not prevent bacterial growth. Therefore, it’s important to use food in a timely fashion before it spoils or becomes dangerous. For raw ground meats, poultry, seafood, and variety meats (liver, tongue, chitterlings, etc.), refrigerate them only 1 to 2 days before either cooking or freezing. Beef, veal, lamb, and pork roasts, steaks and chops may be kept 3 to 5 days. After cooking, meat, poultry, and seafood can be safely stored in the refrigerator 3 to 4 days.”

The BOP manual instructs staff that their Budget Projection Report should ensure the “contracting specialist purchases supplies at wholesale and other favorable prices and conditions.” Quality and shelf life are not considered when setting up a food order.

Another issue with the manual is its failure to require that temperature logs be kept. This omission is suspiciously bad since temperature taking is the only way it directs potentially hazardous food to be checked. Additionally, logs more easily enable problem food liquidators to be disqualified from bidding.

The below-shown paragraph is from the BOP Food Safety Manual, Chapter 7, pages 35 and 36:

FOOD RECEIVING REQUIREMENTS

“Temperature of potentially hazardous food is checked when it is received. Items impractical for probe temperature monitoring (eggs, milk, etc.) are determined to be in compliance by monitoring the temperature of the transport container. Immediate notification is made to the FSA, AFSA, or designee to determine disposition of any item not within the limits described below. Due to the immediate notification and disposition requirements, logs documenting receiving temperatures are not required.”

Oddly, there is no requirement in the BOP manual for a written report to “the FSA, AFSA, or designee.” Tracking what happens to rejected prison food is essential to thwart an even more sinister black market comprised of rejected food (one step down from expired food)—as evidenced by the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier receiving beef marked REJECTED by the DOC.

Corruption in Prison Food Procurement

While most of the articles involving corruption in Miami FDC involve assault, rape and the smuggling of contraband, state-run and privately run facilities describe the mechanics of crime in food procurement. Bid specifications that eliminate primary market competition combined with manuals that allow expired and spoiled food items to be accepted by food handlers and that do not track rejected food create an environment ripe for kickbacks, bribes, and hush money.

However, prosecutions might be more embarrassing for BOP than simple staff dismissals. Moreover, keeping negative information from the public might have a higher value to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)—as its Attorney General is answerable to the president—than preventing and/or prosecuting white-collar criminals.

Consider that the following headline is not good publicity for the facility’s warden: Oregon DOC Food Manager Takes Over $1 Million in Bribes, Feeds Prisoners “Distressed” Food.

According to Prisonlegalnews.org, “between mid-2000 and December 2006, the Food Service Administrator (FSA) ‘supplemented’ his $79,000 annual salary with at least $1,132,000 in bribes and kickbacks from brokers who sold dubious quality food to the ODOC.

Under the FSA’s watch, daily food costs in Oregon’s prison system dropped from $3.95 per prisoner ($1.32 per meal) in 1997 to $2.38 ($0.79 per meal) in 2006—a 40 percent reduction.”

Wardens are evaluated on the cost to shelter inmates, and up-front savings are a more highly valued indicator than foodborne illnesses, which can mostly be swept under the rug or blamed on viruses.

According to the CDC, “Incarcerated people are more likely to have foodborne illness that is related to an outbreak than non-incarcerated people.”

DOJ’s Inspector General released a report dated October 2022 that identifies BOP issues. Granted, violent attacks and contraband make bigger headlines, its silence on white-collar crime involving procurement, foodborne illness, and the secondary food market is deafening, especially when considering the crime ring in Oregon, uncovered by FBI and IRS raids, led to California and Maryland food brokers pleading guilty to bribery and tax fraud. They faced 13 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

Misusing Health Protocols to Obscure Operational Issues and Inmate Conditions

According to its webpage, Miami FDC has 1,082 inmates and remains under COVID level IIIprotocols, which suspends all visitations. Out of 122 institutions, only three facilities are level III at the time of this writing.

However, its seriously outdated report from September 29, 2021, only lists two inmates in medical isolation. Thus, family members, elected officials and the press cannot physically monitor its operations and inmates’ health for no apparent or documented reason. Corruption grows in secrecy. What is Warden Eugene K. Carlton hiding?

A 2021 Associated Press (AP) investigation revealed that the nearly $8 billion annually budgeted to the federal Bureau of Prisons is a hotbed of abuse, graft and corruption. BOP accordingly seems to have turned a blind eye to employees accused of misconduct and, in some cases, the agency failed to suspend officers arrested for crimes.

“The main concern with the Bureau of Prisons is that wardens at each institution decide if there’s going to be any disciplinary investigation or not,” said Susan Canales, vice president of the union at FCI Dublin. “Basically, you’re putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.”

Source: prisonpolicy.org

Cost to Taxpayers

According to a 2017 report done by prisonpolicy.org, the mass incarceration system costs the government and families of justice-involved people at least $182 billion every year.

Cost to Feed Inmates/Per Capita Budget (COIF)

Reportedly, Miami FDC’s Food Service Department has a per capita budget. But since this document combines food items with equipment and cleaning products, it makes isolating food costs difficult. This budget is also not available without FOIA. The DOJ’s 2021 report has no useful indicators for comparing food cost or illness by facility.

Prisonpolicy.org research indicates that, in 2003, Florida prisoners’ daily food cost was $2.32. This is a nominal fraction of the annual Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF).

Source: prisonpolicy.org

According to a report in the Federal Register that is based on FY 2020 data, the average annual COIF for a federal inmate in a federal facility in FY 2020 was $39,158 ($107.28 per day).

Commissary

Despite a nearly $40,000 annual cost to taxpayers, inmates at Miami FDC spend up to $360.00 per month ($4,320 per year) on items such as sodas, ice cream, food, clothing, electronics, and shoes at the commissary. Commissary vendors rake in $1.6 billion a year, according to a 2016 study done by the Prison Policy Initiative. Are subsistence foods compromised to promote the use of this lucrative market?

Claims by Liquidators

Advertising claims by liquidators are unappetizing.

Lewisco Holdings

“When food reaches its expiration date, it becomes worthless, right? Not so fast, says Lewisco Holdings. As buyers of expired food inventory, we can take your trash and make it treasure. Liquidation is the process of buying unusable goods, clearing them out of the primary market, and moving them into secondary lines of distribution. Lewisco Holdings operates in the realm of expired food inventory. We purchase these goods and then distribute them to discrete buyers throughout the continental U.S.

As liquidators, Lewisco Holdings does not sell to restaurants, convenience stores, primary supermarkets, or full-line distributors. These entities are our clients’ customers, and we respect the boundary. We also pledge to work with confidentiality—not advertising, not selling to buyers outside the geographic boundaries, and not selling to any buyer who doesn’t also respect these rules.

Examples of our typical buyer include:

• Deep-discount salvage stores
• Small, privately-owned grocers
• Community food banks
• Correctional facilities
• Schools
• Farmers’ markets

Source: lewiscoholdings.com

Natural Choice Foods

“As one of the few companies nationally—in the secondary market—to gain FDA and USDA certification [according to the FDA and USDA media spokespersons, certifications do not exist] in repacking food products, Natural Choice Foods is the partner you can trust to safely repack your products into private label packaging, eliminating any risk to your brand. In our recently expanded certified repack facility, our trained staff safely repacks fresh and frozen food products for our customers. We have the capacity to repack over 1 million pounds of food per month.”

“How can you offer a variety of menu options and keep food costs low? Well, the answer is Natural Choice Foods. We buy overstock food items from food companies all across the country. We buy it, warehouse it safely, repack it for food service or retail and resell it to foodservice programs at colleges, nursing homes, correctional facilities, and restaurants.

Food Items We Provide

• Low cost, high-quality proteins like chicken, beef, and pork
• Frozen appetizers and desserts
• Dry storage food items”

Source: naturalchoicefoods.com

Conclusion

As established by the United Nations, the provision of “wholesome food” is a human right. Therefore, it should be served not only to prisoners but to school children, hospital patients, military personnel, restaurant patrons, and discount shoppers. Food not fit for human consumption must be removed from the marketplace.

Public institutions, private food businesses and the regulatory authorities that oversee them must be answerable to elected officials, the press and taxpayers. To achieve transparency, line-item budgets, comparative performance metrics, and bid tabulation results for the lowest three bidders on publicly funded contracts should be posted on agency websites. Besides limiting corruption and upholding human rights, public scrutiny makes government, administrators and politicians accountable and, ultimately, results in efficiency, effectiveness and cost savings. Food safety and good government are not partisan issues.

*

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.

Lauren Smith is CAM’s correspondent on location. Lauren’s work has been published by the Alliance for Global Justice, Black Agenda Report, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Global Research, Monthly Review, and Telesur amongst others. She holds a BA in Politics, Economics, and Society from SUNY at Old Westbury and an MPA in International Development Administration from New York University. Ms. Smith is also a member of the Green Party and Sanctionskill.org.

Featured image is from vertassets.blob.core.windows.net

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.

***

Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) said it has received preliminary information that criminals in Finland might have captured military arms, such as assault rifles, meant for Ukrainian forces.

“Weapons shipped [by various countries] to Ukraine have also been found in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands,” NBI Detective Superintendent Christer Ahlgren told Yle.

International media outlets have reported that the European law enforcement agency Europol has anticipated criminal gangs stashing weapons in border areas. This past summer Europol issued a statement (siirryt toiseen palveluun) warning that the proliferation of firearms and explosives in Ukraine could lead to an increase in firearms and munitions trafficked into the EU via established smuggling routes or online platforms.

“We’ve seen signs of these weapons already finding their way to Finland,” Ahlgren said.

The NBI has not released more details about weapons trafficked to Finland, saying that investigations are ongoing.

The routes and contacts for trafficking illegal weapons from Ukraine to Finland are, however, already in place, according to Ahlgren.

“Three of the world’s largest motorcycle gangs—that are part of larger international organisations—are active in Finland. One of these is Bandidos MC, which has a unit in every major Ukrainian city,” he explained. “We know that contacts and routes are being warmed up, so that they’re in place.”

Since the war in Yugoslavia, Balkan countries have dealt with illegal arms trafficking.

“Ukraine has received a large volume of weapons and that’s good, but we’re going to be dealing with these arms for decades and pay the price here,” Ahlgren said.

He also pointed out that the war in Ukraine has created more work for law enforcement, but this has not translated into additional police funding, according to a government report published this past February.

Police are, for example, tasked with following up on a growing number of drone sightings near critical infrastructure.

“Decision makers have forgotten that the war in Ukraine has also increased police work,” he said, alluding to Finnish entry points.

