Global Research

Image: Adolph Hitler together with Prescott Bush, grandfather of former President George W. Bush.

First published by GR on November 13, 2019

***

Prescott Bush was a partner of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co and director of Union Banking Corporation which had close relations with German corporate interests including Thyssen Steel, a major company involved in the Third Reich’s weapons industry. 

“…[N]ew documents, declassified [in 2003], show that even after America had entered the war [December 8, 1941] and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he [Prescott Bush] worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty” (The Guardian, September 25, 2004)

.****

Without 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.

The main producing countries in the early 1940s were: the United States (50% of global oil production), the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia, and Romania.

Without a steady supply of oil, Germany would not have been able to conduct Operation Barbarossa which was launched on June 22, 1941. The invasion of the Soviet Union was intent upon reaching and taking control of the oil resources of the Soviet Union in the Caucasus and Caspian sea regions: the oil of Baku.

The Unspoken Question. Where did Germany get its oil from?

Prior the December 1941, Texas oil was shipped on a regular basis to Nazi Germany.

While Germany was able  to transform coal into fuel, this synthetic production was insufficient. Moreover, Romania’s Ploesti oil resources (under Nazi control until 1944) were minimal. Nazi Germany largely depended on oil shipments from US Standard Oil.

The Attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) occurred barely six months after the launching of Operation Barbarossa (July 1941). The United States enters World War II, declaring  war on Japan and the axis countries.

Trading with the Enemy legislation (1917) officially implemented following America’s entry into World War II did not  prevent Standard Oil of New Jersey from selling oil to Nazi Germany. This despite the Senate 1942 investigation of US Standard Oil.

While direct US oil shipments were curtailed, Standard Oil would sell US oil through third countries. US oil was shipped to occupied France through Switzerland, and from France it was shipped to Germany:

“… for the duration of the Second World War, Standard Oil, under deals Teagle had overseen, continued to supply Nazi Germany with oil. The shipments went through Spain, Vichy France’s colonies in the West Indies, and Switzerland.”

It should be noted that a large share of Nazi Germany’s oil requirements was met by shipments out of Venezuela which at the time was a de facto US colony.

Venezuela’s US sponsored (War-time) president General Isaías Medina Angarita (May 1941 – October 1945) was there to protect US oil interests as well as “trade with the enemy” from the onset of America’s entry into World War II in December 1941:

John D. Rockefeller Jr. owned a controlling interest in the Standard Oil corporation, but the next largest stockholder was the German chemical company I. G. Farben, through which the firm sold $20 million worth of gasoline and lubricants to the Nazis. And the Venezuelan branch of that company sent 13,000 tons of crude oil to Germany each month, which the Third Reich’s robust chemical industry immediately converted into gasoline.

While Medina Angarita’s government pressured by Washington in the immediate wake of Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) remained officially neutral (de facto aligned with the US, while breaking its relations with Nazi Germany), oil shipments out of Venezuela to Germany were not discontinued. In a rather unusual twist (bordering on ridicule) Venezuela declared war on Germany in February 1945, when the war was almost over.

Without those oil shipments instrumented by Standard Oil and the Rockefellers, Nazi Germany would not have been able to implement its military agenda. Without fuel, the Third Reich’s eastern front under Operation Barbarossa would most probably not have taken place, saving millions of lives. The Western front including the military occupation of France, Belgium and The Netherlands would no doubt also have been affected.

The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration could have adopted severe sanctions against Standard Oil with a firm decision to enforce a blockade against Nazi Germany.

The US was not committed to peace: Washington’s unspoken objective was not only to destroy the Soviet Union, it also consisted in undermining Britain’s role  as an imperial power.

Let us be under no illusions. Without the oil shipments instrumented by US Standard Oil and its subsidiaries, Nazi Germany’s imperial design could not have been undertaken.

You cannot wage a war without fuel.

America had been “sleeping with the enemy” throughout World War II.

America’s objective was to destroy the Soviet Union.

Flash Forward to 2019

The European Union has recently adopted a resolution  entitled “Importance of European Remembrance Day for the Future of Europe which reinforces an earlier declaration (September 23, 2008),

The resolution contends that the Second World War:

“was started as an immediate result of the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Non-Aggression of 23 August 1939, … and its secret protocols, whereby two totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest divided Europe into two zones of influence”

This is an absurd statement which distorts history. It intimates that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were allies.

It denies the fact that the Soviet Union was the object of Nazi aggression resulting in more than 25 million people killed (more than 10 percent of the population).

The resolution turns the realities of history upside down. The Soviet Union played a central role in defeating both Nazi Germany and Japan, Moreover, there is ample evidence that the US was sleeping with the enemy largely with a view to destroying the USSR and killing its population.

US oil shipments to Nazi Germany (until 1944) were intended to support Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa resulting in millions of deaths. In this regard, the US was complicit is extensive war crimes by supporting Nazi Germany’s military endeavors.

The broader picture of US-Nazi Cooperation

Selling fuel to Nazi Germany was one among several strategies envisaged by the US.

American business interests continued to cooperate with Nazi corporations after Pearl Harbor.

No attempt was made to prevent Ford from retaining its interests for the Germans in Occupied France, nor were the Chase Bank or the Morgan Bank expressly forbidden to keep open their branches in Occupied Paris. It is indicated that the Reichsbank and Nazi Ministry of Economics made promises to certain U.S. corporate leaders that their properties would not be injured after the Führer was victorious. Thus, the bosses of the multinationals as we know them today had a six-spot on every side of the dice cube. Whichever side won the war, the powers that really ran nations would not be adversely affected.

“Wiping the Soviet Union of the Map”

As early as 1942 (at the height of World War II), a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union had been envisaged. According to a secret document (declassified) released on September 15, 1945 (5 weeks after Hiroshima):

“the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union  with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas. … The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 atomic bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 10, 2017)

A single atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 resulted in the immediate death of more that 100,000 people.

Imagine what would would happen if 204 atomic bombs had been dropped on all major urban areas of the Soviet Union. This diabolical project formulated while the US and the Soviet Union were allies was tantamount to genocide.

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 24, 2022

***

A medical Army officer who discovered a sudden increase in disease coinciding with reports of side effects alongside COVID-19 vaccines—which the Army has dismissed as a data glitch—said he faces involuntary separation after being convicted but not punished for disobeying COVID-19 protocol.

In January 2022, First Lt. Mark Bashaw, a preventive medicine officer at the Army, started noticing some “alarming signals” within the defense epidemiological database.

The Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which tracks disease and injuries of 1.3 million active component service members, showed during the pandemic a significant increase in reports of cancers, myocarditis, and pericarditis; as well as some other diseases like male infertility, tumors, a lung disease caused by blood clots, and HIV, Bashaw said.

All these illnesses are listed in FDA documentation as potential adverse reactions associated with COVID-19 vaccines, Bashaw told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program in an interview on Aug. 1.

Seeing increases in cases of these illnesses as high as 50 percent or 100 percent in some situations, Bashaw stepped forward as a whistleblower to raise concerns about his findings.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

First published on November 7, 2022

***

By now, you probably know about the plans for digital IDs and digital currencies. But how far along are these plans exactly in various places around the world? What steps are being undertaken right now? Why are digital “identities” so problematic? And what are possible solutions? We will explore these questions in this article. 

Digital “identities” are problematic 

The United Nations’ project ID2020 launched in 2016; its goal is to provide every person in the world with a digital identity. But the European Union created the legal framework for the introduction of a European digital ID even earlier than that, in 2014. 

This March my colleague Ashley Sadler wrote a great article about how world elites are quietly preparing digital IDs to put a global surveillance state in place. 

When we look at Europe, we can see that digital IDs are already used by most of the population in many countries, like Italy, Austria, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.  

And even Ukraine has an all-encompassing government app called Diia, an acronym for “the State and me,” which already combines digital identification with passports, licenses, social welfare benefits, COVID “vaccination” records, etc. 

During its ongoing war with Russia, the government even added a feature with which citizens could inform the state about the location and equipment of Russian troops. Bizarrely, the app also contains a game where users can destroy Russian tanks with drones they control. 

I would argue that the very term “Digital Identity” is problematic, as it suggests to people that their identity, their entire being, could be stored on a cloud server. 

In a 2016 presentation called “A Blueprint for Digital Identity”, the World Economic Forum defined the term “identity” in the following way: 

Identity […] is a collection of individual attributes that describe an entity and determine the transactions in which that entity can participate. 

The World Economic Forum’s reductionist understanding of identity is a problem of our technocratic age, which is ruled by the dictates of a nihilistic materialism that sees the human being as nothing more than a collection of attributes or a “clump of cells” that moves through time and space without an ultimate end or meaning. In our digital age, we can be tricked into believing that a collection of digital data points about us is our identity.  

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 19, 2022

***

“But really, at this point, many public health officials must be secretly wondering how they will evade prosecution.” –James Howard Kunstler, August 9, 2020

“Some doctors should lose their licenses. Some bureaucrats need to lose their jobs while others need to go to trial.” –Chris Martenson, August 12, 2022

***

Listen to this parent, whose 7 year old child developed myocarditis following injection with experimental Covid19 “vaccine”. Really! listen to seven minutes of rage and frustration aimed at a pharmacist involved in advocating for Covid19 “shots” despite their dangerous, even lethal, potentials. No informed consent, no disclosure of possible disastrous impacts, particularly for children for whom Covid19 was never of real concern in the first place. As with this irrevocably damaged child, it has been full speed ahead with injection and the constantly repeated lie of “safe and effective” for everyone, regardless of age.

The basic Covid19 Pandemic strategy can be condensed to bullet point form:

1. The goal: Vaccinate all of humanity with a forthcoming experimental mRNA technology certain to yield vast fortunes.

2. To decriminalize such an experiment, declare Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

3. But EUA requires that no effective treatments be available. If there were, the plan would never fly.

4. Therefore, available and effective treatments, notably ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin must be attacked and criminalized.

During the Pandemic, too many doctors across the nation, rather than researching and administering possible therapeutics, simply sent the sick home untreated, telling them to go to an emergency ward were their illness to get worse. Practitioners educated specifically to the pharmaceutical industry’s exorbitant offerings, and correspondingly ignorant of the remedial benefits of vitamin, mineral and neutriceutical therapies, blindly and stupidly — and criminally —  followed bureaucratic protocols with the obedience of Auschwitz camp guards.

Likewise, implicated pharmacists across the nation refused to honor prescriptions for off label medicinals that — and this is key — could have saved thousands of lives (Side note: While mainstream media and the CDC/medical establishment attacked ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory was treating 200 members of Congress with it. Really). And as this was going on, dissenting medical personnel were being — and are continuing to be —  censored or defamed, threatened and terminated (eg, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ….)

When the ill finally did enter hospitals, it was hospital administrators — desk bound suits — who passed down official policy from the offices of industry-linked governmental “public health experts”, coercing morally defective practitioners of all stripe to adhere to a lucrative, governmental/industry-inspired protocol involving expensive (ie, profitable) mandated kidney-destroying remdesivir and enforced use of “respirators”, even when their use appeared to be a recipe for death. Hospitals garnered ~$39K per respirator applied. By following official protocols through its various stages, hospitals have gained on the order of $100K for each Covid19 patient who expired (For extended treatment of this issue see HERE).

The wrath expressed by the above parent is now awakening in millions (as with this father who channeled his outrage into billboard form), and it’s accumulating like white hot subterranean lava ready to blow.

Countless thousands are finally coming to grips with the fact that trusted practitioners assumed to be competent — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners — injected their now dead or mutilated loved ones with an experimental concoction, misnamed “vaccine”, that very soon after its release in December, 2020 was revealing nightmarish dangers. For the sake of hospital access, way too many followed a bureaucratic protocol they HAD to know was reckless and potentially deadly.

Yes, you might say, but the truth is now out despite the carefully nurtured mainstream- and social media censorship offensive, so what’s the point? Well, many relatives (by now millions) of the killed and maimed, and parents of permanently damaged children, won’t merely rage into a telephone or post a sign. Inevitably, some, when they realize the established system, so drenched in rot, has no intention of providing justice for what amounts to mass homicide, will be driven to take retribution into their own hands. Knowing this, federal interests will certainly be preparing for trouble. Many observers, for example, see a connection in the proposed $80 billion addition of 87,000 to an admittedly politically weaponized IRS. That 70,000 are to be armed would create a de facto, improvised army.

And how will practitioners react who finally come to their senses and realize the enormity of their decision to inject this experimental concoction despite the many warnings, and for what? —  to hold onto a job?

Will some plead Adolph Eichmann’s “I was just following orders” defense?

If they happen to encounter the families of their patients (victims) will they turn and flee? Will they try to apologize and beg forgiveness?

Might some contemplate suicide? And what of the culpable outside of the medical system that include collaborating journalists and CEOs and administrative bureaucrats who forced subservience to all below them within their networks?

How will all these people atone for their roles in what is now being seen as the fiendish project that it is?

Among the many motivated to seek redress will be doctors and scientists who refused to conform to official demands and who, as a result, suffered insult and attack from within the reputed medical community, as well as from news outlets, as being purveyors of “misinformation”, as for example Dr. Michael Yeadon: 

“To all the doctors who are silent and to all those who are actively involved in administering the vaccines, especially to young, healthy people: In my view, you are responsible for breaking the Nuremberg Code. And my participation in your prosecution will be a pleasure.” 

If he is correct and such prosecutions take place, I’ll want a ringside seat.

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

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 31, 2022

***

An initiative funded in part by the Rockefeller Foundation is investing an initial $7.2 million in behavioral research. This particular study will be focused on brainwashing the public into getting the COVID-19 injections, the foundation announced last week.