Today security checks are mandatory for airport staff but similar screenings are not required for dock workers, giving criminals a backdoor in Finnish ports, according to Ahlgren. “Criminal organisations have their networks in Finnish commercial ports. Stopping this is in everyone’s interest.”

*

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: NBI Detective Superintendent Christer Ahlgren stands near the port of Vuosaari in Helsinki at the end of October 2022. Image: Silja Viitala / Yle

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.

***

On December 9, the Associated Press reported that President Vladimir Putin stated Russia could adopt a US-style concept of “preemptive strikes”, stressing that Moscow is in possession of advanced weapons to conduct such operations.

“We are just thinking about it. They weren’t shy to openly talk about it during the past years,” Putin said at an EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The statement clearly applies to the United States and its foreign policy framework, including the so-called “preemptive strikes” concept. The program, called PGS (Prompt Global Strike), is a US attempt to develop a capability that enables it to attack enemy strategic targets with precision-guided weapons anywhere in the world within just one hour.

“Speaking about a disarming strike, maybe it’s worth thinking about adopting the ideas developed by our US counterparts, their ideas of ensuring their security,” Putin added, noting that such strikes are intended to knock out command facilities. Putin also stated that Russia is already in possession of hypersonic weapons suitable for carrying out such operations, while the US still hasn’t deployed its own equivalents. The Russian president also added that Moscow has long-range cruise missiles that surpass US analogs, most likely referring to the state-of-the-art scramjet-powered “Zircon” hypersonic cruise missile. Putin noted that Russia’s long-range weapons would certainly be conventional PGMs (precision-guided munitions), while the US never ruled out the possibility of the first use of thermonuclear weapons.

“If the potential adversary believes that it can use the theory of a preemptive strike and we don’t, it makes us think about the threats posed by such ideas in other countries’ defensive posture,” the Russian president said. The political West’s massive mainstream propaganda machine cherry-picked Vladimir Putin’s statements in order to misrepresent them as supposed “saber-rattling” while ignoring the pure logic behind his words. As per usual, Putin pointed out the glaringly obvious hypocrisy of the US political establishment, which quite clearly thinks it’s “indispensable” and “unique” in the sense that Americans are the only ones who have the right to attack others with impunity while they watch helplessly or simply turn a blind eye to the blatant US aggression against the world.

With Russia having actual conventional military capabilities to implement such a “preemptive strike” foreign policy framework almost instantly (unlike the US), Putin warned that if everyone behaved the way America does, the world would certainly become an extremely dangerous place. To make his point even stronger, it could be argued that Moscow would certainly have more reasons to implement such policies than the US itself. Unlike America, which has dozens of vassals and satellite states, Russia doesn’t exert such “soft power” influence over other countries, including its neighbors. On the contrary, the political West even tried to stage coups against Moscow’s close partners such as Belarus and Kazakhstan, forcing Russia to come to both countries’ rescue in recent months and years.

Needless to say, never again would the Eurasian giant tolerate the instalment of hostile puppet regimes so close to its borders. Russia’s leadership is well aware of the mistakes it made by ever trusting any promises given by the political West. After the 2014 NATO-backed coup which brought Neo-Nazis to power in Kiev, Moscow decided to never again allow such occurrences from happening in its geopolitical backyard. In this regard, Putin’s remarks are twofold. First, as previously mentioned, they expose the sheer hypocrisy of the political West, and second, they show that it would certainly come in handy for Russia to use its overwhelming “hard power” to prevent the establishment of anti-Russian regimes so close to its borders. Had Moscow deployed its version of PGS against the Neo-Nazi junta back in 2014, it wouldn’t even have the current problem in Ukraine.

However, the political West keeps insisting that Putin’s remarks are a “clear sign that Russia is planning to use nuclear weapons”, although he specifically stated that Moscow’s potential PGS-style program would include only conventional weapons. For months, the troubled Biden administration has been parroting the accusations that Russia is supposedly planning to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The US has been spinning the narrative on virtually every statement by Putin, claiming alleged “nuclear saber-rattling”. The premise is usually based on Russia’s official strategic military doctrine that gives Moscow the right to use thermonuclear weapons in response to a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) or a large-scale conventional attack.

In reality, Putin never mentioned anything about the Eurasian giant’s thermonuclear deterrence. The statements were clearly his critique of the US PGS concept, which Russia has been warning about for years, especially as the weapons used within the framework of such a program would be effectively indiscernible from regular ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). Precisely this could lead to uncontrollable escalation, as other superpowers would not be able to confirm if the weapon in question is conventional or nuclear-armed. For instance, US PGS missiles spotted by Russian and/or Chinese early warning systems might prompt both (Eur)Asian giants to respond with nuclear-tipped weapons, leading to a world-ending conflict.

Russia’s response to the PGS program could be instantaneous if the Kremlin ever decides to proceed with it. With the Mach 12-capable “Kinzhal” air-launched hypersonic missile carried by modified MiG-31K/I interceptors and Tu-22M3 long-range bombers, the Mach 28-capable “Avangard” HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle) deployed on various ICBMs and the Mach 9-capable scramjet-powered “Zircon” hypersonic cruise missile deployed on naval (both submarines and surface ships) and (soon) on land platforms, Russia is the only country on the planet with the capability to immediately implement its own PGS-style program. And yet, the Eurasian giant still refrains from going ahead with such plans, although its justification for this would hold much better than that of the US.

*

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.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from The Last Refuge

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 White House says recent comments made by Elon Musk about Anthony Fauci are “dangerous” and “disgusting.”

“They are disgusting, and they are divorced from reality, and we will continue to call that out and be very clear about that,” said White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a Monday presser, before praising Fauci’s public handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Jean-Pierre is asked about @elonmusk calling for Fauci to be prosecuted:

"These personal attacks that we have been seeing are incredibly dangerous. They are disgusting and they are divorced from reality… We should be thankful to him." pic.twitter.com/lAadqXpPgQ

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 12, 2022

Over the weekend, Musk tweeted: “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci,” eliciting widespread shrieks from the collective, including from astronaut Scott Kelly, who said “Elon, please don’t mock and promote hate toward already marginalized and at-risk-of-violence members of the #LGBTQ+ community.”

“Furthermore, Dr Fauci is a dedicated public servant whose sole motivation was saving lives,” he added.

Bitch please.

“I strongly disagree,” Musk replied the the left-wing brother-in-law of former Arizona congresswoman, Gabby Giffords.

“Forcing your pronouns upon others when they didn’t ask, and implicitly ostracizing those who don’t, is neither good nor kind to anyone,” he added.

“As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome imo.”

I strongly disagree. Forcing your pronouns upon others when they didn’t ask, and implicitly ostracizing those who don’t, is neither good nor kind to anyone.

As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome imo.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 12, 2022

Fauci indeed funded gain-of-function research – offshoring it to Wuhan, China after the Obama administration banned it in 2014.

What’s more, House Republicans think he may have been involved in a cover-up.

“We write to request a transcribed interview of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Excerpts of emails we are making public today (see enclosed Appendix I) reveal that Dr. Fauci was warned of two things: (1) the potential that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute Virology (WIV) and (2) the possibility that the virus was intentionally genetically manipulated. It is imperative we investigate if this information was conveyed to the rest of the government and whether this information would have changed the U.S. response to the pandemic,” reads a January, 2022 letter from Reps. James Comer and Jim Jordan to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.

🚨BREAKING🚨

We've released never before seen emails showing Dr. Fauci may have concealed information about #COVID19 originating from the Wuhan lab & intentionally downplayed the lab leak theory. @RepJamesComer & @Jim_Jordan want Fauci under oath. Time for answers. 1/2👇 pic.twitter.com/p8aIBJ3nom

— Oversight Committee Republicans (@GOPoversight) January 11, 2022

*

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 ZH

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.

***

A former MI6 chief and an ex-CIA officer are offering a programme for budding intelligence practitioners at Magdalene College, Cambridge – one of several UK universities with links to British intelligence.

The Cambridge Security Initiative (CSI), an organisation founded and chaired by Sir Richard Dearlove – the former chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6 – is advertising a course on spycraft run at Magdalene College, Cambridge.

The four-week course, to be held next summer and called the International Security and Intelligence Programme, addresses “various mechanisms of intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination, counter-intelligence and covert operations” as well as “cyber and information operations”.

It is co-convened by Professor David Gioe, who is the CSI’s director of studies and also an associate professor at West Point – the US military academy – and a fellow at the US Army Cyber Institute.

Gioe spent over two decades working in the US intelligence community, including roles in the FBI, CIA, Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Office of Naval Intelligence.

He worked as a CIA officer for nearly 10 years from 2001 to 2011, and was involved in “political and terrorism analysis as well as counterintelligence, overseas clandestine operations, and covert action”.

Gioe’s biography at West Point states that “he served multiple overseas tours as an operations officer in the Middle East and Europe”.

Declassified understands Gioe was a reserve naval intelligence officer between 2002 and 2016, and then transferred to become a reserve naval attaché (known as a ‘Foreign Area Officer’ in the US Department of Defense) which he remains.

His assignments included service as a Division Officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence and as a Department Head in the Joint Analysis Centre (JAC) at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire – the military intelligence centre for the US European Command.

Defence Intelligence

Gioe was until March this year assigned to the DIA’s Defense Attaché Service (DAS). The DIA, which provides military intelligence to the US Department of Defense, notes that members of the DAS are “part of an elite group of specially trained personnel who represent the US and DoD”.

“While working in a defense attaché office”, it continues, “these service members represent DoD to the host-nation government and military, assist and advise the US ambassador on military matters, and coordinate other political-military actions within their area of responsibility”.

The DIA adds: “The Defense Attaché Office plays a vital role in supporting the [sic] US interests. During a time of crisis or military contingency, the DAO is often at the center of the action”.

Gioe is also a professor at the British Academy, where he works on the “weaponisation of disinformation”. His project examines how state intelligence services harness emerging technologies and social media platforms “to shape the information environment for strategic ends”.

The British Academy’s Global Professorships programme is funded by the government’s Department Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Intelligence programme

The CSI programme is run in partnership with the Department of War Studies at King’s College, London, where Gioe is a visiting professor of intelligence and national security. King’s is known for its links to the UK and US intelligence community.

Held annually at Cambridge since 2017, the course also includes access to a conference where “attendees can expect to hear about Great Power challenges to global order, such as those offered by Russia and China”, the CSI states.

Lecturers have in recent years included former heads of MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the French Security Services, as well as the CIA Deputy Director for Operations.

The course is open to students and “practitioners with an intellectual or professional interest in statecraft and the interlocking themes of intelligence, security, defence and foreign policy”.

They are asked on application to send “a photo of yourself from the shoulders up”. The programme incurs a fee of £2,745 before accommodation costs of over £2,000.

The CSI says that it “seeks to bring the best of the Cambridge teaching and learning experience to suitably qualified participants through a Programme that offers all the main ingredients of Cambridge University life while focusing on a subject of enormous contemporary relevance”.

Dr Alan Dawson, one of the CSI’s directors, told Declassified: “Magdalene College provides housing and teaching spaces for participants in the International Security and Intelligence Programme but neither it nor the University is responsible for the design, content or management of the programme”.

He added: “The ISI Programme and Conference are geared primarily towards undergraduate and graduate students with an interest in Intelligence and Security Studies which is a growth area in academia, especially in North America and the UK”.

Neither the Magdalene College nor Cambridge University websites appear to mention the CSI or the course. Pembroke College’s website has some links to the CSI course when Dearlove served as master there after he left MI6.

Cambridge intelligence

Dearlove’s CSI, which was established in 2017 as a charity, involves a number of other intelligence-related figures.

One of the four directors of the CSI alongside Dearlove is Stefan Halper, who has been described as a “CIA operative” and who has advised four American presidents in the White House and State Department. Halper is also a Life Fellow of Magdalene College.

On CSI’s advisory board sit two former directors of GCHQ, the UK’s largest intelligence agency – Sir Iain Lobban and Sir David Omand.

Also a CSI adviser is Professor Michael Goodman, Head of War Studies and Professor of Intelligence and International Affairs at King’s College. Goodman is Gioe’s co-convener of the CSI course and has spent many years seconded to the Cabinet Office as the official historian of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Goodman, who is also a British Army reservist, manages King’s Intelligence and Security Group, whose members include David Gioe as well as Dorothea Gioe. Declassified understands Dorothea Gioe is David Gioe’s partner, who spent seven years in the CIA and is also a former Intelligence and Analytics Lead for the Cambridge Security Initiative.

Universities

Goodman and David Omand have written, in a paper published by the CIA, that the agency has long recognised “how beneficial it would be to use universities as a means of intelligence training”.

The paper, from 2008, added that “Exposure to an academic environment, such as the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, can add several elements that may be harder to provide within the government system”.

Other UK universities have connections to British intelligence. For example, the University of Buckingham’s Centre for Security and Intelligence (BUCSIS) was co-founded and is managed by Julian Richards, a former MI6 officer.

Dearlove has since 2014 been chair of the board of trustees at the University of London. He is said to have been recruited at Cambridge in the 1960s.

The university is notorious for the Cambridge spy ring of former students in the 1930s who became Soviet spies, most notably Kim Philby. MI5 and MI6 subsequently engaged in a massive effort to cover up the activities of the spy ring and avoid embarrassing prosecutions.

The current master of Magdalene College, who has been in post since 2020, is Sir Christopher Greenwood, a former judge at the International Court of Justice.

Greenwood – then professor of international law at the London School of Economics – was asked by the Blair government in 2002 to examine the arguments over the legality of using force against Saddam Hussein, which culminated in the invasion of Iraq the following year.

Greenwood concluded that the use of force was justified under certain circumstances.

Dearlove was head of MI6 at the time and sat on the Joint Intelligence Committee which approved the Blair government’s misleading dossiers – including the notorious ‘45-minute’ claim – on Saddam Hussein’s weapons programme before the invasion of Iraq.

Operations

Before becoming chief of MI6 from 1999-2004, Dearlove served as Director of Operations in a 38-year career in the agency.

He went on to earn more than £2m from his role on the board of American oil and gas company, Kosmos Energy, and is also Chair of Ascot Underwriting at Lloyd’s of London and senior adviser to insurance corporation AIG.

Dearlove made widely-covered public interventions during the 2017 and 2019 UK election campaigns warning that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was a “danger” and “threat” to Britain’s national security.

Cambridge Student Union (SU) told Declassified: “Cambridge SU is committed to the demilitarisation of the University of Cambridge and its Colleges. We feel it is inappropriate for Magdalene College to host a course run by a former SIS Chief and a former US intelligence officer.

“This feeds into a broader trend in which the University collaborates with and thus legitimises the arms and defence industries, which fuel war and violence internationally. We will continue to lobby against events such as these because, while the University of Cambridge and its Colleges endorse them, it will never be a safe environment for marginalised students”.

David Gioe and Magdalene College were approached for comment.

*

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.

Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

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.

***

Retired General Michel Yakovleff went on French television on December 11 and called for attacking Russia’s Victory Parade.

The parade, held in Red Square on May 9, celebrates Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany. Russia lost close to 30 million people during the war, beginning with Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia and Eastern Europe by Hitler. For Russians, the parade signifies the defeat of an exceptionally vicious external enemy determined to exterminate them as subhumans, Untermenschen. The very same mentality and desire to slaughter Russians is alive and well 80 years hence in ultranationalist Ukraine.

Yakovleff appears to be rather dim-witted for a general. He apparently doesn’t realize that an attack on the Victory Parade would undoubtedly result in a patriotic desire on the part of the Russian population to once again defend the motherland from vicious external enemies—namely NATO, the USG, and its European satraps—all dedicated to taking down Russia and immiserating millions of its citizens.

Of course, this will not happen. Not again.

Mr. Yakovleff is lost in his violent fantasies, delusions going back years. In 2014, he declared the beginning of WWIII.

Meanwhile, the officiel du gouvernement, France’s Emmanuel Macron, is also living in a fantasy world of his own design. “Ultimately, there will be a need for negotiations with Russia, Macron says. He has also insisted that the terms of any talks must be decided by the Ukrainian themselves,” reports the AP.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made it perfectly clear negotiations will not occur until Russia leaves Ukraine and abandons its “annexed” territories. In other words, a return to the ultranationalist status quo—ethnic cleansing and killing of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk.

“The only way to find a solution would be through negotiations.”

French President Emmanuel Macron says he believes the only way to end the conflict is a peace deal that is acceptable to Ukraine.https://t.co/kk5MW94zgx pic.twitter.com/hnpl4zQ9SC

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) December 5, 2022

Russia has repeatedly spelled out the objectives of its SMO. First, to disarm Ukraine, force its neutrality and prevent a NATO foothold, and second, to eliminate the indiscriminate murder of civilians in eastern Ukraine by ultranationalist Banderites.

Forget the silly and destructive portrayal of Russians as Hun-like rapists and killers. Facts on the ground (ignored in the West) reveal that characterization more accurately reflects the mentality and behavior of Ukraine’s Bandera worshipping neo-Nazis.

TIME magazine, with its history of cooperation with the CIA, lately put the green t-shirt guy on its cover. “Volodymyr Zelensky portrays himself as a ‘man of the people’, especially now that he can wear green combat fatigues on Ukrainian and international TV. But looking into this election in 2019 and the position of ordinary workers in the Ukrainian economy presents a different picture: he has always been more ‘a man of the oligarchs’ than a man of the people,” writes John Pickard.

The following recreation of the TIME cover is far more accurate.

Fixed it for you #UkraineNazis pic.twitter.com/1hl26boI29

— Matreshka 🇷🇺🇧🇾🇰🇿🇷🇸🇨🇦 (@MatreshkaCB) December 7, 2022

*

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

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 “free market is the globalist thought Word, the yardstick by which the democracy degree of a country is measured. But it is precisely its preachers who demonstrate how free it actually is. The situation in Italy is emblematic.

While the prices of petrol and diesel continue to rise, causing a generalized increase in the cost of living paid by all of us, NATO and the EU forbid us to buy Libyan oil and petroleum products that the Government of Benghazi offers us at a bargain price. In Benghazi – Michelangelo Severgnini shows in his documentary broadcast by Byoblu on December 12 – petrol costs 3 euro cents per liter, about 60 times less than in Italy. 

At the same time, we are forbidden to buy gas that Russia offers us at prices that are extremely lower than the ones we pay on the basis of quotations determined by the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, controlled by a powerful US financial group. The start-up of a new gas field in Western Siberia with a capacity of more than 320 billion cubic meters of recoverable reserves, takes Russian gas production to a record level.

Russia is increasingly exporting its cheap gas to China, India, and other Asian countries, as it is impossible exporting it to Europe. The European Union is moving to block after the Nord Stream sabotage the only gas pipeline that still carries Russian gas to Europe, up to Hungary and Austria, through the Balkans. At the summit in Tirana between the EU and the Western Balkans, Ursula Von der Leyen declared that the countries of this region must “get out of Putin’s gas blackmail“, i.e. block the arrival of Russian gas in Europe through the Balkans. “The Western Balkans – enjoined Von der Leyen in a threatening tone – “must decide which side they are on: either with the European Union or 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).

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.

***

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a law to abolish the Kiev District Administrative Court, a court which had no hesitation in prosecuting neo-Nazis. Zelensky also boasted that he is a leader who fights corruption internally whilst also fighting Russian troops. However, it appears that this latest scheme is a way for the British to dominate Ukraine’s judicial system.

“The history of reforms continues. Even in times of war,” Zelensky said on December 14 after announcing the end of the Kiev District Administrative Court, chaired by Pavlo Vovk, a judge that the White House had its sights on for a long time already.

The US Department of State, in a report titled Combating Global Corruption and Human Rights Abuses, published a list of sanctioned people and organisations, in which the name of Pavlo Vovk appears, among many others. It is not lost that the report was published only a few days before the Ukrainian president announced the end of the Kiev District Administrative Court.

The State Department accuses the Ukrainian judge of “soliciting bribes in return for interfering in judicial and other public processes. As part of this action, two immediate family members are also designated.”

Vovk was the president of the Kiev District Administrative Court, a body that since April 2021 has attempted to liquidate the Zelensky government through a parliamentary process that had been blocked for months. In this light, The Kyiv Independent newspaper describes Vovk as “Ukraine’s most scandalous judge”.

The Biden Administration has not explained anything else about why it sanctioned this judge, whom the National Anti-Corruption Office of Ukraine accused of various crimes associated with corruption. Four other judges from the same court, in which two were close to Vovk, were also named.

Vovk was appointed to the court by the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014), who was deposed in a coup eight years ago following Maidan. At that time, the Court insisted on the illegality of the opposition to Yanukovych.

Just as importantly, the now defunct Kiev District Administrative Court was the authority that repeatedly prohibited the propagation of Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols and support in Ukraine. In June 2019, the court ordered Kiev City Council to change the name of two important streets, which since 2016 had been named after two prominent Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych.

In May 2020, the Kiev District Administrative Court prohibited the symbols of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), a Nazi formation that was made up predominantly of Ukrainian military volunteers from the Galicia region.