The Rockefeller Foundation is a globalist organization founded by oil magnate and robber baron John D. Rockefeller in 1913. Since then, the Foundation has influenced many of the world’s largest and most powerful institutions, including the World Health Organisation, the National Institutes of Health, central banks, and governments.  These are the masters’ masters, and they need you injected with the COVID-19 sauce.

The initiative to brainwash the public, dubbed The Mercury Project, is run by the Social Science Research Council (“SSRC”). In September 2021, the SSRC received a three-year $7.5 million grant from the Rockefeller Foundation toward the costs of launching a research consortium to drive acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccination. They also funded research that will provide insights to counter health misinformation and disinformation (basically censor anyone who disagrees, or cannot be brainwashed). The grant will fund research through August 31, 2024, according to a report by the Daily Exposé.

An initial $7.2 million in behavioral research focused on convincing more people to get the COVID-19 injections, the Foundation announced last week. Apparently, they haven’t hit their target goal for how many they need to inject to carry out their agenda. They are looking specifically at “tailored” results for the following regions:

Bolivia, Brazil, Côte D’Ivoire, Ghana, Haiti, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, United States, and Zimbabwe.

“With Covid-19 prevalent and rapidly evolving everywhere, there is a pressing need to identify interventions with the potential to increase vaccination take-up. Vaccines are only effective if they become vaccinations; vaccines are a scientific marvel but their potential is unfulfilled if they are left on the shelf,” said Anna Harvey, President of SSRC. “The large volume of high-quality proposals submitted to the Mercury Project underscores just how eager the social and behavioral science community is to evaluate interventions to increase vaccination demand and build healthier information environments.”

And they are admitting that coming after the children is one of the goals. Once they can turn kids into automaton drones just repeating what they were told without any thought of their own, the battle is won:

• Conducting literacy training for secondary school students in partnership with local authorities to help students identify Covid-19 vaccine misinformation;
• Equipping trusted messengers with communication strategies to increase Covid-19 vaccination demand;
• Using social networks to share tailored, community-developed messaging to increase Covid-19 vaccination demand. –Rockefeller Foundation

Obviously, something went wrong as they are dumping millions into a brainwashing scheme to convince people to take the shots we now know are causing AIDS and SADS. We had mentioned that not enough people bought into the scamdemic the first go around, so we need to brace for what’s next: War On “Vaccine Hesitancy” Lost! Prepare For What’s Next!

When these sociopaths realize brainwashing doesn’t work on everyone, and likely only on those who already have taken these shots, they will roll out something else. Stay vigilant and prepared. They are still telling us without telling us that these injections are a part of the overall agenda and they haven’t yet convinced enough people to give themselves AIDS…yet.

*

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 SHTFplan.com

Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store!

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

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

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 10, 2022

***

A few years after WW I, the poet T.S. Eliot opened his famous poem “The Wasteland” with these words: “April is the cruelest month … “  I think he may be wrong, for this October may be the cruelest month of all, followed by November.  Unprecedented.  You can hear the clicking and grating of spades if your antennae are attuned.

We are on the brink of ominous events created by the U.S. war against Russia.  Yet so many people prefer to turn away and swallow the lies that the U.S. wants peace and not war and is the aggrieved party in the crisis.

A friend of mine, who is constantly charging me with having turned right-wing because of my writing that accuses many traditional liberal/leftists of buying the national security state’s propaganda on the JFK assassination, “9/11,” Syria, Ukraine, Covid-19, censorship, the “New” Cold War, etc., and whose go-to news sources are The Guardian, CNN, The New York Times, NPR, ABC, seems oblivious to the fact that right and left have become useless terms and that these media are all mouthpieces for the CIA and their intelligence allies in the new Cold War; that the so-called right and left are joined at the hip with their obsession with Pax Americana.

There are no right and left anymore; there are only free and independent voices or those of the caged parrots repeating what they have been taught to say:

“Polly wants a war!”  “Polly wants a war.”

I am afraid that I will never convince this dear friend otherwise and I find that depressing.  Yet I know such views are shared by millions of others and that even if nuclear war breaks out their minds will not change.  Propaganda runs very, very deep into their psyches, and they desperately want to believe.  Hitler said it clearly in Mein Kampf:

The masses … are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

Hitler learned so much about “manufacturing consent” from his American teachers Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, et al., who accomplished so much brainwashing of the American people.  They were all masters of the lie and millions continue to believe their followers.

If nuclear weapons are again used (and everyone knows the only country to have used them), these believers will blame their use on Russia, even though Russia has made it very clear that it would only resort to such weapons if the country’s existence were threatened, while the U.S. continues affirming its right to preemptively use nuclear weapons when it so chooses.

And even if nuclear weapons are not used, the recent sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and the bombing of the Crimean Bridge, both clearly the work of U.S./NATO/Ukrainian forces, have raised the ante considerably.  The door to hell has just been opened wider, and I suspect not by accident, as the U.S. elections approach.

In his recent television talk, Vladimir Putin made Russia’s nuclear position very clear, mentioning nuclear weapons only in the context of Western threats of using them, as Moon of Alabama reported.

Putin said:

They [the U.S./NATO/Ukraine] have even resorted to the nuclear blackmail. I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia.

I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.

The citizens of Russia can rest assured that the territorial integrity of our Motherland, our independence and freedom will be defended – I repeat – by all the systems available to us. Those who are using nuclear blackmail against us should know that the wind rose can turn around.

When the long-planned U.S. war against Russia, so obvious to anyone who sees past the propagandist headlines and studies the matter, soon explodes into full-scale open war for all to see in horror, as it will, these true believers will dig in their heels even more.  They will find new reasons to justify their faith, and it is akin to religious faith.  The infamous Rand Corporation’s 2019 report cited above, “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia,” cites the following as part of the war process, as summarized in the Strategic Culture article, but it will have no impact on the faithful believers:

• Providing lethal military aid to Ukraine
• Mobilizing European NATO members
• Imposing deeper trade and economic sanctions
• Increasing U.S. energy production for export to Europe
• Expanding Europe’s import infrastructure to receive U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies

I keep thinking of the U.S. false flag Gulf of Tonkin “incident” in 1964 and how effective that was in convincing the gullible population and the complicit U.S. Congress – by a vote of 88 to 2 in the Senate and 414 to 0 in the House of Representatives (try to imagine such criminals) – that U.S. destroyers were innocently attacked by the North Vietnamese and that Lyndon Johnson should be given the authority to respond to repel “communist aggression,” which, of course, he did by bombing North Vietnam and sending 500,000 troops to savagely destroy Vietnam and Vietnamese nearly 9,000 miles from the United States.  Johnson simply lied to wage war and Biden is doing the same today.  But far too many people love their leaders’ lies because it allows them to secretly feel justified in the lies they themselves tell in personal matters.  And what may be true of the distant past, can’t be true today.

In 1965, the folk singer Tom Paxton put Johnson’s lies to music with “Lyndon Johnson Told the Nation.”  In those days, art was used as a weapon against U.S. propaganda.

Today we can ask: Where have all the artists gone?

We know that the U.S. has, for the time being, abandoned sending hundreds of thousands of troops into another country; now it is drones, air warfare, special forces, the CIA, mercenaries, terrorists, and intermediaries such as the Ukrainian conscripts, Azov Nazis, and NATO surrogates.  Such was the lesson of Vietnam when the draft led to massive protests and resistance.  Now war is waged less obviously and the propaganda is more extensive and constant as a result of digital media.

There are many such examples of U.S. treachery, most notably the attacks of September 11, 2001, but such history is only open to those who take it upon themselves to investigate.

Now there is the corrupt Ukrainian U.S. puppet government, which is nearly 6,000 miles from the United States, and must be defended from Russian “aggression,” just like the corrupt South Vietnamese U.S. puppet government was.

To those who buy the mass media propaganda, I ask: Why is the U.S.A. always fighting to kill people so far from its shores?

Doesn’t it sound a bit odd that our wonderful leaders destroyed Libya, Vietnam, Serbia, the Philippines, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., countries so far away, and now that Russia defends itself from U.S./NATO encroachment a few miles from its borders, it is accused of being the evil aggressors and Vladimir Putin called another Hitler like all the leaders of the countries we attacked?

Have you completely lost your ability to think?  Or do you, like little children, actually believe the disembodied newsreaders who deliver your prepackaged television propaganda?

If I ask such an obvious question, does that make me a “right-winger”?

If I state two facts: that Donald Trump – whom I consider despicable and part of the divide and conquer game as Biden’s flip side, and have said so – did not start a war against Russia and that Russia-gate was a Democratic propaganda stunt and is false, does that make me a right-winger?  My friend would say so. Do telling facts define your political allegiances, whether they be facts about Republicans or Democrats?

No.  I will tell you what it makes me: A disgusted human being sickened by all the lies and people’s gullibility after decades of evidence that should have awakened them to the truth about all these politicians and the war against Russia underway.  I have lost patience with it.  For decades I have been writing about such propaganda to no avail.  Yes, those who tended to agree with me might have moved a little closer to my arguments, but the vast majority have not budged an iota.

I wish it were different. It is my desire. Eduardo Galeano, the Uruguayan sage of the Americas, who knew what was up and what was down when he wrote Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World in 1998, said this about Desire:

A man found Aladdin’s lamp lying around. Since he was a big reader, the man recognized it and rubbed it right away. The genie appeared, bowed deeply, and said, ‘At your service master. Your wish is my command. But there will be only one wish.

Since he was a good boy, the man said, ‘I wish for my dead mother to be brought back.’

The genie made a face. ‘I’m sorry, master, but that wish is impossible. Make another.’

Since he was a nice guy, the man said, ‘I wish the world would stop spending money to kill people.’

The genie swallowed. ‘Uhh … What did you say your mother’s name was?’

The desire for peace and security is a universal dream.  Sometimes it is hidden in people’s hearts because they have swallowed the lies of the evil ones who wish to wage war against those who insist on security for their country, as Russians are demanding today.

It is very frustrating to try to wake people out of their manufactured consent and the insouciance that follows as we are being led into the abyss.

But I will not stop trying.  Galeano did not.  He left us these words of universal resistance:

We shall be compatriots and contemporaries of all who have a yearning for justice and beauty, no matter where they were born or when they lived, because the borders of geography and time shall cease to exist.

We must save the world before it is too late.

*

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 the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book, click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all.  Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso.  Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

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 September 6, 2021

***

For most people, 2020 will be remembered as the year of the ‘virus’ and 2021 will be remembered as the year of the ‘vaccine’.

What most people will probably never know is that 2021 is shaping to be the year in which humanity and freedom are both destroyed.

Not because a virus will kill us, because the virus does not exist. For just two of the myriad demonstrations of this point, see ‘COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed!’ and ‘Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)’. And for an account of one researcher’s fruitless search over the course of a year to find evidence of an isolated virus, via Freedom of Information requests to 90 health/science institutions all over the world, watch

‘Does the Virus Exist? Has SARS-CoV-2 Been Isolated? Interview with Christine Massey’.

Rather, the injectable being marketed as a ‘vaccine’ will kill a substantial proportion of the human population – for one of the most straightforward explanations of this fact by three highly qualified experts (Professor Dolores Cahill, Dr Judy Mikovits & Dr Sherri Tenpenny) watch ‘The Truth about the Covid-19 Vaccine’ – and turn most others into a human relic, known technically as a ‘transhuman’ or, if you like, ‘cyborg’. See

‘Beware the Transhumanists: How “Being Human” is being Re-engineered by the Elite’s Covid-19 Coup’.

But while the injectable will have devastating consequences on the human population and must be strenuously resisted, it is the hidden and complementary measures being introduced by the criminal global elite under the guise of the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ that will ensure the fundamental transformation of life for those humans and transhumans left alive.

If you doubt this, I can only invite you to read what ‘The Great Reset’ portends for humanity. If you want to read a summary, see:

‘Killing Democracy Once and for All: The Global Elite’s Coup d’état That Is Destroying Life as We Know It’.

In essence, the net outcome of the many measures that are being implemented, most of them ‘hidden’ behind the worldwide focus on the non-existent virus, will be a substantial human depopulation and enslavement of the rest. For more detail explaining what is already in train and how things will unfold, see the explanation, analysis and many references cited on

‘We Are Human, We Are Free’.

Options for Resistance

There are many options for resisting what is happening but most that are familiar are doomed to fail. Here, in brief, is why.

If you believe that mass protests will compel governments to respond to movement demands to cease implementing their heinous agenda, it would be useful for you to think a little more deeply about what is taking place. For a start, governments are not driving ‘The Great Reset’; it is an initiative of the global elite and governments are simply elite puppets. Moreover, movements that rely on mass protests only and which are focused too narrowly – such as on resisting lockdown measures, mandatory injection or ‘injection passports’ – cannot impact the elite program overall.

To do that, we need a combination of strategically-focused actions that undermine elite power to promote and implement its ‘Great Reset’ agenda which has very many components. And to achieve that outcome, protests are simply the wrong tactic (unless they are specifically used to raise awareness of strategic means of resisting ‘The Great Reset’ and its associated measures in relation to the fourth industrial revolution, eugenics and transhumanism).

If you believe that ‘democratic’ processes will save us, you might be interested to know that these have long been under the control of the global elite and simply provide a convenient mechanism for dissipating the dissent of those who are unaware. For a full explanation of this point, see

‘Killing Democracy Once and for All: The Global Elite’s Coup d’état That Is Destroying Life as We Know It’.

And if you believe that challenges through the legal system will deliver us justice, be aware that these too were long ago captured by the global elite and are used to thwart fundamentally progressive initiatives, whatever occasional victories (invariably on issues that do not concern the global elite) in limited jurisdictions appear to suggest otherwise. In any case, there is no court in the world that has jurisdiction to require the global elite to appear before it to answer for its many outstanding crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, nor those crimes it is inflicting now. As discussed by a diverse range of scholars and activists in the 18^th , 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the rule of law is the rule of elite violence. See

‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.