The Ukrainian organisation Dejure Foundation – which received financial awards in 2021 from the United Kingdom, a country that has sent millions of dollars in weapons to Ukraine already – says that “some of the decisions” by the Court “are openly pro-Russian, which threatens national security and effective attempts to counter Russian influence.”

Seemingly not satisfied with providing vast finances, weapons, and aid to Ukraine, now the UK has also promised to train Ukrainian judges in the hope of later prosecuting Russians for alleged war crimes.

“These 90 judges will go back after some really intensive training, able better to run those courts,” UK Attorney General Victoria Prentis told Sky News, adding that she will ensure potential trials are conducted “at an unprecedented scale” while the conflict continues.

According to the British media outlet, the first group of magistrates attended sessions in a secret location in Eastern Europe in early December. Over the next few months, more meetings will take place thanks to an investment of £2,500,000.

Zelensky and his wife Olena, who visited the UK in late November, have been advocating the establishment of a special court for Ukraine, which they have disingenuously compared to the Nuremberg trials. In this regard, Prentis said that all options are being considered with the Ukrainian authorities.

However, the Ukrainian president’s proposal has not been explicitly endorsed by the British government.

“But I’m also sure the international community will want to have a moment where justice is done, and seen to be done. We don’t yet know exactly what form that will take. All options are on the table,” said the Attorney General.

At the same time, the abolishment of the Kiev District Administrative Court occurs at a time when the EU is demanding that Ukraine, if it wants to become a member of the bloc, must carry out a series of political and administrative reforms to end corruption. Before the conflict broke out on February 24, according to data from liberal institutions like the Transparency International, Ukraine was the second most corrupt country in Europe.

It is unsurprising though that the “corruption” being purged only ended up being the only court willing to prosecute neo-Nazism in Ukraine. Now it appears that the UK is wanting to deepen its influence in the Ukrainian judicial system by training judges, judges which will inevitably tolerate neo-Nazism, unlike the court that Zelensky abolished.

*

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 National File

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.

***

On December 5 yet another transitional political framework was signed in the Republic of Sudan by the military regime and the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), the broad-based democracy organization inside the country.

The agreement is designed to break the existing stalemate which has been in existence since the military coup which removed former President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in April 2019.

This new accord was met with much skepticism and angry protests from various political tendencies throughout Sudan. The Resistance Committees which have organized street demonstrations over the last four years have categorically rejected the new agreement saying it does not bring about the removal of the military as the dominant political and economic force inside the country.

The Sudanese Communist Party has condemned the new agreement while continuing to call for mass mobilizations to end military rule. “No negotiation, no partnership, no legitimacy” with the military institution has been the rallying cry of the Resistance Committees and the Communist Party.

In addition, several Islamic parties have opposed the deal as well. These parties want a greater role for religious leaders within the overall structures of governance.

Violence and mass arrests have occurred since the outbreak of protests over high food and fuel prices during December 2018. Massive demonstrations and strikes prompted the military to seize power in the hopes that the unrest would subside.

However, the democracy movement which includes many youth and workers continued to demand national elections and the departure of the military after April 2019. A sit-in outside the Ministry of Defense in the capital of Khartoum continued until it was broken up in June of the same year resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people at the hands of the Sudanese security forces encompassing the military and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

Negotiations led by the African Union (AU) provided the initial political framework creating a Transitional Sovereign Council which included both the military and the pro-democracy leaders tasked with preparing the country for multi-party elections. Nonetheless, since the June 2019 transitional agreement peace and social stability has not been achieved.

The initial transitional framework which ushered in the Sovereign Council was supposed to last for 39 months. In that time period the military would first serve as the Chair of the Sovereign Council, later relinquishing control to a civilian.

Before the civilian leadership could take hold of the Sovereign Council, the military dissolved the body and arrested the interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok on October 25, 2021. The latest coup did not bring a halt to the mass demonstrations and rebellions against the military leadership of General Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan and Commander of the RSF Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti).

Although Hamdok was briefly reinstated as interim prime minister several weeks later, he would soon depart again realizing that the military was not committed to relinquishing power to a democratically elected civilian government in Sudan. The Central Committee of Sudan Doctors, one of the important professional groupings in the democracy movement, has reported that 120 people have died at the hands of the security forces since the October 2021 coup.

In an article published by Al Jazeera on December 6 it notes that:

“Critics fear the deal extends a lifeline to the army and the powerful paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), both of which spearheaded the putsch. Sudan’s resistance committees, which are neighborhood groups leading the street pro-democracy movement, say the deal effectively restores a partnership between political and security elites and thereby betrays the aspirations of the 120 people killed in anti-coup protests. ‘We believe that if there is no justice then the killing and raping will continue,’ said Ahmed Ismat, a spokesperson for the Khartoum south resistance committees. ‘We are just repeating the same cycle.’”

In essence the December 5 agreement does not provide definite timelines for the transition to democratic rule. Nor does the framework address the demands among the democracy movement that the military be held accountable for the brutality and deaths of people over the last four years.

The Role of the United States in Imposing the Framework

State Department envoys to Sudan and the Horn of Africa have been visiting the country over the last year desperately seeking to negotiate a solution to the political impasse. Washington does not want a revolutionary democratic government to emerge in Sudan which could challenge U.S. foreign policy in the region.

Under the previous administration of President Donald Trump, former interim Prime Minister Hamdok was pressured into making several concessions which would ensure that Khartoum remained within the western sphere of influence. During 2020, the Trump administration pressured Hamdok to recognize the State of Israel in violation of the 1958 law which mandated a boycott of Tel Aviv by Sudan.

Later the interim administration of Hamdok agreed to pay hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars to the families of people killed in terrorist attacks. These attacks did not occur in Sudan but in other African states and in the Gulf of Aden.

These concessions by Hamdok and the military leadership were designed to make Sudan eligible for renegotiating financial obligations to the banks and foreign governments along with the procurement of additional loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Sudan would be removed from the “state sponsors of terrorism” list which has been utilized as a foreign policy weapon of Washington.

This same pattern of interference and the imposition of policies which betray the interests of the majority of the Sudanese people has not been altered under President Joe Biden. The latest framework agreement was adopted largely at the aegis of the State Department.

Sudan women march against US-imposed framework (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Secretary of State Antony Blinken in the immediate aftermath of the signing of the latest agreement issued threats to anyone the U.S. believes is undermining the accord. Sanctions, which is a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy, will be leveled against anyone opposing the transitional agreement.

The Middle East Eye news website emphasized in regard to the role of the State Department:

“This was a pact to rescue Sudan’s democratic transition after the 2021 military coup, Washington argued. It didn’t matter that the deal had little popular support, and had been outright rejected by many key players. ‘We have experience of agreements signed under international pressure … none of them led to a happy ending’, said Mohamed Badawi, Sudanese political analyst. ‘Just as we used our prior visa restrictions policy against those who undermined the former civilian-led transitional government, we will not hesitate to use our expanded policy against spoilers in Sudan’s democratic transition process,’ the US secretary of state said in a statement.”

Some Armed Rebel Groups Also Reject Framework Deal

Several rebel groups which have been fighting the Sudanese central government for years are opposed to the latest agreement. These groups include the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) led by Gibril Ibrahim, who is now serving as finance minister under the military regime.

Also opposing the agreement are Mini Arko Minawi, leader of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), and Mohamed Tirik a sectional leader from the Eastern region of the country around the strategic Port of Sudan.

Interestingly enough, these armed opposition groups were supportive of the October 25 coup and have taken cabinet positions in the administration established by the military over the last year. Since December 5 these organizations have publicly criticized the framework agreement.

At a December 13 public meeting held in Khartoum, the three leaders explained their respective positions. The Middle East Eye quoted the leaders of the armed groups who said:

“Our problem with what happened in the so-called political framework is the clear hijack of the fate of the country by specific forces and individuals. So we are against this methodology, which excludes us from participation in the management of the country,’ Minawi said. ‘We believe that this way is not correct, and it will neither lead to stability nor any progress of the democratic transition. We are one of the main actors in this country … we are Sudanese like others …. This mentality has to be stopped or otherwise Sudan will never see stability,’ Ibrahim warned. Tirik, meanwhile, has closed the road linking Eastern Sudan with Khartoum, cutting the capital from Port Sudan.”

It remains to be seen whether the December 5 framework can bring stability to the oil-rich state which is a gateway to North, East and Central Africa. With the dominant role of the U.S. in the negotiations for the current agreement, there will not be a genuine democratic solution that brings together all of the legitimate forces concerned with uniting the country independent of imperialism and its allies in the region.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Sudan leaders sign new framework agreement on Dec. 5, 2022 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

FDA Records Show Significant Number of mRNA Test Rats Born with Skeletal Deformations

By Judicial Watch, December 15, 2022

Judicial Watch announced today that it received 699 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding data Moderna submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, which indicate a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine.

COVID-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries. U.S. Senator Johnson’s Roundtable

By Senator Ron Johnson, December 15, 2022

On Dec. 7, 2022, Sen. Johnson hosted a roundtable discussion, COVID-19 Vaccines: What they Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries, to shed light on the current state of knowledge surrounding the vaccine and explore the path forward. The experts and medical professionals who joined Sen. Johnson at the roundtable discussed the scientific background of the coronavirus, functionality of the vaccine, failures in the pandemic response, early treatment drugs, adverse reactions, vaccine injuries and plans for future research and response.

Israeli Election Results Shatter Illusion About the Possibility of a Two Party State

By John Kiriakou, December 14, 2022

The new Israeli government led by an enemy of peace is more right-wing, more reactionary, more nationalistically populist, and more religious than any previous government in Israeli history.

You’d Better Watch Out: The Surveillance State Is Making a List, and You’re On It

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, December 14, 2022

You’d better watch out—you’d better not pout—you’d better not cry—‘cos I’m telling you why: this Christmas, it’s the Surveillance State that’s making a list and checking it twice, and it won’t matter whether you’ve been bad or good.

Protests Spread in Peru Demanding President Pedro Castillo be Reinstated

By Abayomi Azikiwe, December 14, 2022

Unrest continued in the South American state of Peru after the December 7 impeachment of socialist President Pedro Castillo. The ousted leader remained in detention after an entire week of demonstrations and clashes between supporters and opponents of the former teacher and union leader who was just elected in a runoff vote during June 2021.

A Peek at Russia’s Response to the G7 Oil Price Cap

By Tsvetana Paraskova, December 14, 2022

Russian authorities have drafted a decree banning the sale of Russian crude oil to buyers part of the Price Cap Coalition or if the purchase is limited by the G7/EU price cap, as a measure to counter the $60 a barrel price ceiling set by the West, Russian daily Vedomosti reported on Tuesday, quoting a source with knowledge of the draft and government sources.