Finally, if you believe that violence, in any form, will get us out of this mess, you are giving inadequate consideration to the preeminent geopolitical reality of our time: the military forces at the command of the global elite, starting with the national military forces, including nuclear arsenals, committed to the NATO Alliance. Not to mention the police forces of each jurisdiction. And given the elite agenda includes substantial depopulation, from their viewpoint how this occurs, militarily or otherwise, is really immaterial. So a key strategic consideration is devising the appropriate ways to mobilize military and police forces in support of us.

Given that military and police personnel have far more in common with the communities in which they live than they have in common with the global elite, history offers many examples in which thoughtful nonviolent activists were able to achieve this very effectively. Moreover, while it might be counterintuitive, strategic nonviolent struggle is superior to military violence, as strategic theory explains and history has demonstrated. See

The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach.

Conclusion

In essence then, effective resistance to this elite coup depends on mobilizing enough ‘ordinary’ people to take the strategically-focused nonviolent action – essentially acts of noncooperation to thwart key elite initiatives – that will shift power from the global elite to us. No other option is genuinely realistic or has the sheer power to be as effective.

Hence, as part of the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ strategy, earlier this year Anita McKone and I launched ‘The 7 Days Campaign to Resist the Great Reset’, carefully explaining why each of the actions nominated was important in undermining elite power. And recently, Henna Maria in Spain created the beautiful flyers, outlining essential elements of the campaign, displayed with this article.

If you wish to play a vital role in the defence of humanity and human freedom, you are invited to undertake the actions indicated on these flyers, and share them with those who you think might be interested. Provided enough people take these actions on an ongoing basis, the global elite’s capacity to kill or enslave each one of us can be defeated.

What you choose to do, one way or the other, will help shape the fate of humanity.

See Robert J Burrowes proposals for Grassroots Campaign directed Worldwide against the financial elites and national governments

*

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.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to ‘Global Research’.

Featured image is from The Last American Vagabond

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 16, 2022

***

Dr. Charles Hoffe is a family doctor. He lives and works in Lytton, in Canada. He is a graduate of the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and moved to Canada. He has worked as a rural family physician and emergency room physician for 31 years.

In the video below, Dr. Hoffe gives a riveting speech on the COVID pandemic and the vaccination campaign in Canada.

“Never before in medical history has any medical treatment maimed and killed so many people…”

*

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.

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 28, 2021.

It is worth noting that in the US the CDC as of December 31, 2021, the PCR was “cancelled”.

***

The mystification and inappropriate use of the PCR test, denounced since October 2020 by lawyer Reiner Fuellmich prevails despite the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal (October 2020) in Portugal[1][2].

Everywhere in the rich countries, the rulers impose its deadly use thanks to the corruption of many scientists and doctors, media to whom we let the word, the many others being defamed threatened and muzzled.

Currently, a simple PCR positive test

• makes you qualify as a “case”,[3][4][5]
• declares you dangerous for others,
• bans you from work, school or sport.

It also exposes you to interrogations worthy of the inquisition (minus the physical torture) so that you denounce those you have met, who will immediately be declared contact cases and subjected in turn to the madness of exclusion and repeated tests.

To break the chain of transmission, you have to isolate the really sick people, those who show clinical signs (fever, cough, fatigue, anosmia…) in whom the test can be useful to confirm the diagnosis of viral infection (and not much more) and let the asymptomatic ones (who are only very exceptionally contaminators) live normally.

In a person with no clinical signs, a positive PCR test does not indicate that he or she is ill, will become ill, is a carrier of the virus, or can transmit it.

These findings were initially made on 3790 positive cases[6].

Their definitive confirmation was made during the colossal screening (10 million people tested) around Wuhan[7] where none of the 300 PCR-positive asymptomatic people turned out to be virus carriers, contaminants or affected by the disease after one month of surveillance.

We know, they know, and we know they know[8].

A recent FDA document finally admits that the “Covid” PCR test was developed without specific viral samples isolated for test calibration, admitting that it tests for something else,[9] some insufficiently virus-specific RNA sequences

The infamous PCR test for coronavirus (Covid-19) was not developed with real samples, but rather with what appears to be genetic material from a common cold virus.

In the FDA document, it is clearly stated that ordinary seasonal flu genetic material was used as a test marker in the PCR test kits.

Yet the authorities knew that many people would test “positive,” allowing them to use those results to create the “Covid” narrative.

There is no legitimate test that can accurately identify the presence of SARS-CoV-2.

Another revelation in the recent document is the FDA’s admission that the test results are “aggregated” and therefore produce inaccurate numbers. The FDA is literally fabricating data to support a false narrative.

And So: 

“We are now at a crossroads around the world. The time is ours to decide whether we will allow this type of medical fascism to continue and impact our children’s future. Or if we will finally say no to tyrannical government policy.”[10]

Selected excerpts from the FDA document from January 2020 and revised regularly (last in July 2021)

“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2)

“Because no quantified 2019-nCoV virus isolates were available for use by CDC at the time the assay was developed and this study was conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full-length RNA (N gene; GenBank Accession: MN908947. 2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) enriched in a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic the clinical sample.[11]

CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel[12]

“The results relate to the identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA is usually detectable in upper and lower respiratory tract specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with SARS-CoV-2, but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definitive cause of the disease. Laboratories in the United States and its territories are required to report all results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results should be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiologic information.”

Other excerpt:

“DO NOT DISCARD: Important product-specific information

LIMITATIONS This test has not been approved by the FDA. This test has been cleared by the FDA under an EUA for use by licensed laboratories. This test has only been cleared for the detection of nucleic acid from 2019-nCoV, not for other viruses or pathogens.

This test is authorized only for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist to justify authorization of the emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for the detection and/or diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 under section 564(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(b)(1), unless the authorization is terminated or revoked earlier.”

” The WHO’s Mea Culpa”

The WHO in January 2021 had called attention to the invalidity of many PCR tests especially when laboratories spuriously use high signal amplifications [CT Threshholds]. No account has been taken of this warning, at least in most French labs.[13]  Below is the WHO’s carefully formulated “Retraction”

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. (emphasis added)

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

According to Michel Chossudovsky’s Analysis of the WHO Retraction:

“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept 

This is not an issue of  “Weak Positives” and “Risk of False Positive Increases”. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates.

What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting:  “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”.

The WHO calls for “Retesting”, which is tantamount to “We Screwed Up”.

That recommendation is pro-forma. It won’t happen. Millions of people Worldwide have already been tested, starting in early February 2020. Nonetheless, we must conclude that unless retested, those estimates (according to the WHO) are invalid.  

This is not an issue of “low positives” or “risk of false positives.” The issue is about the starting point in January 2020 of WHO’s implementation of a misleading and flawed methodology that leads to estimates that have no scientific basis.

What this contradictory statement from the WHO confirms is that the estimate of Covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or more) is simply invalid. In this case, WHO recommends repeating the PCR test:

“a new sample should be collected and the test repeated…”.

From the outset, the PCR test has routinely been applied at a Ct amplification threshold of 35 or higher, following the January 2020 recommendations of the WHO. What this means is that the PCR methodology as applied Worldwide has in the course of  the last 12-14 months led to the compilation of faulty and misleading Covid statistics.

And these are the statistics which are used to measure the progression of the so-called “pandemic”. Above an amplification cycle of 35 or higher, the test will not detect fragments of the virus. Therefore,  the official “covid numbers” are meaningless.

It follows that there is no scientific basis for confirming the existence of a pandemic.

Which in turn means that the lockdown / economic measures which have resulted in social panic, mass poverty and unemployment (allegedly to curtail the spread of the virus) have no justification whatsoever.[16]

In addition, other scandals have arisen in relation to the PCR test[17]

The US Food and Drug Administration has issued “the most serious type of recall” for popular home test kits that indicate whether a person is infected with the coronavirus. At least 2.2 million products may have yielded false positives.

Some 2,212,335 kits produced by Australia-based biotech company Ellume and distributed in the U.S. potentially show false-positive results for the SARS-CoV-2 test, the public health agency said in a recent release in Nov. 2021.

The FDA warned that use of the defective kits “may result in serious adverse health consequences or death,” calling the case a “Class I recall.”

In conclusion, confirmation that PCR tests are unreliable and should not be used by governments as evidence of the “pandemic” comes from the FDA itself.

It is high time that our leaders return to the traditional means of assessing epidemics: counting the sick and counting the dead from the disease.

Notes :

[1] Vers le faire-part de décès des tests PCR (francesoir.fr)

[2] La grande supercherie des tests PCR, 90 % des cas positifs ne sont pas malades ni contagieux (francesoir.fr)

[3] *Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy, Francis Drobniewsk
False-positive Covid-19 results: hidden problems and costswww.thelancet.com/respiratory Vol 8 December 2020

[4] https://latribunedissidente.over-blog.com/2020/10/la-pertinence-des-tests-pcr-dr-pascal-sacre.html

[5] Covid : La PCR nasale peut-elle mentir ? Dr Pascal Sacré, AIMSIB, 30 août 2020

[6] Rita Jaafar Correlation between 3790 positive quantitative polymerase chain reaction samples and positive cell cultures, including 1941 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolates Clinical Infectious Diseases, 9/28/2020 ciaa1491 coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère Maladies infectieuses cliniques, 28/9/2020 ciaa1491,
https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491

[7] France info with AFP: After mobilizing more than 28,000 caregivers at more than 2,800 sites, authorities in Wuhan, China, carried out the largest Covid-19 screening operation among eleven million residents at a cost of $127 million Monday, August 9, 2020…

[8] L’archipel du goulag, Soljenitsyne

[9] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/downloadwww.fda.gov

[10] https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/10/27/fda-document-admits-Covid-pcr-test-was-developed-without-isolated-samples-for-test-calibration-e

[11] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/downloadwww.fda.gov

[12] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Viral Diseases 1600 Clifton Rd NE Atlanta GA 30329 CDC-006-00019, Revision: 07 CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases Effective: 07/21/2021

[13] L’OMS confirme que le test Covid-19 PCR est invalide, les estimations des « cas positifs » sont sans fondement. Le confinement n’a aucune base scientifique. | Mondialisation — Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation

[14] WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05

[15] Diagnostic in vitro

[16] Prof. Michel Chossudovsky mentions that there are several other flaws with the PCR test that are not discussed in this article. (See Michel Chossudovsky’s e-book): The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the Great Reset(Chapitre II).

[17] FDA recalls millions of Covid test kit over false results – Asume Tech 11 Nov 21

***

Translation from the French original by Global Research

Link to the original article:

La mystification par le test PCR pour créer le mythe de la pandémie et entretenir la peur

Par Dre Nicole Delépine, November 18 2021

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.

***

After a careful research to find the meaning and implications of the term “multipolar world” often used these days, the freedictionary and englopedia offer insights as a system of world order in which the majority of global leading powers coordinate and commonly agree on economic, political and cultural influence and mutually acceptable directions.

Both dictionaries further explain that countries have multipolar approaches to foreign policy. Participating countries necessarily conceive multiple centers of power or influence in the world, have a multipolar approach to foreign policy. Multipolar world could mean the various differences in thoughts, views and ideas regarding anything in particular which different people desire to do across the world.

It appears from several reports that China and Russia intend to lead the new world order. Speeches from both sides are extremely critical on “based rules and regulations” given by the United States and Europe. The United States global dictatorship might end, so that the unipolar would then become a multi-polar world in which democracy could actually thrive.

In practical terms and in order to lead multipolar system requires outward, broad and integrative approach. While China, to a large extent, has portrayed this practical approach which is readily seen around the world, Russia’s method is full of slogans, highly limited. With the emerging new global order, China appears more open and integrative than Russia. Despite the fact that it madly advocates for creating and ultimate establishment of this multipolar world, Russia exits significantly from a number of international organizations and the global stage, thus weakening and isolating itself and further contributing towards its own “cancel culture” instead of the opposite.

Whether people like it or not, the United States will conveniently operate within the emerging multipolar system. It has the necessary established [institutionalized] instruments to operate within the framework of multilateralism and integrative multicultural environment. The United States is and remains as an “indispensable” power. Russia and a few of its allies in this evolutionary process, without adopting cautious steps and strategic approach, will definitely remain “dispensable” in the end.

In order to deepen our understanding of the emerging multipolar world, it is useful to make comparisons. The United States new strategy acknowledges the fact that Africa will shape the future – not just the future of the African people, but of the world. And as such deals with the civil society, women’s groups and the youth which it refers to as the megaphone of governance. Building admirable public perception is part of the geopolitical game. These have influence on policies and processes engaging policy-makers in Africa.

It further works in various directions closely with the African Union, and one more new direction is the African diaspora. The United States has the largest African diaspora which has strong socio-cultural inroads and business inter-linkages and a huge significant impact of developments inside Africa. These compared, Russia has grossly ignored African diaspora and even those African professional cum specialists it has indeed trained from Soviet times and currently. In the emerging new multipolar world, to consistently overlook these could be an irreversible mistake from policy perspectives.

Nevertheless, not everything is perfect. There is some high optimism that efforts after the first summit gain grounds. The comprehensive summit declaration offers the clear roadmap for building relations. But Russians seriously brush aside the relevance and the role of culture, for that matter aspects on soft power in foreign policy while advocating for this emerging new order. Examining, in broad terms, all aspects of culture that basically includes continuing the struggle for self-determination, for creating the grounded opportunity to live in peace and preserving one’s valuable traditions. Language, of course, plays its unifying role.

Some contradictions and different interpretations might exist. On the other hand, there are divergent views and different perceptions relating to the current geopolitical changes, but frankly speaking the study of foreign languages, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, and the emerging interest in the Chinese and Russian languages, has been a long part of people’s lives, especially those who hope to move across borders and dream to have smooth interactions with other nationals from different countries around the world.

For the past three decades since the collapse of the Soviet era, Russian language studies has been low, for example among the African population primarily due to lack of overwhelming interest and adequate motivation, and lack of consistent interactive cultural activities by Russian authorities, experts frequently say, and warmheartedly complain that things are slow with Russia’s return to Africa.

Most Africans prefer to study foreign languages to ensure smooth participation in interstate activities such as trade and in order to maintain relationship with people abroad. Foreign countries, for example Britain, the United States, European countries and now China are their traditional favorites. There are always interactive programmes and cultural activities throughout the year operated by foreign missions and NGOs.

Interpreted from different perspectives, Russia has not been a major economic giant in Africa compared to Western and European countries and China. Due to this historical truth, Africans have little interest in studying Russian language and its culture. The Russian language itself does not sound attractive in terms of its economic opportunity and therefore Africans prefer to study languages that readily offer opportunities. China is making huge contributions in the continent and this has made Africans see the need to understand the language in order to have better interaction with them.

The obvious worse-case scenario is that the Russian government has not created necessary conditions and reasons to study the language simply because it has little influence in the continent. Besides that, the trade and commercial links between Russia and Africa are quite negligible so there is no desperate demand for the Russian language for businessmen. New York, Washington, London and Paris are their second homes. Admittedly, Russia is not even a welcoming holiday destination for African elites and the middle-class which is twice the total population of Russia, and constitutes 40% of 1.3 billion population of Africa. Travel and tourism is an increasingly huge business, the unique geographical landscapes and changing attractiveness of Moscow, St Petersburg and Sochi – these are unknown to the African elite and the growing middle-class.

Russia’s frequent confrontation and anti-Western posture is dangerous as itself has, so far, done little within parameters of socio-cultural diplomacy in Africa. With the current evolving political and cultural processes, the West and Europe will still have a strong classical grip on Africa, influencing everything first from culture and tourism, and moving onward to politics and economics. Perhaps, Russia has to play correct strategic openness and welcome African travellers, tourists and visitors. Closing doors, especially in these critical times, might negatively distract Africa’s support for Russia.

The worrying tendency is that Rossotrudnichestvo, an agency under Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, pays little attention to educational and cultural questions in Africa, compared to its assertive counterparts – USAID, Alliance Française de France, The Goethe Institute, British Council, Instituto Cervantes that operate throughout the world. Another Russian organization – Russkiy Mir Foundation, which is directly responsible for promoting Russian language and culture abroad, does extremely little in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, cultural officers work in all the 38 Russian embassies in Africa.

Russia appears quite removed from Africa’s development issues, it is only mentioned in limited areas like weapons and military equipment supplies to French-speaking West Africa. Nowadays, China is being viewed as a strong strategic partner in Africa given its (China’s) strong footprints in diverse economic sectors. China has more than 20 Confucius Centers, and a party school in Africa. Western and European, and China support civil society, youth programmes and women’s issues, – these are completely not on the Russia’s radar.

Russia allegedly allows its own ‘cancel culture’ and significantly not by the United States and its European allies. In practical terms, creating a multipolar system deals largely with cultural and social orientation, it deals with public perceptions through openness and friendliness. At this new historical reawakening stage, Russia has to review itself and try to focus on building relations, both with substance, trustful and refined approach, and strive to strategically engage with civil society, youth organizations and non-state institutions in Africa.

By and large, Russia has to intensify its people-to-people connections, the soft power and cultural diplomacy with Africa. There is a huge cultural gap of new thinking, working with young professionals and associations to promote people-to-people diplomacy through business links, cultural exchanges and competitions. As Russia charts loudly for multipolar system, this has to reflect in its current foreign policy and approach especially towards the developing world, in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

Late October, during the final plenary session of the 19th meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, the focus was on matters related to the changing geopolitics and civilisation diversity, the new world order and its future developments. Under the theme – “A Post-Hegemonic World: Justice and Security for Everyone” – the four day-long interactive meeting brought academic experts and researchers, politicians, diplomats and economists from Russia and 40 foreign countries.

President Vladimir Putin discussed, at considerable length, so many controversial questions. According to him, classic liberal ideology itself today has changed beyond recognition. Predicted the end of United States global dominance, but fell short in proposing an appropriate Russia’s template – the principles and mechanisms – for realizing the lofty idea and approach to establishing multipolar world.

Putin did not say anything about Russia becoming a global power, but awarded that position to China. Giants like China, India and Indonesia with large population are showing economic growth; in Africa large countries – some of them with a population of 200 million – are emerging and making progress, as well as countries in Latin America.

According to him, Russia still have friends around the world. He mentioned that in Central America and Africa, the Russian flags are flying everywhere. “There are flags in European countries and in the United States too, we have many supporters there. By the way, a large proportion of the US population adhere to traditional values, and they are with us, we know this,” he added in his assertive conversation at the Valdai gathering.

Putin, along the line argued that the support for multipolar order largely exists in the global south. Russia is not the enemy and has never had any evil intentions as regards the European countries and the United States. He appreciated Africa’s struggle for independence and against colonialism. These absolutely unique relations were forged during the years when the Soviet Union and Russia supported African countries in their fight for freedom.

In this context and in relation to Africa, Natalia Zaiser, Founder of the African Business Initiative Union, apparently talked about the new historical stage, need to establish new or different institutions of international partnership.

Her series of questions to Putin: “Mr President, what is your vision of a new international partnership institution? Which basis of parities is Russia ready to offer at the international level? Which mechanisms, tools and personalities are needed to acquire new allies, partners and friends, not at a declarative level but at the level of unquestionable responsibility in terms of agreements? Do you think we should also change or build up other approaches within the future international partnership?”

Putin’s answer was: “We must and we can focus on cooperation, primarily, with countries which have sovereignty in taking fundamental decisions. This is my first point. My second point is that we need to reach a consensus on each of these decisions. Third, we need to secure a balance of interests. As part of which institutions can we do this? Of course, these are primarily universal international organizations, and number one is with the United Nations.”

*

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.

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 response to Jeff J. Brown’s article “The Myth of Chinese Capitalism,” Ron Leighton wrote an article published at Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, and elsewhere.

Dr. T. P. Wilkinson has interviewed Jeff J. Brown about his article and much more.

*

The debate about what system actually governs the People’s Republic of China has continued since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. The significance of this controversy increased after 1989 when the Soviet Union was destroyed along with the governments that had prevailed in the Comecon¹ region.

After the NATO-led demolition of Yugoslavia, the prevailing opinion in the West was that communism or even socialism had failed. This left the Republic of Cuba, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China as the only states ruled by and through communist parties. The claim that China—at least since Deng—is capitalist and not communist or socialist is not so much an issue in China as one for those adamant on proving that the system attributed to the US or the “West”, generally called “capitalism” is not merely the superior system but the only system on the planet no matter who governs.

This interview is not only a response to an article by Ron Leighton criticizing Jeff J Brown. It is the first in a series of articles on the Transformation of Political Language. Since 1989 there has been an obvious crisis in popular-based politics following the global purging of radical popular movements from the 1950 to the 1980. While the thirty years following the end of World War II were dominated by violent counter-insurgency and assassinations, the period following the end of the Soviet Union has been an era where the very language of popular political action has collapsed. This series aims to explain this and perhaps point toward possibilities for a reconstituted political speech capable of collating the subjective and objective conditions of political struggle.

T.P. Wilkinson: As someone whose life in China went through different phases, in fact, changed through personal experience, it might be useful to start by describing when and how you came to China and briefly describe those transformations.

Jeff J. Brown: I really need to go back in time to fully answer your question. My travel lust began over a decade before starting my career in China, 1990-1997. With my agricultural upbringing, in 1978, I learned fluent Portuguese at graduate school, with the express goal of going to Brazil to become a corn and soybean baron. Luckily, I could not get the financing. Otherwise, I would have probably become a greedy landowner, shooting at locals and Natives, to protect my property.

Instead, I joined the Peace Corps, 1980-1982 in Tunisia, learning Arabic fluently, to help local farmers with their imported Holstein dairy cows. This launched me into eight more years across Africa and the Middle East, first in marketing frozen bull semen for artificial insemination and then in grain trade, also learning French fluently.

Having gotten married in 1988 and becoming a naturalized French citizen, I was ready for a change of culture. We got transferred to China in 1990, with four more years in grain trade and then for three years, overseeing the installation and management of McDonald’s first bun bakery on the Mainland.

I mention all this, because I am ashamed of my attitude and behavior during my first seven years in China. In spite of all my previous cosmopolitan, globetrotting, linguistic experiences in tens of countries on four continents, I was thoroughly brainwashed with the hubris and cultural superiority of all things USA. Yes, I learned to read, write and speak Mandarin fluently, soaked up the culture, traveling all over China and in the region, yet sadly, I swaggered around like the proverbial ugly American.²

Looking back, I cringe at myself.

It wasn’t until we returned 2010-2019, that my arc of awareness became meaningful and personally transformative. First was the metamorphosis of the country, after only 13 years. I was stunned by the breathtaking development and improvement in quality-of-life factors. Even more importantly was the amazing, positive revolution in the people, their attitudes, behavior and lifestyles. I was truly impressed with everything I saw. However, we were in Beijing and at first, we only did limited travel in the area. I had to prove to myself that what I was seeing was the real deal in other parts of the country. I thus spent 44 days traveling by foot, local trains and buses, in six of the poorest provinces/regions of the country, including the Tibetan Plateau.

What started out as a simple blog developed into my first book, 44 Days Backpacking in China. Nonetheless, having finished it, I knew something was very wrong about my lingering Western superiority attitude, which I fully shed in writing my second book, China Rising. I then really rounded out the Chinese people’s incredible story of their 5,000-year civilization in writing BIG Red Book on China. Through it all, I learned to talk and write about the Chinese people from their point of view, in their voice.

As a result of my long journey to truth and understanding, I am very patient with Westerners, who are just like I was in the 1990s. I can fully empathize.

TPW: Lots of slogans are used in the mass media to describe people and the governments they lead, as well as those countries. We hear a lot about democracies, dictatorships, oligarchies, etc. However, we rarely hear anyone using those terms give an intelligible definition or explain why the same terms are so inconsistently used. Could you explain based on your own experience in China what democracy means in China, and how that definition might be applied elsewhere to judge if a place or system is democratic?

JJB: It took me writing China Rising to fully purge my system of a lifetime of “The West is the Best” brainwashing. I was having tremendous cognitive dissonance after experiencing 44 Days, and suspected that some of the comments I wrote about the Mao Era and China’s governance were wrong. I intuitively understood that to extend my arc of awareness into a more accurate understanding, I had to learn the truth about the West. As it turns out, it was not a pretty picture, and still isn’t. Nonetheless, it gave me the path I needed to really analyze the Chinese people in their voice, not from Uncle Sam’s condescending, from-above perspective.

This allowed me to realize that “Western liberal democracy” has always been a propagandized myth, going back to Ancient Greece and Rome, 3,000 years ago. Both prospered on what I call the Six E’s of Western Racism, Expansionism, Expropriation, Extraction, Extermination, Enslavement, Evangelism (since New World colonialism, we can add a seventh, epidemics).

With few, isolated exceptions (Louis IX, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Charles De Gaulle, John F. Kennedy), Western leaders and governments have always been autocratic, elitist, aristocratic, dictatorial, totalitarian, as well as corrupt, criminal and cruel.

After the fall of Rome, we suffered a thousand years of the tyrannical Catholic Church, then for the last 500, tyrannical monarchy’s imperialism and colonialism. Through it all, humanity has suffered the extermination of many billions of innocent souls, with the rape and plundering of the survivors’ human and natural resources. For a brief time under Napoleon Bonaparte’s leadership, 1799-1815 (he was a democratic socialist), the French and much of the rest of the European 99% on the continent being served before the aristocratic, monarchial 1%. After he was deposed, putting lipstick on what devolved into “Western Liberal Democracy” and its god-awful imperialist-capitalist pig, no longer works for me. (See Ramin Mazaheri discusses Part 1 of his fabulous book, France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values).

Instead in China, I know that for thousands of years, even during its limited, elite-class use of slavery (as opposed to Greece/Rome’s economies only able to function with massive, continual importations of slaves) and its longer period of feudalism, citizens were free to seek redress with local authorities if they felt there was an injustice. If that decision was unacceptable to the complainant, they could take it up to the provincial level and even to the emperor. It is still used today, called Letters and Complaints (信访) or Higher Appeal (上访).

I’ve personally seen Chinese delivering letters to the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, where the National People’s Congress convenes. We have seen increasingly that when Westerners do that they are likely to be punished, permanently injured, imprisoned or killed. Black lists, assassinations, and wrongful imprisonment have been common in the US at least since the infamous Palmer Raids. Just ask protesters being run over, mace-sprayed, beaten and shot in the West, especially in the USA and France. (See Ramin Mazaheri discusses Part 2 of his fabulous book, France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values).

At the same time, emperors and governors routinely sent out high level confidants incognito all over the country, disguised as traveling salesmen or tinkers, to chat up the locals, to understand their zeitgeist at the common level. What’s working? What are the people’s problems? What are their hopes and dreams?

This bottom-up style democracy continues today, with Mao Zedong’s mass line, which is simply massive polling and surveys of what the 99% want and need: to take the line of the masses. To this day, Baba Beijing³ is the world’s most active pollster and surveyor of public opinion. Living in Beijing and Shenzhen, there were notices every week on our apartment buildings’ main doors, asking people to come to the local government office to tell them about everything, from the availability of pap smears and breast exams, to garbage collection, possible sources of pollution, corruption, recycling, bus and metro services, public safety, the speed of the internet, and on and on.