If They Get the Opportunity, They Will Transform Our Society Into a Dystopian Hellscape

By Michael Snyder, December 14, 2022

If the elite get their way, our world will eventually look far more bizarre than any science fiction author ever imagined.  If you haven’t figured it out by now, the elite are control freaks, and they are envisioning a future in which they are in control of all of our lives from birth to death.

‘Challenge the U.S. Justifications for This War’

By John Parker, December 14, 2022

Talk given at “Pushback Against Empire,” a holiday party and fundraiser for CovertAction Magazine in New York City on Dec. 1. CovertAction, founded by CIA whistleblower Phillip Agee in 1978, is one of the few publications that has published information exposing the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine, including John Parker’s eyewitness reports from Donbass for Struggle-La Lucha.

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the COVID Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence Is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 14, 2022

The report is a bombshell. The vaccine was launched in mid-December 2020. By the end of February 2021, “Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”

Many People Fully Vaccinated for COVID Are Now Going Blind

By Ethan Huff, December 14, 2022

We have heard all about the many cases of myocarditis and pericarditis post-injection, as well as recipients repeatedly testing “positive” for the virus even after doing the deed. But there is another concerning side effect occurring in the “fully vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) that is rarely mentioned: blindness.

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.

***

For the first time in over 30 years, and in a tightly-controlled presentation, the United States unveiled a new strategic bomber on Friday. The nuclear-capable B-21 Raider is expected to enter service in 2027 and is seen as a major part of the States’ response to military buildup by China. The estimated cost was also revealed: The plane’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, can expect $700m per aircraft. Many other companies will also profit from the project, with the arms production company stating that 400 suppliers are involved in the project. One of these is Raytheon Technologies – whose subsidiary Pratt & Whitney will be manufacturing the engines for the new stealth jet.

Both Northrop Grumman and Raytheon feature on the ranking of the world’s largest arms-production companies. Despite a six percent fall in arms sales for Northrop Grumman, the aerospace and defensetechnology firm generated $30 billion in 2021, making it the fourth largest in the world by this measure. Raytheon’s arms sales grew by nine percent to $42 billion, putting it behind only Lockheed Martin with $60 billion.

As a glance at this infographic reveals, U.S. companies dominate the top of the list. Two Chinese companies also make it though – having both posted strong growth in 2021, Norinco and AVIC had combined arms sales of over $40 billion last year. According to the source, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), arms sales of the world’s largest 100 arms-producing companies grew by 1.9 percent to $592 billion in 2021, despite supply chain challenges.

*

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: U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Alexander Cook

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.

***

On Dec. 7, 2022, Sen. Johnson hosted a roundtable discussion, COVID-19 Vaccines: What they Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries, to shed light on the current state of knowledge surrounding the vaccine and explore the path forward. The experts and medical professionals who joined Sen. Johnson at the roundtable discussed the scientific background of the coronavirus, functionality of the vaccine, failures in the pandemic response, early treatment drugs, adverse reactions, vaccine injuries and plans for future research and response. To read the press release about this event click here.

The data

The following chart was shown during the above roundtable discussion. This update chart of previously shown data was gathered from FDA and CDC worldwide data including data from the FDA FAERS System (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System) the CDC VAERS system (Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System)  The VAERS chart is updated with the most recently data available.

COVID-19: A Second Opinion

On Jan. 24, 2022, Sen. Johnson held his second panel discussion on COVID-19 with world renowned doctors and medical experts who provided a different perspective on the global pandemic response. The roundtable, COVID-19: A Second Opinion, discusses the current state of knowledge of early treatment, hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term.

The data

The following chart was shown during the panel discussion. The data was gathered from FDA and CDC worldwide data including data from the FDA FAERS System (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System) the CDC VAERS system (Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System)  The VAERS chart is updated with the most recently data available.

Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates

On Nov. 2, 2021, Sen. Johnson held a panel discussion on vaccine mandates and the consequences and the lack of compassion and response from federal health agencies to those who have experienced adverse events from the COVID-19 vaccine.  The panel included doctors, medical researchers, and vaccine injured.

The data

The following charts were shown during the Expert Panel.  The data was gathered from the CDC website and CDC’s early warning system called VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System.  The VAERS chart is updated with the most recently data available.

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.

***

Judicial Watch announced today that it received 699 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding data Moderna submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, which indicate a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine. The documents also reveal Moderna elected not to conduct a number of standard pharmacological studies on the laboratory test animals.

Judicial Watch obtained the records through a September 2021 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) failed to respond to a June 2021, FOIA request biodistribution studies and related data for the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson& Johnson COVID vaccines (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:21-cv-02418)).

The records include a “Nonclinical Overview” prepared by Moderna and submitted to the FDA for approval of its vaccine revealing that a number of rats were born with skeletal deformations, known as “wavy ribs” and “rib nodules,” to mothers injected with the mRNA vaccine. The study dismissed the anomalies as “not considered adverse:”

mRNA-1273-related variations in skeletal examination included statistically significant increases in the number of F1 rats with 1 or more wavy ribs and 1 or more rib nodules. Wavy ribs appeared in 6 fetuses and 4 litters with a fetal prevalence of 4.03% and a litter prevalence of 18.2%. Rib nodules appeared in 5 of those 6 fetuses. Skeletal variations are structural changes that do not impact development or function of a developing embryo, are considered reversible, and often correlate with maternal toxicity and/or lack of other indicators of developmental toxicity (Carney and Kimmel 2007). Maternal toxicity in the form of clinical observations was observed for 5 days following the last dose (GD 13), correlating with the most sensitive period for rib development in rats (GDs 14 to 17). Furthermore, there were no other indicators of mRNA-1273-related developmental toxicity observed, including delayed ossification; therefore, these common skeletal variations were not considered adverse.

(Non-adverse deformations receive a different perspective in the July 2009 Environmental Research article, “Dose–response relationships of rat fetal skeleton variations: Relevance for risk assessment:”

(Whether or not a substance-induced increase in the incidence of fetal skeleton variations should be taken into account for human risk assessment is a long-standing controversial issue. It has been argued that chemical-produced increases in variations are not to be considered for risk assessment because they are “unlikely to adversely affect survival or health.” The counter argument is that even not being overtly adverse and conveying no apparent selective disadvantage, a treatment-induced increase in the occurrence of variations means that the chemical agent has the potential to perturb skeleton development. According to this view, under a different condition of exposure, or in another species, this perturbation of normal bone formation may give rise to a different and more severe outcome.))

A “Pharmacokinetics Written Summary” marked “Confidential,” indicates that the information it contains is related to the mRNA-1273 (Moderna vaccine) strain, however, much of the data comes from work with mRNA-1647. The study states:

The results of a biodistribution study of mRNA-1647 support the development of mRNA-1273.

*

The biodistribution of mRNA-1647 was evaluated in a non-Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), single-dose, intramuscular (IM) injection study in Sprague Dawley rats…. mRNAs that are within an LNP of the same composition (e.g., mRNA-1273 and mRNA-1647) are expected to distribute similarly.

The “Summary” indicates:

• No absorption studies with mRNA-1273 [used in Moderna’s COVID vaccine] have been performed.
• No metabolism studies with mRNA-1273 have been performed.
• No excretion studies with mRNA-1273 have been performed.
• No PK [pharmacokinetic] studies with mRNA-1273 have been performed.
• No other PK studies with mRNA-1273 have been performed.

(According to PubMed.gov, “Pharmacokinetics studies are performed to clarify the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drug candidates…[and] are required for establishing the efficacy and safety in humans.”)

A separate study submitted to the FDA sponsored by Moderna Therapeutics Inc. and conducted by Charles River Laboratories in Montreal, Canada is titled “A Single Dose Intramuscular Injection Tissue Distribution Study of mRNA-1647 in Male Sprague-Dawley Rats” in which “[t]he objective … was to determine the tissue distribution of mRNA-1647,” as opposed to mRNA-1273 used in Moderna’s COVID vaccine.

In one appendix to the study, a “clarification” was issued in the toxicokinetic report regarding the half-life of mRNA injected into the rats, noting: “The average value of terminal half-life for the muscle (i.e. injection site) in Sections 4.2 and 5 of the toxicokinetic report should be read 14.9 [hours] instead of 8.39 [hours] based on the results of the toxicokinetic evaluation.”

The study further notes that the wording of the conclusion was modified to read, “The half-life … of mRNA-1647 was reliably estimated in muscle (site of injection), proximal popliteal and axillary distal lymph nodes, and spleen with average values for all construct t½ [half-life] of 14.9 8.39, 34.8, 31.1 and 63.0 hours, respectively.” [Emphasis in original]

Another appendix, titled “Summary Mean (±SE) mRNA-1647 Pharmacokinetic Parameters in Sprague-Dawley Rat in Plasma and Tissues Following 100μg Intramuscular Injection Administration of mRNA-1647 on Day 1,” reveals that, in addition to distributing to the muscle site, lymph nodes and spleen, the mRNA particles also distributed to the bone marrow, brain, eyes, heart, liver, lungs, stomach and testes.

A separate study indicates that the mRNA-1647 particles injected into rats were “observed in muscle (i.e. site of injection), followed by proximal (popliteal) lymph nodes, axillary lymph nodes and spleen, suggesting the mRNA-1647 distribution to the circulation by lymph flow.” (The mRNA was delivered via “lipid nanoparticle dispersion.”)

“These previously hidden records about the COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy studies raise a number of disturbing questions,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The fact that it has taken a federal lawsuit to get access to this material is yet another scandal.”

Through FOIA Judicial Watch has uncovered a substantial amount of information regarding COVID-19 issues:

• In October 2020, Judicial Watch received FDA records that detailed pressure for COVID-19 vaccine booster approval and use.
• NIH records revealed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also show National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’slack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
• HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.
• NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
• HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci ” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high level commitment from China.”
• HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.
• HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.
• University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) records show the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. James W. Le Duc warned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the COVID issue by Congress.
• HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.
• Records from the Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) reveal safety lapses and violations at U.S. biosafety laboratories that conduct research on dangerous agents and toxins.
• HHS records include emails between National Institutes of Health (NIH) then-Director Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.
• HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.
• Fauci emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.

*

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 Judicial Watch

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.

Revised on December 12, 2022

***

Sucking the Qatar Emirate into becoming a “Major Non-Nato Ally” and  “Friend of America” is intent upon eventually appropriating and/or exerting control through military means, corruption, regime change or otherwise over:

THE LARGEST MARITIME GAS RESERVES ON THE PLANET. 

***

Qatar: “Major Non-NATO Ally”

On January 31st, 2022, less than a month prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Biden designated Qatar as a “Major Non-NATO ally” of the United States.