Nowadays, citizens can do the same thing online, and do so vociferously. Artificial Intelligence and Big Data give Baba Beijing the power to zero in on potential problems and find fast solutions. Portals are available to confidentially report corruption, malfeasance, criminal business practices and other irregularities, which feeds into the Social Credit System (SCS-see below). I personally used it to report a couple of problems in my neighborhood and within a couple of three weeks, they were resolved.

Every three years, elections in 900,000 localities take place to vote for their village/neighborhood committees. More than half of those elected are not members of the CPC, just caring and concerned citizens. From there, these local reps vote for the bigger city government, and these in turn vote for provincial level leaders, and these latter vote for China’s 2,500-member National People’s Congress (NPC), which includes eight opposing political parties other than the CPC, something very few Western countries can claim. This body votes for the 300-member Central Committee (like a state council), which in turn elects the 25-member Standing Committee and top-level seven-member Politburo Standing Committee. All these representatives are highly experienced and well-educated. No movie actors and sports stars allowed (Democracy).

These foundations were laid millennia ago and since communist-socialist liberation in 1949, China has the world’s most consultative, consensual, bottom-up people’s democracy on Earth. Mao called it the mass line, President Xi Jinping calls it whole-process democracy. They both mean one thing: SERVE THE PEOPLE! (the 99%). Post-Napoleonic Western liberal democracy is a three-ring, barking dog circus performance to make the 1% super wealthy, keep them in power, while keeping the 99% down, poorer and in their lowly place.

There is simply no comparison.

TPW: Economist Michael Hudson, whose book Superimperialism was written for people in the US government to explain how the “dollar empire” works, has lectured a lot in China. Although he does not know the language, there is no one who can doubt his credentials as a serious political-economist. He also says that China is a socialist country from an economic point of view. He bases that observation on Chinese economic policy and his perception of who makes it. Since you do understand the language and have lived and worked in China many years, could you describe how Chinese talk about their system on a day-to-day basis?

JJB: It was Deng Xiaoping who came up with the moniker Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and it has stuck in the minds of the Chinese people, which they and the media use. Among those adhering to Mao Thought, (of which there are many magnitudes more than Western pundits want to admit) there is much criticism of Deng’s economic liberalization and opening up to the outside world, meaning global capitalism.⁴ This, while the same-said global capitalists loved what they perceived as a laissez-faire free-for-all, viz, a chance to plunder China’s resources.

What cannot be questioned is Deng’s belief that post-liberated China never had the chance to go through bourgeois capitalist industrialization, and according to Marxism, this is a prerequisite for transition to communism thereafter. Thus, this is what I lived through 1990-1997: Fast-Freddy, make-a-quick-buck, street level, jungle capitalism. The economy was mostly liberalized for high volume, low margin consumer/manufactured goods and retail services, such as restaurants, tourism, hotels, shopping malls, etc. Much less noticed by foreigners was that Baba Beijing kept, and is still keeping to this day, firm control of what they call the 100 Great Industries; i.e., directing and planning the country’s critical means of production.

Global capitalists only saw the prior and wore blinders for the latter, by hypnotizing themselves with their “Dengist” palliative, which avoided the don’t-go-there communism boogeyman. For the West’s mainstream media, this gave China a self-congratulating “capitalist road” sheen of inevitability. The Big Lie Propaganda Machine (BLPM)⁵ was gloating that China was rapidly joining the global capitalism’s “rules-based order”, meaning becoming a supine vassal, to be raped and plundered by the West trillionaire dictators. Self-conceited Western capitalists saw all that 1980s-1990s retail chaos as a sure sign they would soon be buying up banks, factories and public infrastructure for pennies on the dollar/euro, as they had across the postwar developing world. As it stands, Deng, who was a committed communist to his last dying breath (just read his works) and the Chinese people are having the last laugh to continual development and ever-increasing 99%-prosperity.

Fast forward to 2013. Xi Jinping added Chinese Dream to Deng’s hashtag, which is now used interchangeably by the people and in the media.

The Chinese people’s meteoric rise since 1949 is proof that they know what they are talking about: nonstop and broad-based economic opportunity, growing prosperity, sociopolitical harmony, public safety, and bottom-up, consensual people’s democracy. When the Chinese government announced it has raised some 300 million people out of absolute poverty, one needs to get a sense of proportion. The US population in 2022 is about 333 million. How many Americans are living in absolute poverty in what is supposedly the richest country in the world? Of course, Western anti-communists and Sinophobes refuse to see why, in top international polls, year after year (Gallup, Pew, etc.), the Chinese report great satisfaction with their government, media and the direction in which the country is heading, usually the world’s top-ranked country in each category.

At the same time, most Chinese are mortified by the West’s cruelty and criminality, both at home and abroad. Your average waitress or taxi driver knows much more about Eurangloland’s reality than vice-versa.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Walter Lipmann’s China Lobby could not bring themselves to admit it, using the euphemism “So-Called Communist China”, fully expecting one day for the country to be covered with big white churches, full of little yellow, Americanized Christians. Today, global capitalists continue to deny that China is communist, in spite of the fact that,

• The means of production in the 100 great industries are still controlled by Baba Beijing.
• Infrastructure, public transportation, telecommunications and the internet are people-owned.
• The financial sector is people-owned, with the world’s four biggest banks being wholly controlled by the State.
• The People’s Bank of China (central bank) issues the country’s currency, not like privately owned, Western central banks, which make trillions off performing the same function.
• The insurance sector is people-owned.
• The aforementioned is all owned and managed by very successful and profitable state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
• No dirt/green land can be bought in China. All land can only be leased for up to 70 years, this applies to locals and foreigners.
• China has a vanguard political party, the CPC, which oversees the military.
• The media is mostly government-owned and tightly state-managed, with an official censor explaining to the people why certain information is withheld (official censors in China have existed for thousands of years).
• Marxism-Leninism is official social, political and economic policy, employed at all levels of governance and business.
• Stalinist state planning is the order of the day, with benchmarked national five-year rolling plans laying out social, economic and political goals across the country. The private sector is expected to join forces with the state in achieving these targets.
• The above official policymaking is reinforced by Mao Thought and Xi Thought, and it all anchors both China’s national and CPC constitutions.
• The CPC, PLA and the Chinese people are considered to be one unifying, cohesive force for the betterment of all, to serve the people.
• Heavy redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom, with progressive taxation to make sure it happens.
• Heavy legislation, regulations and judicial oversight to keep China’s private sector technology, fintech, social media, education, medicine and other potential “usurpers” on a tight leash. No Chinese Mark Zuckerberg’s, Elon Musk’s, Jeff Bezos’s and Big Pharma allowed.
• Broad-based social services, such as generous maternity/nursing leave, universal health care, retirement income, old age homes and freebies for the elderly. Not to mention there are massive programs to eliminate rural poverty, ongoing.
• Bottom-up, consensual, consultative people’s democracy, with Mao’s mass line, never-ending polls and surveys among the people, which are essentially eternal public referenda, via direct voting.

These are not just policies on paper, but the big picture that drives daily practice. Yet – and yet – neoliberal, neocon and libertarian pundits still call it “So-Called Communist China”! There are only two other countries that can tick off most to all of these boxes: DPRK/North Korea and Cuba. So, for all these reality deniers, are these countries not communist either?

Ron Leighton, who wrote that dreadfully-argued article, “The Religiosity of ‘The Myth of Chinese Capitalism” appears⁶, like so many others, to be brainwashed. One might even doubt the article’s actual authorship since Mr Leighton’s website identifies him as a fiction writer, specializing in fantasy, but provides no biographical or other information to show his qualifications for writing about China. Philip Agee⁷ and more recently Udo Ulfkotte have explained how stories are planted using writers and journalists willing to publish CIA articles as their own. His article and the website he cites heavily take glib, elitist, tones even using Trotskyite “permanent revolution” jargon. Moreover that website provides no clear indication of who actually maintains or funds it.

TPW: It is no secret that while Western governments formally recognise national sovereignty, the corporations that own those governments have always seen national sovereignty as an obstacle to business — an obstacle to be overcome by whatever means necessary. Chinese people can be found almost anywhere in the world, but not the Chinese government. In fact, much of the overseas Chinese population is really the legacy of Western forced labour. Yet there is no doubt about strong historical and contemporary contact between overseas Chinese and New China (not just Taiwan). I imagine you have known people in China who are linked to this diaspora. How would you characterise the relationship between Chinese in China and those Chinese living outside China, whether or not they are Chinese citizens?

I ask this question for two reasons. One is the awareness that Chinese all around the world have been subjected to racialist policies in the countries they inhabit. The other is the question raised, in fact, by Putin, with respect to the Russian diaspora created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. New countries like the US or, in fact, most of the Western peninsula can only claim a nationality since the 1789 Revolution in France — before that there were monarchies, but no Westphalian nations. China in contrast has had a national identity for thousands years. Somehow, it seems to me that this ancient national identity must have special relevance for the Chinese view of their economic and political system.

JJB: Good question. In fact, we have to go back, way back. The Chinese people cum civilization have had a national identity going back 7,700 years. How? That is when the first remnants of the written language were preserved (on bone, tortoise shell and stone) and incredibly, its grammatical structure has changed very little since then. While today called Mandarin, for thousands of years and between thousands of spoken dialects, the lingua franca has always been the written language.

Even to this day, I have seen older Chinese, who only speak their local dialect, communicate using written messages, when meeting another person from elsewhere, in the same oral situation. They have been using the same characters for millennia, but pronounce them differently. The classic examples are Cantonese and Hakka, which have six tones and Mandarin, which has four (five, including the “non-tone”). We experienced this through all our travels across China. Even exploring small villages just outside Beijing, ground zero for all things Mandarin, we often had to use Chinese maps and writing with the villagers to find our way around, because for us, they were speaking dialectical gibberish; this long before GPS and mobile phones.

I bring this up to point out that postwar Mandarin has become political. The Mainland uses Mao-Era simplified characters, as does Singapore. However, it is associated with communism, Taiwan and most Western Chinese enclaves insist on using the traditional form. Nevertheless, Taiwanese and Singaporeans speak Mainland Mandarin. Thus, this national/linguistic identity applies to the 50 million Chinese living outside the Mainland and Taiwan. San Francisco, Hakka-dominated Penang Island and Paris’ 13th Arrondissement all consider themselves Chinese, many of them feeling this first and foremost, then they see themselves as American, Malaysian and French, respectfully.

To keep the civilizational umbilical cord connected, overseas Chinese are called Huaqiao (华侨), meaning Chinese Bridge. When they come back to the motherland, like after studying and working overseas, they are called Sea-Returnees (海归). The second character (gui = return) has the same pronunciation and tone for turtle. Thus, they are also called Sea Turtles (海龟), which always find their way home!

In sum, politics aside, for the diaspora and Mainlanders, there is only one Chinese Nation/Civilization on Planet Earth.

TPW: We hear and read that China — especially since 2020 — is the evil social system of the future for the rest of the world. I find it hard to believe that Chinese can either want or are able to impose their own social order on the rest of the planet. Americans talk and act as if everyone in the earth wanted nothing better than to become an American. Do Chinese think of the world becoming Chinese?

JJB: Absolutely not. Unlike 3,000 years of Western cultural, spiritual and economic evangelism, Mainland Chinese don’t have a proselytizing bone in their bodies. With the introduction of Buddhism in the first century AD, their spiritual palette has melded into a cosmic Confucism-Daoism-Buddhism (the prior two from sixth century BC), yet have no interest in “selling” it to others.  Nonetheless, because of the ancient Asian notion of saving and losing face, they do care what others think about them and are sensitive to outside criticism.

Yes, they are rightfully proud of humanity’s longest enduring civilization and love it when they see foreigners learn Mandarin, enjoy the culture and can express empathy with their communist-socialist way of life. Be that as it may, if an outsider criticizes their sociopolitical system, they are just as likely to ignore them and say sotto voce, tamade (他妈的), which means fuck off!

As far as Baba Beijing’s paternalistic, authoritarian governance is concerned, this is pure Confucism, which Mao Thought seamlessly integrated into his Serve the People, bottom-up, consultative mass line and consensual people’s democracy. What adherents of Western liberal democracy refuse to accept is that the Chinese people demanded that their Social Credit System be created. Why?  Because like me, they were sick and tired of the Fast-Freddy, Rip-Off-Eddy mentality and rampant corruption, from all that street-level, jungle capitalism. I have personally experienced and written much about the SCS and would encourage anyone who wants to understand it from the perspective of Chinese citizens, to read this very informative article.

Western libertarians are quick to point to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) global Covid Plandemic + Agenda 2030 as a Chinese conspiracy. One actually can hear and read people calling COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 the Chinese virus. In this scenario the CCP, like a hissing serpent, spitting and biting, seeks to diabolically impose its SCS and Zero-Covid policy on an unwitting planet. Again, this is laughable, since China has never tried to export its Confucism-Daoism-Buddhism-Communism-Socialism anywhere. It is the West’s trillionaire dictators, going back to their 19th century obsessions with eugenics, totalitarian control of all humanity and their natural and human resources, that is at the heart and soul of the WEF’s techno-fascist totalitarianism. Blaming the CCP for the Covid Plandemic + Agenda 2030 is simply the worst psychological deflection and exonerates the real psychopaths, who own and operate Western global capitalism. It is also deeply rooted in Sinophobia, going back centuries.

Concerning China being a big funder of the World Health Organization (WHO), they have the same idiom as many other cultures, Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer (让你的朋友亲密，让你的敌人更亲密). This is also true for China’s participation in October 2019’s WEF/Gates+Rockefeller+Fauci/Western Big Pharma/Military Event 201(read “Increasing oppression of the Covid-Great Reset Plandemic proves it is forever and ever in the West“). We can add the Wuhan Institute of Virology accepting payments (also through EcoHealth Alliance) from Anthony Fauci in 2015, to be taught by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill how to weaponize SARS-COV-2 (read “We made SARS. And we patented it on 19/4/2002, before there was any alleged outbreak in Asia”: David E. Martin testifies at the German Corona Inquiry Committee July 9th, 2021“). If you know that you are going to be attacked using biological agents, it just might make sense to learn all about the weapon that is being planned to destroy you? Just assume that this was, in fact, “defensive” weapons research. There is a long history of countries not (currently) at war participating officially as observers of each other’s military exercises.