Prior to the Ukraine war, Qatar had been pressured to join the US-NATO consensus against Russia as a “close ally”. In turn, Russia had been excluded by FIFA from participating in the Qatar World Cup. 

President Joe Biden informed the media prior to his White House meeting with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar, that Qatar had accepted to become a “Major Non-NATO Ally” (MNNA).

The MNNA appointment is granted to “close allies” which are not members of NATO but which have “a strategic working relationship” with the U.S. Military. According to the US State Department the “Major Non-NATO Ally” (MNNA) designation 

“is a powerful symbol of the close relationship the United States shares with those countries and demonstrates our deep respect for the friendship for the countries to which it is extended.” (emphasis added)

Why was Qatar invited to become a Close Ally of America? 

President Biden had been informed and was fully aware that Russia would be invading Ukraine in the course of the month of February 2022. (See NYT report below)

Biden’s January 31, 2022 statement raised the issue of  America’s alliance with Qatar (which owns the World’s largest maritime gas reserves together with  Iran), while at the same time addressing how a possible Russian invasion could affect natural gas supplies in Europe:

“President Biden said Monday [January 31, 2022] that he would name Qatar as a “major non-NATO ally” of the United States, a designation that will clear the way for greater security cooperation and investment in the Gulf nation at a time when Mr. Biden is seeking help boosting natural gas supplies in Europe.

The president is eager to reassure European nations that they will not suffer natural gas shortages if a war between Ukraine and Russia breaks out in the weeks ahead. Russia is one of the largest suppliers of natural gas to Germany and other countries in western Europe.  …

I am notifying Congress that I will designate Qatar as a major non-NATO ally to reflect the importance of our relationship,” Mr. Biden said.” (NYT, emphasis added)

There is something “fishy” regarding the appointment of Qatar (a small country with about 300,000 citizens) to the status of a “major non-NATO ally”(MNNA).

On Behalf of the Pentagon?

Against whom? 

“Military Aid” to Qatar, America’s  New “Major Non-NATO Ally”

Exactly ten months later (following Biden’s contentious January 31st statement), coinciding with “Day Ten” of the FIFA World Cup, the Pentagon entered into a military cooperation agreement with its “Novel” Major Non-NATO Ally, namely the Emirate of Qatar.

A one billion dollar deal was announced for the purchase of sophisticated drone equipment to be used by Doha against an “unnamed foreign enemy”.

The US Department of Defense (the DOD’s DSCA) announcement  pointed to …”a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Qatar” of a sophisticated counter drone apparatus described as the:

“Fixed Site-Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft System Integrated Defeat System (FS-LIDS)”.

A “System of Systems” for a modest “estimated cost of $1 billion”.

The US military industrial complex is involved, with trainers, military advisors and consultants to be stationed in Qatar. The contractors are Raytheon Technologies, Scientific Research Corporation (SRC), and Northrop Grumman, which will be collaborating with the Emirate’s military.

It is all for a good cause. “Improve the security of a friendly country [Qatar]”. According to the Pentagon’s DSCA:

“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country [Qatar] that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in [West Asia],”

Is this one billion dollar sale of anti-drone systems to Qatar intended to threaten Iran? Once installed, who will be pulling the strings?

What are Washington’s “Foreign Policy and National Security Objectives” Pertaining to Qatar?

QUESTION: Is it a ploy to create divisions within the structure of Qatar’s military alliance and partnership with Iran as well as trigger the entry of U.S. military personnel, advisers, etc. into the midst of the Emirati government and military?

ANSWER: There is an unspoken strategic objective behind this alleged military alliance with Qatar.

It’s “NATURAL GAS”. 

Sucking the Qatar Emirate into becoming a “Major Non-Nato Ally” and  “Friend of America” is intent upon eventually appropriating and/or exerting control through military means, corruption, regime change or otherwise over:

THE LARGEST MARITIME GAS RESERVES ON THE PLANET. 

The South Pars North Dome: the Planet’s Largest Maritime Gas Reserves

Qatar is not only a military ally of Iran, the emirate is a Partner in the development of the World’s largest Maritime Gas Reserves, jointly owned in an agreement between Iran and Qatar.

Carefully examine the data (Table Below). The South Pars North Dome reserves far surpass all major maritime gas reserves Worldwide combined held by Russia, Iran, Netherlands, Norway, Egypt, Turkmenistan, US, etc.

It has recoverable reserves of 35,000 km3. Compare that to the 25 largest maritime gas reserves (See Table below)

Needless to say, these joint Qatar-Iran gas reserves are strategic in regards to the ongoing energy crisis.

Source of Table wikipedia

Qatar and Iran share the largest maritime natural gas base in the world.  From an economic and energy point of view it’s absolutely strategic. They are allies, they are friends.

The U.S. foreign policy objective is to ultimately destroy and undermine that “friendship” with Iran which is highly valued and supported by Qatari citizens.

The export of gas from South Pars North Dome transits through Iran, Turkey and Russia.

Qatar, Russia and Iran are the largest holders Worldwide of  gas reserves. In 2009 they reached an agreement to create a ‘gas troika’, a trilateral gas cooperation entity including the development of joint projects.

A large number of countries including South Korea, India, Japan, China are importing NLG from Qatar.

In recent developments (November 27, 2022) ‘QatarEnergy signed a 27-year deal to supply China’s Sinopec with liquefied natural gas”.

Qatar has also a strategic alliance with China.

Washington’s objective under the disguise of America’s “Major Non-NATO Alliance” with Qatar is to:

–Break the Qatar-Iran Partnership

–Exclude Iran from the Joint Maritime Gas Field

-Exert US Control over the Maritime Gas Field in the Persian Gulf

-Weaken and Disable the “Gas Troika” (Russia, Iran, Qatar)

-Create Chaos in the Global Energy Market, 

-Undermine the Trade in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) to Numerous Countries

And it’s taking place in The Qatar Emirate. Will it Succeed? 

“Sleeping with The Enemy”: The Al-Udeid Air Force Base

Flashback to June 2019

In late June 2019, after Iran shot down a U.S. drone , US Central Command (CENTCOM) on the orders of President Trump, confirmed the deployment of US Air Force F-22 stealth fighters from the Al-Udeid airbase in Qatar.

At the last minute, the air raid was cancelled. President Trump “called off the swiftly planned military strikes on Iran” while intimating in his tweet that “any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force.”

Smoking Gun?

The media coverage of Trump’s June 2019 plan to attack Iran, failed to acknowledge that the Al-Udeid air force base in Qatar (America’s largest Air Force Base in the Middle East and Forward Headquarters of US Central Command) from which these U.S. air raids were to be launched was (in 2019) from a strategic standpoint located in enemy territory.

The military and intelligence pundits and advisers were silent on the matter, they didn’t take the trouble to examine the geopolitical implications pertaining to the location of America’s Al Udeid Air Force Base.

Al Udeid Base

The Role of US Central Command

USCENTCOM is the theater-level Combatant Command for operations in the broader Middle East region extending from Afghanistan to North Africa. It is the most important Combat Command of the Unified Command structure. It has led and coordinated several major Middle East war theaters including Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003). It is also involved in Syria.

In the case of a war with Iran, operations in the Middle East would be coordinated by US Central Command with headquarters in Tampa, Florida in permanent liaison with its forward command headquarters in Qatar.

“The base is technically Qatari property playing host to the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command.”

With 11,000 US military personnel, it is described as “one of the U.S. military’s most enduring and most strategically positioned operations on the planet”   (Washington Times). Al-Udeid also hosts the US Air Force’s 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, considered to be “America’s most vital overseas air command”.

Since the May 2017 split of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Qatar has become a staunch ally of both Iran and Turkey (which despite its role in NATO is also an ally of Iran and Russia).

From a legal standpoint, the Al-Udeid base is owned by the Qatar Emirate Air Force.

In 2019, Qatar was an ally of Iran and the Al-Udeid base was in enemy territory.

Following Biden’s January 31st 2022 announcement, Qatar’s “Major Non-NATO Ally” status signifies that the Al-Udeid Base is now located in the territory of a “close ally” of the U.S. 

The underlying objective is to disrupt enemy military alliances, destabilize the Iran-Qatar Maritime Gas Partnership as well undermine the trade in NLG to the detriment of Western Europe.

Qatar’s status as a “close ally” of US-NATO also provides a potential stepping stone towards a full fledged war against Iran?

Has “Sleeping with the Enemy” become the Mainstay of US Foreign Policy?

The US is sleeping with Turkey, a military heavyweight in NATO which just so happens to be operating  Russia’s S-400 air defense system. Turkey is a Double Speak, de facto ally of Russia.

Several allies of the US have adopted Russia’s S-400 defense system including Saudi Arabia, India, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt. The adoption of the S-400 implies de facto military cooperation with the Russian military.

What we are dealing with are complex, unstable and contradictory cross-cutting coalitions which could lead to military escalation. Reminiscent of World War I, shifting alliances and the structure of military coalitions are crucial determinants of history.

Today’s military alliances, including “cross-cutting coalitions” as well as “sleeping with the enemy” are equally dangerous, markedly different and exceedingly more complex than those pertaining to World War I, -i.e  the confrontation between “The Triple Entente” and “the Triple Alliance”.

***

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.

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 new Israeli government led by an enemy of peace is more right-wing, more reactionary, more nationalistically populist, and more religious than any previous government in Israeli history.

I had the good fortune during the last week of October and the first week of November to be in Israel to cover the Israeli election, its fifth if the last four years. I call this “good fortune” because it was a wakeup call for me and for any other American who still hangs on to that quaint, but utterly failed notion of a two-party state. But I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m going to begin on November 3, my next-to-last day in Jerusalem.

I was in Israel at the request of Sputnik News. The network wanted somebody to go from polling place to polling place to talk to Israelis of all political persuasions, as well as the handful of Israeli Muslims eligible to vote. I did that all around East and West Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Tel Aviv. By Thursday, I had done pretty much all the interviews I needed to do, leaving me with about five free hours to see the sites in Jerusalem that I hadn’t yet seen.

I climbed the Mount of Olives, visited the Garden of Gethsemane, stopped in at the Tomb of the Virgin Mary and a handful of other spots. I even took at look at former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s humble grave. I was pretty much done after three hours, so I decided to stop by a Palestinian pottery cooperative and buy something to take home with me. Google Maps told me to go all the way down from the Mount of Olives into the Kidron Valley, then up the back of the Temple Mount to the Iron Gate, the entrance to Jerusalem’s Old City that is closest to the Dome of the Rock, the third holiest site in Islam.