Furthermore, until its collapse, no country can stand up to the West’s global, steamrolling BLPM. Case in point: a good friend of mine worked at the World Bank in New York, which is very near the WHO’s offices. He had a number of friends there and both sides socialized on the weekends. He said it was an open secret that Fauci’s HIV/AIDS was a complete hoax, to suck over two trillion dollars with-a-T into Big Pharma’s medical industrial coffers. Be that as it may, anyone who tried to speak out was assassinated, blackmailed, bribed or extorted into silence.

Want proof? Dr. Luc Montagnier discovered HIV and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work. Seeing how it was being exploited by Fauci & Co., he correctly publicly stated that HIV was no more dangerous than seasonal flu. What happened? He and his reputation were utterly destroyed by the corporate-state propaganda machine. One of the greatest microbiologists in history, a true national hero, yet his death this year in France was censored and ignored.

To understand China’s Zero-Covid policy requires knowing China’s history. No other country has been attacked as frequently with biological weapons, going back to 1935.⁸  In fact, special orders issued by General Douglas MacArthur’s command exempted Japanese army medical scientists from the kind of war crimes trials that were held against German Nazi doctors, instead settling them in Maryland to continue their work. These three [footnoted] articles give critical background to Baba Beijing considering every human and livestock/poultry epidemic as a potential act of war.  (“Is “Uriah Heep” speaking Wuhan coronavirus truth to power or just blowing Sino-sci-fi out his backside?” and “Harvard illegally collected DNA samples in China throughout the 90s, right up to SARS. Lies upon lies and many cover-ups have kept this criminal conduct hidden in plain sight. Looks like bio-engineered germ warfare to target ethnic Chinese,” and “Special explanation to address the many concerns global citizens have about China’s “Zero-Covid” policy, with Shanghai now in the headlines.”)

Chinese evangelism? Looking back across the millennia, the simple truth is that China’s Silk Roads reached Ancient Greece/Rome and Medieval/Renaissance Europe. Yet, it was Alexander the Great who was marching towards China, when he died in Afghanistan in 323 BC. It was Europe that globalized its imperial-colonial Six E’s of Racism, including its rape and plunder of Sinoland, 1839-1949. Chinese Admiral Zheng He sailed all over the Indian Ocean basin, two generations before pirate Columbus launched Europe’s New World genocide in 1492. Zheng’s massive flotillas, thousands of times bigger than the Santa Maria, Niña and Pinta conquered no lands, colonized no people. China was centuries ahead of Europe in navigational, military and productive, agricultural/manufacturing technology.⁹

If the Chinese had the same Six E’s of Racism DNA as the West, we would all be speaking Mandarin and singing songs of praise for Zhonguo (中国), the Middle Kingdom, while likely living much less bellicose and more prosperous and democratic lives.

Imagine that!

*

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

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa.

Notes

1. Comecon, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, was formed in 1949 to coordinate the trade relationships among those countries that had been “acceded“ to the Soviet sphere as a result of the Yalta agreements (1945) and in response to the US-led economic isolation of the region. At Yalta, the US had persuaded the Soviet Union that in lieu of reparations it would be permitted exclusive economic control over the territory it had occupied defeating Nazi Germany. US President Harry Truman repudiated these agreements at the Potsdam Conference. 
2. This expression was popularised by the eponymous 1958 political novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer. It was adapted for the screen in 1963, with Marlon Brando.
3. Baba Beijing, literally “father Beijing” is Jeff Brown’s sobriquet for the central government of the People’s Republic of China. This can be contrasted with the historical expression used prior to the overthrow of the Qing dynasty, when the emperor was called the “Son of Heaven”. 
4. For example, William H. Hinton wrote The Great Reversal: The Privatization of China, 1978-1989in which he accused Deng of abandoning Mao’s communist programme for China. Hinton also saw the Tiananmen Square event as a protest against Deng’s policies. Hinton published his first book lauding Mao’s land reform, Fanshen, in 1966. He was also a supporter of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which was widely repudiated after Mao’s death. After Edgar Snow, Hinton is probably the American most well known for his sympathetic reporting of China’s communist revolution.
5. BLPM, “Big lie propaganda machine“ is a term Jeff Brown uses in most of his weblog posts and his books. The term refers to the notion that “big lies“ are very effective in shaping consciousness. The concentration of Western mass media in some five or six corporations domiciled in the Western hemisphere gives these media their machine quality.
6. Kim Petersen also responded to Mr Leighton’s article in DV: “China is Not Capitalist and it is Not Yet Communist” (3 October 2022). Here the author of the original piece responds to Mr Leighton and to other questions concerning contemporary China.
7. Philip Agee explained this in his book Inside the Company: CIA Diary (1975) and in the Allan Francovich film On Company Business (1980).
8. See inter alia the Report of the International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of the Facts Concerning Bacterial Warfare in Korea and China (1952) also called the “Needham Report” after Dr Joseph Needham who presided over the commission’s work. 
9. See Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China (1954-2008) 27 vols.; also The Shorter Science and Civilisation: an abridgement of Joseph Needham’s original text, (1980-1995) by Colin Ronan, Cambridge University Press.

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 policy drafted by the San Francisco Police Department has sent a petition to the city’s Board of Supervisors which would allow police officers to deploy robots with the intent to kill suspects in situations where “risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD,” Engadget reports, citing Mission Local.

Where have we seen this one before?

According to Mission Local, the draft proposal has already received significant pushback from both within and outside of the Board – including supervisor Aaron Peskin, who initially resisted the idea until he inserted language which would completely neuter the death-bots.

“Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person,” he wrote, which the SFPD then removed in a subsequent draft.

The police force currently maintains a dozen fully-functional remote-controlled robots, which are typically used for area inspections and bomb disposal. However, as the Dallas PD showed in 2016, they make excellent bomb delivery platforms as well. Bomb disposal units are often equipped with blank shotgun shells used to forcibly disrupt an explosive device’s internal workings, though there is nothing stopping police from using live rounds if they needed, as Oakland police recently acknowledged to that city’s civilian oversight board. -Engadget

In short, if this proposal ever sees the light of day:

*

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 Zero Hedge

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 Balfour Declaration issued by the then-British Government in 1917 was merely a policy document. At the time the declaration was issued, Britain did NOT HAVE TITLE to convey or partition the land of Palestine to anyone. It was part of the Ottoman Empire and under Turkish control. The Declaration was issued for political reasons that had virtually nothing to do with a Jewish entity in Palestine where there were hundreds of thousands of indigenous Muslim Arabs who had been the majority demographic there for at least a thousand years. The document functioned instead as a future policy declaration of the British government, issued for reasons that had more to do with complex issues of WW1 and the role of America.

Subsequently, a Resolution was adopted at the San Remo Conference on April 25, 1920. It stated that, “the Mandatory Power will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”  The conference was attended by just four politicians of the day: Messrs Lloyd George, Alexandre Millerand, Francesco Nitti and Keishirō Matsui representing Britain, France, Italy and Japan, respectively.

Fast-forward 30 years to November 17, 1947 and the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181 that proposed the partition of Palestine into roughly two halves – one Arab and one Jewish. However, as with all UNGA resolutions, this was non-binding and certainly did NOT authorise the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine.  That was effected by a unilateral Declaration of Independence in May 1948 with no authority from anyone.

The important point to recognise here is that only 33 UN members states voted for partition in 1947.  There are now 195 UN member states, who together represent the world community. That number of ‘33’ is, of course, just 17% of the global, international community of nations today.

The fact that the world population is now far greater than in 1947, or that there were then fewer nation-states and therefore fewer UN members,  DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT, one iota, namely THAT ONLY A TINY MINORITY OF THE WORLD VOTED FOR PARTITION TO ENABLE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH ENTITY IN THEN MAJORITY ARAB PALESTINE – either then in 1947 or would now in 2022.

However, the independent Jewish state of Israel does exist today, and must have secure borders, within a two-state solution. The other being an independent, and contiguous, Arab state of Palestine.  Both must be demilitarised and non-nuclear, and importantly, both must have equal access to the waters of the Jordan River and the sea routes of the Mediterranean.  Both must co-exist with the other for the sake of their own future generations and for world peace.

*

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.

Author’s note: The San Remo conference of 1920, was held to determine the break-up of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East.  It was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council as an outgrowth of the Paris Peace Conference, held at Villa Devachan in San Remo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. The San Remo Resolution passed on 25 April 1920 determined the allocation of Class “A” League of Nations mandates for the administration of three then-undefined Ottoman territories in the Middle East: “Palestine”, “Syria” and “Mesopotamia”. The boundaries of the three territories were “to be determined [at a later date] by the Principal Allied Powers”, leaving the status of outlying areas such as Transjordan, unclear. The conference was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain, France, Italy and by Japan’s Ambassador Keishirō Matsui.  (Wikipedia) 

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 results of a clinical trial for lecanemab, an experimental drug that is claimed to slow the destruction of the brain in Alzheimer’s disease, have been hailed by the mainstream media as a ‘momentous breakthrough.’ This is despite the fact that the drug’s effect is very small, it can only be used in the early stages of the disease, and its likely impact on patients’ daily lives is highly questionable. With the treatment also carrying a risk of dangerous side effects, including death, shouldn’t we be hearing instead about the proven effectiveness and safety of natural therapies for dementia?

A monoclonal antibody treatment given by intravenous infusion, lecanemab was developed by Eisai, a pharma company based in Tokyo, and Biogen, a biotech company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Designed to attack the clumps of amyloid, a protein, that build up in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients, the drug is intended to be administered to sufferers every two weeks. But with its price per patient reportedly expected to be up to $35,605 per year, the treatment seems unlikely to be either easily affordable or available to all.

Patients receiving the drug deteriorated almost as much as those not given it

The study results promoted by the mainstream media were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trial involved a total of 1,795 patients with early-stage Alzheimer’s, 898 of whom received the drug with the rest being given a placebo.

Prior to the study, the participants were estimated to have an average clinical dementia rating of around 3.2, as measured on an 18-point evaluation scale, with higher numbers indicating greater cognitive impairment. After 18 months, the clinical dementia rating for patients treated with lecanemab had worsened by 1.21 points, with the rating for the placebo group worsening by 1.66 points.

In other words, the deterioration experienced by Alzheimer’s patients receiving the drug was only fractionally less than that of those who received no treatment at all. Despite this unimpressive outcome, much of the mainstream media’s reporting was misleadingly triumphalist.

‘Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab hailed as momentous breakthrough,’ screamed the UK’s BBC. Sky News described the study as a ‘Historic moment in Alzheimer’s treatment’ and a ‘game changer,’ while the UK’s Guardian newspaper claimed that lecanemab ‘looks like the real deal.’ The National, an English-language newspaper published in the United Arab Emirates, even went so far as to conclude that the drug was the ‘beginning of the end’ for Alzheimer’s. Beneath these deceptive headlines, however, lecanemab’s side effects turn out to be far from trivial.

Dangerous side effects including death

Brain scans showed that 17 percent of the patients receiving lecanemab suffered brain bleeds, with 13 percent experiencing swelling of the brain. Other adverse effects reported included confusion – a symptom clearly not desirable in the treatment of Alzheimer’s. Even more worryingly, however, the drug has also been linked to deaths.

Given the negligible difference lecanemab apparently makes in slowing patients’ deterioration, many observers doubt that its impact on the lives of sufferers will be significant. Quoted on the NPR website, Dr. Madhav Thambisetty of the U.S. National Institute on Aging pointed out that the drug only had a “very small” effect. “It’s very unlikely that these differences are going to be noticeable by individual patients in their everyday lives,” he predicted.

What the mainstream media completely omitted to mention, however, is that effective, safe natural approaches to treating Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia already exist.

Natural approaches to preventing and treating Alzheimer’s

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) in 2015 demonstrated that certain micronutrients can actually halt the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Carried out over a period of two years by scientists at the University of Oxford in the UK, it followed 168 elderly people and showed that, for participants with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a combination of B vitamins prevented brain shrinkage, a hallmark of the devastating condition.

Lead researcher Professor David Smith described the AJCN study’s finding as “very exciting and important,” explaining that “something so simple as keeping your omega-3 levels high and supplementing B vitamins if you are at risk could dramatically reduce a person’s risk.” He added that patients showing early signs of dementia should immediately be given omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins B6 and B12, and folic acid.

Other researchers have reached similar conclusions. A scientific review published in the Open Biology journal in 2020 described how evidence is accumulating that, through taking advantage of their synergistic effects, combinations of antioxidants may be effective not only in preventing Alzheimer’s disease but also in reversing it. Advising combining antioxidant supplements with a nutrient-rich diet, the researchers stated that such an approach may also be effective against other neurodegenerative diseases.

With additional research similarly emphasizing the important roles of B vitamins and vitamin C in the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s, the beneficial effects of nutrition for improving cognitive function and dementia are becoming increasingly clear. Meantime, however, with its blatant hyping of the lecanemab study results, the mainstream media remains focused instead on promoting the marketing interests of the drug industry. In doing so, it is deliberately giving false hope not just to patients, but also their families and doctors.

*

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 Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Pixabay

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

***

“The international community has an important role to play and we need to do everything we can to both help Haitians and to uphold respect for human rights, democracy and international peace.”

– Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

In recent years Haiti, near the bottom of the United Nations Human Development index has been hit hard by a coup d’etat in 2004, a catastrophic earthquake that killed a quarter of a million people, and a deadly outbreak of cholera.

Now, gangs in Haiti take centre stage. The federation of armed neighborhood organizations known by the name FRG9 successfully blockaded for a time the Varreux oil terminal, situated in between two impoverished neighborhoods the gang and its leader, Jimmy “Barbecue” Chérizier control. [2]

In October, in response to the Haitian Prime Minister’s appeal for help, a resolution seeking a military invasion was prepared. However, the Varreux barricade, the main driver behind the resolution, was removed when Haitian police using armored vehicles from the U.S. and Canada retook control.

But the threat posed by these gangs still continues.

The Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the press recently that he was not opposed to establishing a military mission on the ground in Haiti, provided “a consensus across political parties in Haiti” could be obtained.[3]

Canada has already established sanctions on several individuals, including former President Michel Martelly, as elites who “have been directly profiting from violence and instability in Haiti that is harming the Haitian people.”[4]

Although as Haitian-Canadian activist in Montreal, Frantz Andre, pointed out in a recent CBC article, elites like the country’s richest man, Gilbert Bigio, who owns a private port used to smuggle contraband and implicated by the gang leaders are seemingly untouchable. Bigio, and the other oligarchs who really run the country, or so Andre argues, pulls the puppet strings of people like Martelly! [5]

On this week’s Global Research News Hour, we will explore the unpleasant realities behind the pleasant-sounding Canadian sentiments of “putting pressure on these individuals to force them to end their senseless violence.”[6]

In our first half hour, we will hear from Èzili Dantò, a Haitian born lawyer and advocate for the Haitian population about the aim of a Haitian intervention by the U.S., UN and the Core being an imperialist one rather than a “mission of mercy.” She will also examine the role of the gangs and of Chérizier in this context and talk about the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse as an instance of sacrificing a puppet aligning himself with his master’s rivals.

This interview will be followed by Jafrikayiti Jean Saint-Vil. Over the course of the second half hour, St-Vil talks about the history of Canada’s involvement with the Haitian elite, and the systems of control with these people that may be more profound than financial interests in mining, sweatshops and so on.

Èzili Dantò is the founder and President of Ezili’s Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network (“HLLN”), a network of lawyers, activists, concerned individuals and grassroots organizations dedicated to institutionalizing the rule of law and protecting the civil and cultural rights of Haitians at home and abroad.

Jafrikayiti, also known as Jean Saint-Vil, is an Ottawa-based author, radio host and social justice activist who publishes in English, Kreyòl and French on his blog http://Jafrikayiti.com. With Solidarité Québec Haiti comrades, Jafrikayiti often tweets #BlackNationhoodMatters. He continually calls on Canada to stop interfering in the governance of his native Haiti.

(Global Research News Hour episode 371)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript of Jafrika Jean Saint-Vil, November 29, 2022

Global Research: Claims they need to go into Haiti to protect the interests of the people from violence, cholera, and so on. But the call to action is happening in the interests of the governing forces. You’ve said the last time that you were on the program that about a dozen white families hold political and economic power over the 99% Haitian black population. These individuals are effectively protecting their power with gang organizations of their own. So, can you acquaint us with some of the ways these families are protecting their power that Canada and the US did not feel the need to go in there and protect the interests of the Haitian people?

Jean Saint-Vil: Mm-hmm. Yes, well, you know, it’s a feature of Haitian society that has remained constant from colonial times to the present times. That there is a minority of individuals who are well-protected by outside forces who hold political and economic power on the island. At the time of the colony – the slave colony, of course – these were the French colonizers, or the Spanish, or the British, who were never in extremely high numbers on the island, but they always could count on the armies of their nations – and even the army of the United States nearby – to make sure that the white population on the island gets the backing whenever there would be a rising up of the black population which was enslaved at the time.

Now, this feature, you could say briefly, was overthrown after the success of the Haitian Revolution up to ten years, max, because as soon as Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the founder of Haiti, was assassinated on October 17, 1806, you had a gradual return of the old order. And today, when we hear talks about, let’s say, the former Haitian Army which was disbanded by President Aristide back in 1995, it would be mistaken to think that this was indeed a Haitian army. When you look at the history of that army, how it was created, I mean it’s not singular because in the Americas, many armies were created by the United States, armed, trained in the School of Americas. But in the case of Haiti, that army was established by the US occupation forces when they landed in 1915. And essentially, the Marines, when they entered Haiti, they did social re-engineering in the society. Basically, they took a group of Middle Eastern refugees, some of them who came from Syria, from Lebanon, Israel, and they established them as the new rulers of the economy in Haiti. And they maintained their power through inter-marriage with the old Mulatto families that were on the island, you know, post-independence.

Now, to protect their interests – because they are a numerical minority, a visible numerical minority, but they have access to education, access to resources, and connections outside of the island. And so, to protect their interests, the military, the US occupation forces that were there from 1915-1934, basically established a racial hierarchy, or – not established, they returned with the old racial hierarchy that was there before independence, okay? And the army that was created, you could see it. For the longest time, there was no officer of that army that was a Black Haitian.

First, they were all White Americans who were in that army and they still called it Forces Armees d’Haiti. But it was all White Americans who were the generals, the lieutenants, et cetera. And then, gradually, they replaced the White Americans with Mulatto Haitians, and then the foot soldiers were Africans. So, that army, whether it is in the early days after the American’s left, or recently up to 1995, their role on the island was to protect the interests of that tiny elite.

And that’s why in all kinds of incidents that have happened, such as in 1937 when Dominican dictator Rafael Leonidas Trujillo assassinated upwards to 30 or even more Black Haitians and Black Dominicans, there was no Haitian army to do anything. To fight back or to retaliate or do anything in the protection of the Haitian population.

Instead, the so-called Haitian government of the time who was led by Stenio Vincent – which is also a Haitian Mulatto – because once the Americans invaded, all of the Haitian presidents were Mulatto. They basically clearly established, ‘These are the people who are going to run that island.’ That one third of the island. And you could see, it’s the same thing that happened on the Eastern side of the island. You know, Dominican Republic, when you look at the Dominican population it’s not that much different than the Haitian population. But the ruling class in Dominican Republic is all the light-skinned Mulattos, and they even created some kind of myth whereas Dominicans don’t even recognize themselves as Africans.

So, you know, I’m simplifying whenever I talk about this, because there is a necessity to, you know, to be concise. But what I’m trying to say here is that, it is really a mistake when people think that White supremacy – which was the ideology under which the Americas were colonized – is something that was done with. Something that became marginal, that only concerns the Ku Klux Klan and things like that. No. It’s at the heart of policies and in the way nations, such as the United States, interact with Haiti, interact with Dominican Republic, and also in the way those societies organized power in the countries.

So, the gangs today play the role that the UN occupation forces played between 2004 and 2017. That is, to keep the masses in check for the benefit of that small minority of 15 white families. And the MINUSTAH of the UN occupation forces that landed in 2004, came in because there was no more so-called Haitian Army which played that role of keeping the masses in check. And so, when you look at the casualities that we observe, either from the Haitian military, or the so-called Forces Armees d’Haiti, or from the UN troops, or from the so-called gangs, they come from the same class of people.

GR: You know, —

JSV: And that tells you what their enemies are – who their enemies are.

GR: I wanted to go back to what you said just a couple of moments ago. I mean, usually there are financial interests that motivate Canada and the United States to respond, to intervene. As we saw in 2004, when they removed the democratically elected government and replaced it with a UN occupation, essentially, that they essentially controlled. But really, is motivating Canada to respond the way it has, I mean, is it the mining interests? Is it the oil interests or sweatshop interests? Or is it, as you say, some sort of a fundamental preference for this – the White supremacists running the show? I mean, from a systemic perspective – I mean, how are these decisions taking place?

JSV: Mm-hmm. Well, you know, it’s always difficult when we’re trying to, you know, separate those issues, because it’s usually several issues together, several motivations.

Of course, Canada’s foreign policy is tied to the hip with the US foreign policy, okay? Usually, wherever the US stands, that’s where Canada stands, with some nuance, okay? But not with fundamental difference. So, that’s the first element. And just like you see that, if there is a war in Europe, for instance, like in Ukraine right now, you won’t see Canada standing one way and then the US standing another way. They walk together, okay? So, in terms of – and to illustrate that, there’s the quote from our foreign minister, our former foreign minister, Bill Graham, who was quoted in Janice Gross Stein’s book saying that, you know, when they made the decision to participate in the coup in 2004 against Haiti, they got another arrow in their quiver, because you cannot – there’s a limit to how much you can say, “No,” and quote, “to our political masters in Washington.” That’s what Bill Graham said. 

And so, you know, we were offside in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we came onside on Haiti and got another arrow in our quiver. So, the subservient posture of Canadian leaders towards Americans in terms of their foreign policy is nothing new. And so, Haiti is not a difference in that particular area.

The second element, is that it’s easy to attack Haiti. It’s easy to side with the minority in Haiti especially when your population is ignorant of what’s really happening on the ground. You know, I am surprised to see so many people who are hearing for the first time that Haiti is ruled by 15 white mafia families. Yet, imagine how many reports have been made by CBC, by CNN, by BBC, by France24 about Haiti. They talk about everything else, except who actually owns those, you know, for instance gas stations in Haiti.

The other day, to justify the occupation, they were saying that there’s a gang that took over, you know, a gas stockage area, and therefore we need to liberate that so the people can have access to gasoline so they can send their children to school and blah blah blah. But they’re not telling you that this gas depot is owned by Gilbert Bigio, the richest man in the Caribbean who owns Total in Jamaica, Total in Haiti, and the direct connection that those guys have with the gangs is not only linked to the fact that some of the gangs have admitted that their weapons come directly from these families, okay? It also comes from the fact that they have private ports. And one of the famous private ports is called Lafito, which is one of the most elaborate ports in Haiti, where regularly there are illegal weapons – war-grade weapons – that are caught at that port. So, it is not something that is mysterious, it’s not something that’s not documented, but you don’t see it in media.

And even with the so-called sanctions that the United States and Canada decided to announce in tandem, okay? You know, and they keep on putting out there that, ‘Oh, this is only the beginning. We’re going to –’ and they started to use general terms, like ‘Oh, we’re going to go after corrupt people in the political and the private sector.’ But they never mention people from the private sector by name, okay? And the reason why they don’t do that is because those folks, okay, highlight who the allies of the United States and Canada in Haiti are and they know it looks ugly, okay?

And the same thing happened with the situation in Venezuela. When people started to find out that there are right wing criminals in Venezuela who were supported, you know, with Guaido and all of that, Canadians and Americans, they don’t want to admit that. The same thing when you have those right wing in Ukraine, you know, neo-Nazis, et cetera. So, it’s a pattern, you see that everywhere.

The alliances that the United States nurtured in many of the countries that it invades stand to the extreme right, racist right. And it doesn’t matter whether you have a Democratic or a Republican administration in the United States. It doesn’t matter if you have a Liberal or Conservative government in Canada, they always side with the extreme right wing in those territories. And that’s why, when we talk about it, you cannot isolate the question of ideology.

But when it comes to – always this question comes: ‘Well, Haiti is an impoverished country, so what is there to gain?’ you know? What is the financial or the economic interest? But you cannot look at it in isolation. First of all, it’s not just the island. Yes, the island has resources. Okay?

When Christopher Columbus was stealing the gold, they didn’t have sophisticated equipment. So, it was surface gold that they were digging. And so, there’s plenty of gold in Haiti. But I think it’s more linked to energy, because there is a thirst for energy and some of the prospectives that they’ve done on the island on both sides, Dominican side and on the Haitian side, shows that there’s natural gas on the island and there are some oil deposits in Haiti and in the water as well.

But I don’t think that’s the main thing, okay? Because they already have – Haiti is kind of like a territory that they already occupy. And the model that they’ve used for the past 200 years where they have these minority families through which they have access to whatever they need, which is mostly cheap labour.

Because Haiti was making sweatshops – we have sweatshops making t-shirts, all kinds of undergarments, and at the same time we were making baseballs for American companies. And of course, the use of impoverished Haitians in the plantations in Dominican Republic for sugar cane and all of that.

So, in reality, it’s really also the fact that Haiti is considered like – the control. If you cannot rule over Haiti, if you cannot impose a Black-faced dictatorship in Haiti, you will not be able to do the same in Salvador, in Costa Rica, in Nicaragua, and in – you know, and you see many countries in Latin America are moving left. Okay? They are coming out of the sphere of influence of the Americans.

And they don’t want to give up that model of imperialist control where you have, you know, fake elections, puppet leaders who you basically ask to make decisions that are in favour of multi-national corporations that are owned by Americans. And so, it’s only difficult to understand if you isolate Haiti as a singular country.

But if you look at it as, okay, if you lose control of Haiti, then you know, it will be very difficult for you to maintain control in Bolivia, in Colombia. And these places have shown that even when the United States and Canada manage to conduct a coup in those countries like they did in Bolivia, for instance, the population can continue to resist and overturn that coup. And there again, it’s about resources, because the lithium of Bolivia, they wanted to have access to it without paying the fair price.

GR: Trudeau is – currently he’s trying to interest other Caribbean countries, the CARICOM countries, to go into Haiti by force. Perhaps there is sensitivity to the idea that this is going to be another 1915-style invasion, otherwise. But how likely is it that he will succeed in – by hook or by crook – in getting these countries to put Blackface on this White supremacist foreign intervention?

JSV: Yeah. I think they were very, very overconfident in this ridiculous adventure. Because, you know, they were claiming victory very early because there were a couple of countries like The Bahamas and I think even some folks in Jamaica were saying that they were ready to send troops.

And for people who are not familiar with the Caribbean, these things might sound plausible, but these are ridiculous ideas, because a country like Barbados – or, not Barbados because Barbados is not truly independent. But The Bahamas or Jamaica are still under the control of the Queen of England. So, these are not even independent countries.