The Dome of the Rock. [Source: neshamah.net]

I’m 58 years old and 30 pounds overweight. So when I reached the Iron Gate, I decided to take a breather on a bench there. A woman from Brooklyn was also there and we chatted about the things we had seen in Jerusalem. The Iron Gate was busy, with mostly Palestinians going about their business, carrying fruits, vegetables, and other recently-purchased goods into the Old City. But there was one young Palestinian man, holding a small box, standing in the gate. Three Israeli police officers, standing about 10 feet away, approached him to ask what he was doing. The woman from Brooklyn and I were about 25 feet away.

As soon as the police officers reached the young man, he pulled a knife out of the box and in what seemed like one easy, fluid move, stabbed all three of them in the stomach, just under their bulletproof vests. Two fell to the ground, while a third pushed the Palestinian to the ground. Once he was down, the police officer drew his gun and shot the man in the head, killing him instantly. The woman from Brooklyn turned to me and said calmly, “My brain can’t process what my eyes just saw.” I responded, “Let’s get the hell out of here.” I dashed across the walkway onto the grounds of the Rockefeller Museum of Archeology, coming out on the other side and returning to my hotel.

Later, the Israeli media reported that the attack was one of four coordinated attacks in East Jerusalem, all of which were carried out at the same time. The three police officers in the attack I witnessed were only lightly wounded. The Palestinian I saw was the only person killed. Interestingly, on the Israeli news, only other Israelis were interviewed. There were no Palestinians. One witness said dramatically of Palestinians in general, “They hate us more than they love life itself.”

That witness, I believe, utterly missed the point of what happened. It’s not an issue of who hates whom more, or of who loves life less. It’s an issue of an oppressed people beaten so down over so many generations that many of them would rather be dead than to live under the yoke of Israeli occupation. It really is as simple as that. And the most recent example of the fallout from this occupation is the result of Israel’s November 1 national election.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog during the second week of November invited Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new Israeli government. This wasn’t a surprise. The Israeli election came down to two questions: Do you love Bibi or do you hate him? More people loved him than hated him.

Netanyahu has a reputation as being a superior politician, and he is highly skilled at forging alliances with other Israeli political parties, particularly far-right, racist, and Zionist parties. It’s that success that has put Palestinians in a hopeless position.

Netanyahu, of course, is well-known for his hatred of Palestinians. One only needs to look at the number of military actions against Gaza during his tenure. It has been Netanyahu who has overseen an unprecedented increase in the number of Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinians land. And it was Netanyahu who, during the Obama Administration, chose to turn against his Democratic supporters for even hinting that they preferred to see peace talks with the Palestinians.

Jewish settlements in the West Bank. [Source: newsmax.com]

That’s all in the past now. But the present and near future will be even worse. Several of Netanyahu’s rumored cabinet choices so far for his new government are positively alarming, and the appointments portend violence to come from both sides.

Perhaps the worst is Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of the ultra-nationalistic Religious Zionist Party and the new Minister of Security. Ben-Gvir’s party won 16 seats in the new 120-seat Knesset and now has the body’s third-largest presence. Ben-Gvir will be a disaster for peace, justice, and equality. I fear a marked increase in violence because I expect Ben-Gvir to provoke it.

This is the kind of person that he is: Ben-Gvir has been arrested literally dozens of times in the past decade for hate speech and hate crimes, for pulling a gun on unarmed Palestinians, and for physically attacking Palestinians. He bragged that he kept a framed photo of terrorist Baruch Goldstein on his living room wall. Goldstein massacred 29 Palestinians in a 1994 attack that became known as the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre.

And in 1995, after Israel and the Palestinians signed the Oslo Accords, Ben-Gvir stole the hood ornament from Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s Cadillac and told the media, “We got to his car, and we’ll get to him too.” Rabin was assassinated by another Jewish extremist two weeks later.

On election night, November 1, Ben-Gvir told supporters, “We have won. The time has come for us to return to being the landlords of our country. It belongs to us.”

He also called for the forcible deportation of all Palestinians from Israel, including Palestinian Christians, and of all Jews who support peace or rapprochement with the Palestinians. And just one week ago, Ben-Gvir and Netanyahu announced jointly that Israel would legalize a West Bank settlement that had been abandoned in 2005 as part of a “disengagement law” associated with the peace process. Israeli settlers are now free to repopulate the settlement, which has been built on stolen Palestinian land.

There is no good news for peace between Israelis and Palestinians as Netanyahu puts his new government together. It will be more right-wing, more reactionary, more nationalistically populist, and more religious than any previous government in Israeli history.

Netanyahu proved long ago that he was an enemy of peace. Now he’ll be pushed even farther to the right by governmental partners who think he’s dangerously liberal. It’s going to be a rough ride for the rest of us.

*

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.

John Kiriakou was a CIA analyst and case officer from 1990 to 2004. In December 2007, John was the first U.S. government official to confirm that waterboarding was used to interrogate al-Qaeda prisoners, a practice he described as torture. Kiriakou was a former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former counter-terrorism consultant. While employed with the CIA, he was involved in critical counter-terrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but refused to be trained in so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” nor did he ever authorize or engage in such crimes. After leaving the CIA, Kiriakou appeared on ABC News in an interview with Brian Ross, during which he became the first former CIA officer to confirm the existence of the CIA’s torture program. Kiriakou’s interview revealed that this practice was not just the result of a few rogue agents, but was official U.S. policy approved at the highest levels of the government. Kiriakou is the sole CIA agent to go to jail in connection with the U.S. torture program, despite the fact that he never tortured anyone. Rather, he blew the whistle on this horrific wrongdoing. John can be reached at: [email protected].

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.

***

“He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows when you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness’ sake!”
—“Santa Claus Is Coming to Town”

You’d better watch out—you’d better not pout—you’d better not cry—‘cos I’m telling you why: this Christmas, it’s the Surveillance State that’s making a list and checking it twice, and it won’t matter whether you’ve been bad or good.

You’ll be on this list whether you like it or not.

Mass surveillance is the Deep State’s version of a “gift” that keeps on giving…back to the Deep State.

Geofencing dragnets. Fusion centers. Smart devices. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Contact tracing apps.

What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother.

Every second of every day, the American people are being spied on by a vast network of digital Peeping Toms, electronic eavesdroppers and robotic snoops.

This creepy new era of government/corporate spying—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—has been made possible by a global army of techno-tyrants, fusion centers and Peeping Toms.

Consider just a small sampling of the tools being used to track our movements, monitor our spending, and sniff out all the ways in which our thoughts, actions and social circles might land us on the government’s naughty list, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.

Tracking you based on your phone and movements:

Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. For instance, the FBI was able to use geofence data to identify more than 5,000 mobile devices (and their owners) in a 4-acre area around the Capitol on January 6. This latest surveillance tactic could land you in jail for being in the “wrong place and time.” Police are also using cell-site simulators to carry out mass surveillance of protestswithout the need for a warrant. Moreover, federal agents can now employ a number of hacking methods in order to gain access to your computer activities and “see” whatever you’re seeing on your monitor. Malicious hacking software can also be used to remotely activate cameras and microphones, offering another means of glimpsing into the personal business of a target.

Tracking you based on your DNA.

DNA technology in the hands of government officials completes our transition to a Surveillance State. If you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects. It’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.

Tracking you based on your face:

Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. Coupled with surveillance cameras that blanket the country, facial recognition technology allows the government and its corporate partners to identify and track someone’s movements in real-time. One particularly controversial software program created by Clearview AI has been used by police, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to collect photos on social media sites for inclusion in a massive facial recognition database. Similarly, biometric software, which relies on one’s unique identifiers (fingerprints, irises, voice prints), is becoming the standard for navigating security lines, as well as bypassing digital locks and gaining access to phones, computers, office buildings, etc. In fact, greater numbers of travelers are opting into programs that rely on their biometrics in order to avoid long waits at airport security. Scientists are also developing lasers that can identify and surveil individuals based on their heartbeats, scent and microbiome.

Tracking you based on your behavior:

Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations. One smart “anti-riot” surveillance system purports to predict mass riots and unauthorized public events by using artificial intelligence to analyze social media, news sources, surveillance video feeds and public transportation data.

Tracking you based on your spending and consumer activities:

With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time. Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become big business, a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit. Corporations such as Target have not only been tracking and assessing the behavior of their customers, particularly their purchasing patterns, for years, but the retailer has also funded major surveillance in cities across the country and developed behavioral surveillance algorithms that can determine whether someone’s mannerisms might fit the profile of a thief.

Tracking you based on your public activities:

Private corporations in conjunction with police agencies throughout the country have created a web of surveillance that encompasses all major cities in order to monitor large groups of people seamlessly, as in the case of protests and rallies. They are also engaging in extensive online surveillance, looking for any hints of “large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals.” Defense contractors have been at the forefront of this lucrative market. Fusion centers, $330 million-a-year, information-sharing hubs for federal, state and law enforcement agencies, monitor and report such “suspicious” behavior as people buying pallets of bottled water, photographing government buildings, and applying for a pilot’s license as “suspicious activity.”

Tracking you based on your social media activities:

Every move you make, especially on social media, is monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line. As The Interceptreported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior. This obsession with social media as a form of surveillance will have some frightening consequences in coming years. As Helen A.S. Popkin, writing for NBC News, observed, “We may very well face a future where algorithms bust people en masse for referencing illegal ‘Game of Thrones’ downloads… the new software has the potential to roll, Terminator-style, targeting every social media user with a shameful confession or questionable sense of humor.”

Tracking you based on your social network:

Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. An FBI document obtained by Rolling Stone speaks to the ease with which agents are able to access address book data from Facebook’s WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage services from the accounts of targeted individuals and individuals not under investigation who might have a targeted individual within their network. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.

Tracking you based on your car:

License plate readers are mass surveillance tools that can photograph over 1,800 license tag numbers per minute, take a picture of every passing license tag number and store the tag number and the date, time, and location of the picture in a searchable database, then share the data with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies to track the movements of persons in their cars. With tens of thousands of these license plate readers now in operation throughout the country, affixed to overpasses, cop cars and throughout business sectors and residential neighborhoods, it allows police to track vehicles and run the plates through law enforcement databases for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives. Of course, the technology is not infallible: there have been numerous incidents in which police have mistakenly relied on license plate data to capture out suspects only to end up detaining innocent people at gunpoint.

Tracking you based on your mail:

Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, which has been photographing the exterior of every piece of paper mail for the past 20 years, is also spying on Americans’ texts, emails and social media posts. Headed up by the Postal Service’s law enforcement division, the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) is reportedly using facial recognition technology, combined with fake online identities, to ferret out potential troublemakers with “inflammatory” posts. The agency claims the online surveillance, which falls outside its conventional job scope of processing and delivering paper mail, is necessary to help postal workers avoid “potentially volatile situations.”

Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from these mass spying programs as long as we’ve done nothing wrong.

Don’t believe it.

The government’s definition of a “bad” guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands—haven’t made America any safer. And they certainly aren’t helping to preserve our freedoms.

Indeed, America will never be safe as long as the U.S. government is allowed to shred the Constitution.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

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.

***

Unrest continued in the South American state of Peru after the December 7 impeachment of socialist President Pedro Castillo.

The ousted leader remained in detention after an entire week of demonstrations and clashes between supporters and opponents of the former teacher and union leader who was just elected in a runoff vote during June 2021.

There are growing demonstrations in the capital of Lima where riot police have attempted to maintain control of the city. However, outside the capital in several rural areas, unrest has become intense as farmers placed rocks on highways seeking to block government security vehicles from entering their communities.

One protester named Laura Pacheco in Lima’s San Martin Square was quoted as saying:

“We don’t agree with the way our president was ousted, with lies and trickery. [Boluarte] doesn’t deserve to be president, she hasn’t been elected by the people. We are defending our democratic rights. We don’t want to be governed by a usurper.” (See this)

Reports indicate that 2,000 riot police on December 13 blocked people from entering San Martin Square, a center of anti-coup demonstrations. These events have raised the level of discontent as people view the security forces as a key element in enforcing the coup and the ongoing detention of Castillo.

A legal appeal for the immediate release of Castillo from detention was rejected by the Peruvian Supreme Court on December 13. The parliament and judiciary has accused the former president of rebellion along with dozens of other criminal charges. Castillo and his supporters have dismissed these allegations as being politically motivated.

As the political atmosphere becomes more contentious, the recently installed President Dina Boluarte has yielded in part to one of the key demands of the protesters to hold national elections. Former President Castillo on December 7, anticipating the plans to have him impeached, sought to dissolve parliament and hold another round of elections.

Boluarte has called for elections in 2024 contradicting her earlier statements saying she wanted to remain in office to serve out the original term for Castillo which would have ended in 2026. Nonetheless, this gesture on the part of Boluarte has only aggravated the supporters of Castillo as they refuse to leave the streets in the capital and the public spaces in the rural areas.

At the same time, Boluarte has declared a state of emergency outside the Peruvian capital designed to empower the military and security forces to end protests across the copper-rich nation. Just two days after the political coup against Castillo, Boluarte made a public appearance with the military, apparently sending a signal that she would not hesitate to utilize maximum force to consolidate her power obviously in support of the landowning and mining interests.

According to a report published by the Associated Press in the wake of the killing of two youth by the security forces which prompted thousands of people to come out and demonstrate:

“The anger of Peruvians against their government is nowhere more visible than in Andahuaylas, a remote rural Andean community where the poor have struggled for years and where voters’ support helped elect now-ousted President Pedro Castillo, himself a peasant like them…. Demonstrators across rural communities, including Andahuaylas, continued to call on President Dina Boluarte to resign and schedule general elections to replace her and all members of Congress. They also want authorities to free Castillo, who was detained Wednesday (Dec. 7) when he was ousted by lawmakers after he sought to dissolve Congress ahead of an impeachment vote.”

In Andahuaylas, where Castillo received 80% of the popular vote during 2021, the people were hopeful that the issues concerning their class and social interests would be addressed. Unfortunately, the Castillo government faced the same type of racism and bias experienced on a daily basis by the people of this region of the country.

Castillo had promised in the 2021 campaign a redrafting of the Peruvian constitution, which has not been updated in nearly three decades when in 1993 during the government of Alberto Fujimori, the repressive former president whose daughter, Keiko, was defeated by Castillo.

One person was killed in southern Peru as demonstrators blocked access to the international airport located in Arequipa. The runway at the airport was occupied delaying operations for five hours on December 12.

Castillo Issues Defiant Letter from Detention

The ousted leader in a communique issued on twitter from inside a detention facility categorically rejected the coup against him as illegal and unconstitutional. He accused the right-wing of being behind the ascendancy of Boluarte and that he remained the only legitimate president of the country until new elections were held.

A transcript of the letter read in part that:

“Dear great and patient Peruvian people. I, Pedro Castillo, the same who 16 months ago was elected by all of you to serve as constitutional president of the Republic, speak to you in the most difficult moment of my government, humiliated, incommunicado, mistreated and kidnapped, still clothed with your struggle, with the majesty of the sovereign people, but also infused by the glorious spirit of our ancestors. I speak to you to reiterate that I am unconditionally faithful to the popular and constitutional mandate that I hold as president, and I will not resign or abandon my high and sacred functions.”

Castillo referred to Boluarte as a usurper and that she represented the “snot and slobber of the coup-mongering right.” Boluarte, who was the running mate of Castillo during the 2021 campaign on the Peru Libre Party slate, has apparently abandoned his social vision of a renewed political system in the country. Both Castillo and Boluarte are no longer members of Peru Libre due to ideological and political differences.

The former president reiterated that he remains committed to the impoverished and oppressed people of Peru and would not acquiesce to the dictates of his successor and the security forces. His sentiments were echoed among many in Peru who accused Boluarte and anti-Castillo elements in parliament of being out of touch with the majority of people inside the country.

Resistance to the Coup Spreads Rapidly

Since December 7, the opposition to the coup has continued to intensify around Peru. The unrest has aggravated the already worsening economic crisis in the country.

Inflationary pressures which are plaguing capitalist states internationally have had a profound impact on Peru. At the same time, a fifth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic is now sweeping the nation.

In a report published by the Venezuelan-based Telesur, it emphasizes the growing uncertainty in the country, noting:

“Peruvians continue to intensify their protests without waning their demand that former President Castillo be released. Amid a media siege that seeks to prevent the dissemination of what is actually going on in Peru, social organizations took to the streets of Cusco to perform an indefinite strike against President Dina Boluarte and Congress.’They hold Congress responsible for the situation the country is going through,’ independent outlet Wayka reported, showing protests where people forcefully reject lawmakers, whom they describe as lazy and indecent. ‘Thousands of people marched in downtown Cusco demanding a Constituent Assembly, the closure of Congress, and a deep political reform,’ journalist Clarys Cardenas tweeted. ‘They also reject the state of emergency in the Arequipa, Ica and Apurimac regions, where there is strong police repression,’ she added as the protests raged even on Monday night.”

On December 13, the Peruvian Corporation of Airports and Commercial Aviation (CORPAC) announced the closure of the Cusco international airport while requesting that the security forces be deployed to protect the facility. As noted before in Arequipa, the Alfredo Rodriguez Ballon airport will also remain closed as a result of the damage done by the demonstrations on December 12. Transportation authorities as well suspended the train service to Machu Picchu, the historic location of an ancient civilization which is a center for international tourism.

The Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP), which is the largest Indigenous organization in the Amazon region, called for mass demonstrations against the coup, the continuing detention of Castillo and the holding of general elections at the earliest possible date. Castillo has strong backing among the Indigenous communities in the rural areas particularly in the south of the country.

On a regional level, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has expressed his support for President Castillo saying that he was elected to office and should be released to serve his full term of office. Other governments in South America including Bolivia, Colombia and Argentina have come out against the coup demanding the release of Castillo and the respect for the human rights of the people of Peru.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Putin Shrugs-Off Washington’s Provocations and ‘Sticks to Business’

By Mike Whitney, December 13, 2022

Last week’s drone attacks on Russian military bases represent a serious escalation in Washington’s proxy war on Russia. One of the attacks involved an airfield that is located less than 200 miles from Moscow.

If They Get the Opportunity, They Will Transform Our Society Into a Dystopian Hellscape

By Michael Snyder, December 14, 2022

If the elite get their way, our world will eventually look far more bizarre than any science fiction author ever imagined.  If you haven’t figured it out by now, the elite are control freaks, and they are envisioning a future in which they are in control of all of our lives from birth to death.

The Globalists’ Secret Tool to Undermine National Sovereignty: The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)

By Ben Bartee, December 13, 2022

The latent multinational corporate state technocracy has gifted itself a secret tool, little discussed in electoral politics: the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). With its wonky, innocuous-sounding name, the ISDS framework for governing trade disputes is designed to garner as little interest (and therefore as little pushback) as possible from the public.

How to Trash a Movie in Support of a Lie

By Philip Giraldi, December 13, 2022

Israel’s new government is planning to give de facto operational control of the national police and heavily armed border police to Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of a party of right wing, racist extremists. It can perhaps be regarded as the prelude to the last phase in the uprooting and displacement of the Palestinian people.

Giving Young Kids Smartphones or Tablets to Calm Them Down Can Stunt Emotional Development

By Study Finds, December 13, 2022

Researchers at Michigan Medicine say digital technology may help calm down toddlers in the short term, but it could also reduce their chances to practice emotional coping skills. Scientists add that handing a moody pre-school age child a screen may seem to offer a quick fix, yet it could also lead to more severe challenging behavior further down the line.

Rapprochement Between Superpowers? Towards A US-China “New Détente”?

By Andrew Korybko, December 13, 2022

There’s a legitimate reason to wonder whether the Sino-American discussions over a New Détente involve India since the US wouldn’t otherwise hang Delhi out to dry by staying committed to its planned two-day talks with China despite those two having their worst clashes in two and a half years just two days prior.

New Study Details Coca-Cola’s Big Influence on Public Health Organizations, Conferences and Events

By Brian Bienkowski, December 13, 2022

Coca-Cola is directly influencing public health conferences and events via sponsorships — sometimes undisclosed — that could give the multinational company say in speaker selections and conference agendas, according to a new study.

Conservative Risk Benefit Analyses Decide Against COVID-19 Vaccination

By Dr. Peter McCullough, December 13, 2022

To this day some US Colleges are mandating COVID-19 vaccination with the bivalent boosters for Omicron BA4/BA5 which are now obsolete since the predominant strains are BQ1 and BQ1.1. To make matters worse, the bivalent boosters failed to stop Omicron in animal studies despite having an antibody rise—thus showing antibodies are invalid surrogates of vaccine efficacy.

Peruvian President Pedro Castillo Ousted and Jailed in Political Coup

By Abayomi Azikiwe, December 13, 2022

In a highly controversial move in the South American state of Peru, President Pedro Castillo was impeached and later placed in a detention facility after he called for the dissolution of the legislature in order to stave off a political coup.

The Mother of All Economic Crises

By Rep. Ron Paul, December 13, 2022

Nouriel Roubini, a former advisor to the International Monetary Fund and member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, was one of the few “mainstream” economists to predict the collapse of the housing bubble. Now Roubini is warning that the staggering amounts of debt held by individuals, businesses, and the government will soon lead to the “mother of all economic crises.”