 So, where are they going to send their – they’re going to find these armies to send, okay? What they’re really talking about is exactly as you said it, they’re putting a Black face to a White supremacist intervention.

And so, you had leaders – because there are a few real leaders in the Caribbean, such as the prime minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Although, it’s a tiny country that also has these contradictions with (inaudible) to its own independence. But prime minister Ralph Gonsalves always stood his ground with regards to the bullying that the United States has exerted in the Caribbean, whether it is against Haiti or against Venezuela. And he said, you know, very clearly that sending troops now in – under the umbrella of the United Nations in Haiti would be, you know, trying to say that there is a legitimate government in Haiti that we’re supporting. And he doesn’t want anyone to make any mistake about that, that they don’t recognize this fool who was hand-picked by the BINUH, or the UN mission in Haiti, because that’s not how the Haitian constitution says you establish a prime minister.

So, this guy, Ariel Henry, was named by the former puppet-president, Jovenel Moise, and the day he was going to I guess ratify him as a prime minister, which would have still been illegal. Okay? Because, according to the Haitian constitution, the president names the prime minister and he is supposed to be ratified by the parliament. But this illegal regime that the foreign occupation forces established in Haiti has never organized any elections throughout the time it was there. So, there is no parliament, okay?

But even that did not happen, because they killed the president the same day that he was supposed to have the assermentation of the prime minister. So, this guy is completely illegal, but what do we notice? He has not only sat there, no one knows what his expiry date is. Because the prime minister is supposed to have a mandate, and his term is supposed to expire as the term of the president expires. There is no president. This guy is prime minister with no end date, okay? And he has named a president of the judicial system, La Cour de Cassation, the highest court of the nation. Which even on paper, you cannot have a prime minister have anything to say. There is no role for a prime minister in naming a president of La Cour de Cassation. It’s the president, again, who is supposed to name this person. There is no president.

So, we’re dealing here with a situation. And while they’re doing that, you know, it’s like a chess game. What they’re trying to do is to set the stage for someone to replace the current fool, and keep Haiti in a perpetual situation of a leader whose legitimacy is questioned. And whose only source of power is the foreign instances that says, ‘Yes, he is the president,’ or, ‘He is the prime minister,’ or is whatever of Haiti. Just like they did with Juan Guaido in Venezuela. It didn’t work in Venezuela. But in Haiti it is working, because the population doesn’t have enough power to overthrow the system yet.

To me, it’s only a matter of time, because like you saw, Justin Trudeau has had to back-pedal, you know. Whereas, they were announcing that, you know, they were ready to enter Haiti and they are looking for troops in Africa. They mentioned Kagame in Rwanda as a place where they were going. There was an op-ed in the Globe and Mail saying that, yes, this is what we need to do, you know, invade Haiti and get Kagame to lead the troops.

These folks are not stupid, they understand that, whereas Haiti is a very impoverished country, as, you know, folks who are watching movies, they can see the references to Haiti in the Black Panther 2 movie. In the Black world, Haiti is considered a Mecca. We understand that Africans, even corrupt African leaders, know how ugly it would look if in 2002, their populations see them as fools who are sending soldiers, okay, to support an invasion whose objective is to protect 15 White mafia families in the Mecca of the Black world. And there are all kinds of people who are making those political decisions who don’t pay any attention to the psychological situation.

And that’s why they conducted the coup in 2004, not realizing that 2004 was the year of celebration of the end of racial slavery in the Americas. And that, to them, is no big deal, you know? Only White history is important. Well, when you see this coup took place, and you see folks like Danny Glover, like Harry Belafonte, like Maxine Waters, the Black world, okay, any Black leader of importance in the world condemned the coup. Because we all understood, this coup was conducted as a result of a handful of white men and women meeting at Meech Lake, okay, on January 31, Februay 1, 2003, and deciding that Haiti must be overthrown and be put under UN tutelage. And then, a year later, they send their White soldiers to kidnap the president of Haiti, okay? And to this day, you know, they’re trying to lie and say that, ‘Well, this guy was no angel,’ as if the folks who are saying that are angels themselves. As if there are angels on the planet, you know? Totally irrational talk, okay? To —

GR: Yes.

JSV: — try to justify a racist coup. And it wasn’t, you know, a banna. And when they talk about that, they talk about it as if it’s, ‘Okay, well, oops, we made a mistake.’ No, you didn’t make a mistake. You conducted a coup where thousands of people were murdered.

GR: Yeah.

JSV: And if we really had a justice system in the world, like you know, the so-called Coupinal Internationale or the International Crimes Tribunal, some of these folks would have been condemned and judged for that coup in 2004. But of course, we live in the world where there is no such justice system. But thinking that in 2022 it was going to be easy for them to mobilize troops in Africa and Caribbean was absolutely stupid. And sometimes I wonder, ‘Who are the advisors of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?’

GR: Mm-hmm. Well, I guess we’re going to have to close it there, but thanks again for your brilliant insights, Jean. We’ll talk again as this situation develops in the future but thank you for time.

JSV: Thank you very much, Michael. And I also want to thank Global Research, because you guys have covered this story and I like the fact that, you know, you go into depth. And that’s something that I find unfortunately, in Canada, people don’t realize how much what we’re calling the mainstream media is not about information. Okay? And so, we do need information as opposed to, you know, official propaganda.

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

Other stations airing the show:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

1. https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2022/11/canada-imposes-sanctions-against-haitian-political-elites.html
2. https://canada-haiti.ca/content/frg9-makes-high-stakes-gamble-dislodge-pm-ariel-henry
3. Dylan Robertson (Noveber 22, 2022),’Haitian political parties must all agree if Canada leads military intervention: Trudeau’, The Canadian Press; https://globalnews.ca/news/9293242/haitian-political-parties-canada-military-intervention-trudeau/
4. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/haiti-canada-sanctions-1.6660887
5. ibid
6. https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2022/11/canada-imposes-sanctions-against-haitian-political-elites.html

“Gli Alleati stanno fornendo un sostegno senza precedenti all’Ucraina e continueranno a farlo”, annuncia il segretario generale della NATO Stoltenberg.  Con centinaia di obici forniti dalla NATO, le forze di Kiev sparano in un solo giorno migliaia di proiettili, più di quanti le forze NATO sparavano in un mese in Afghanistan. Di conseguenza le canne degli obici, lunghe 6 metri e pesanti tonnellate, devono essere frequentemente sostituite: a tale scopo il Pentagono ha dislocato in Polonia una speciale unità che invia in continuazione i pezzi di ricambio in Ucraina.

Ciò comporta un colossale aumento della produzione bellica, che diventa fattore decisivo nella guerra. Stati Uniti e NATO forniscono a Kiev non solo crescenti quantità di armi, ma sistemi d’arma a lunga gittata e proiettili che si dirigono automaticamente sugli obiettivi. Di conseguenza la Russia usa armamenti sempre più sofisticati. Tutto questo determina la scalata a sempre più pericolosi livelli di confronto militare tra NATO e Russia.

La situazione è resa ancora più pericolosa dal crescente ruolo belligerante dell’Unione Europea. La presidente della Commissione Europea Ursula von der Leyen annuncia che i 300 miliardi di euro che la Banca Centrale Russa aveva depositato in banche europee, già “congelati” dalla UE, verranno ora sequestrati e di fatto usati per la guerra contro la Russia. Contemporaneamente Jens Stoltenberg annuncia che “stiamo discutendo su come aiutare l’Ucraina a muoversi verso l’adesione alla NATO”. Se l’Ucraina entra nella NATO, in base all’articolo 5 i 30 paesi della NATO, Italia compresa, devono mandare le proprie forze armate a combattere contro quelle russe in Ucraina.

Sullo sfondo di questo scenario, assume ulteriore importanza la Campagna Fuori l’Italia dalla Guerra. Su questo inviene lo storico Franco Cardini.

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO :

Introductory Note by Michel Chossudovsky

The unspoken truth is that Big Oil funds the campaign against Big Oil. Sounds contradictory?

Climate activists have been lied to.

The Climate Movement (New Green Deal) is funded by major charities and corporate foundations including the National Endowment for Democracy, Soros Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers Trust, Shell Foundation, BP, Goldman Sachs, among others.

Whereas “Big Oil” is held responsible for the devastating impacts of the fossil fuel industry, the architect of Big Oil, namely the Rockefeller family is the major protagonist of the Green New Deal:

“Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute published in 2016).

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance.

But who controls that debate? Major capitalist foundations ultimately call the shots?

The following article by F. William Engdahl carefully documents the  role of the powerful economic actors behind “Green Finance”. This article was first published in September 2019, coinciding with the COP25 venue in Madrid.

There is an obvious contradictory relationship. According to William Engdahl, the New Green Deal is a multibillion “economic project”: 

Prince Charles, … along with the Bank of England and City of London finance have promoted “green financial instruments,” led by Green Bonds, to redirect pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects.”

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 6, 2021, December 3, 2022

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 June 20, 2021

***

„Eines Tages klopfte die Angst an die Tür. Der Mut stand auf und öffnete, aber da war niemand draußen.“ 

Dieses ursprünglich englische Sprichwort wurde zu Beginn des Jahres 2020 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe zugeschrieben. Ausgestattet mit der Autorität des deutschen Dichterfürsten wurde es in kurzer Zeit ein beliebter Motivationsspruch gegen die Angst vor dem Corona-Virus. Das Zitat gibt eine Lebensweisheit wieder, die im Folgenden psychologisch bekräftigt und vertieft wird. Wenn wir Menschen den Mut aufbringen, die in der Erziehung erworbene Angst vor dem Mitmenschen zu überwinden, wenn wir uns mit ihm in Freiheit assoziieren und den Gemeinsinn zur leitenden Idee erheben, dann hat die Spezies Mensch die Chance zu überleben.

Selber vor die Haustüre treten und nachsehen, was es gibt!

Jeder Mensch ist dazu aufgerufen, seinen Beitrag zur Lösung der drängenden Probleme unserer Zeit zu leisten. Und selbstverständlich sind wir dazu in der Lage, wenn wir uns bewusst sind, dass es auf jeden Einzelnen von uns ankommt. Warum nicht den Mut aufbringen, sich des eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen, die gegenwärtigen Menschheitsprobleme nicht zu verdrängen, sondern gegen Unrecht aufzustehen – intellektuell, emotional, politisch. Die Trägheit des Herzens überwinden und handeln! Allen Widrigkeiten zum Trotz die Entschlossenheit aufbringen, die Wahrheit zu suchen und dadurch die Würde als Mensch zu bewahren und eine lebenswerte Zukunft für uns und unsere Kinder zu schaffen.

Der Schweizer Dichter und Romanautor Gottfried Keller (1819-1890) war der Auffassung:

„Keine Regierung und keine Bataillone (…) vermögen Recht und Freiheit zu schützen, wo der Bürger nicht imstande ist, selber vor die Haustüre zu treten und nachzusehen, was es gibt.“ (Züricher Novellen)

Romain Rolland (1866 bis 1944), französische Schriftsteller und Literatur-Nobelpreisträger, meinte sogar, dass jeder Mensch notfalls allein innerhalb aller stehen und für alle denken und handeln muss. In der Einleitung seines Antikriegs-Romans von 1920 „Clerambault. Geschichte eines freien Gewissens im Krieg“ schrieb er.

„Jeder Mensch muss, so er ein wahrer Mensch ist, lernen, allein innerhalb aller zu stehen, allein für alle zu denken – wenn es nottut, sogar auch gegen alle! Aufrichtig denken heißt, für

alle zu denken, selbst wenn man gegen alle denkt. Die Menschheit bedarf derer, die ihr aus Liebe Schach bieten und sich gegen sie auflehnen, wenn es nottut!“ (1)

Auch „Die Internationale“, das weltbekannte Kampflied der sozialistischen Arbeiterbewegung, empfiehlt den Menschen, nicht auf die Rettung durch höhere Wesen zu hoffen, sondern selbst tätig zu werden:

„Wacht auf, Verdammte dieser Erde, die stets man noch zum Hungern zwingt! (…) Heer der Sklaven, wache auf! (…) Völker, höret die Signale! Auf zum letzten Gefecht! (…) Es rettet uns kein höh’res Wesen, kein Gott, kein Kaiser noch Tribun! Uns aus dem Elend zu erlösen, das können wir nur selber tun!“ (2)

Freie Bürger, die gegen Unrecht und Tyrannei aufstehen, haben nichts gegen die Machthaber. Sie tun ihnen nichts. Sie wollen aber auch nicht in einem Herrschaftssystem leben, in der sie schweigen müssen. Sie kämpfen für eine gerechtere Ordnung, für ihr Recht auf das Leben, auf Freiheit, Frieden und Sicherheit. Sie haben überdies einen gesunden Menschenverstand und sind autonom. Autonomie ist der Zustand und das Lebensgefühl der Selbstbestimmung, Unabhängigkeit und Selbstverwaltung. Philosophisch gesehen ist sie die Fähigkeit, sich als Wesen der Freiheit zu sehen und aus dieser Freiheit heraus zu handeln.

Ausgestattet mit diesen Fähigkeiten übergibt kein Mensch aus freien Stücken einem anderen die Macht, über sein Leben und seine Zukunft zu entscheiden. Keinem anderen Menschen beziehungsweise Politiker, aber auch keinem übernatürlichen Wesen, das ihn als „Gottheit“ von frühester Kindheit bis ans Ende der Tage führen und beschützen soll. Sind wir Menschen doch eingebettet in die Gemeinschaft von Artgenossen, vor denen wir keine Angst haben müssen, sondern auf deren Unterstützung und Solidarität wir bauen können.

Den Mut aufbringen, sich mit dem Mitmenschen zu assoziieren

Wir müssen nur den Mut aufbringen, uns dieser Aufgabe zu stellen und uns mit den Mitmenschen zu assoziieren. Das bedeutet, einen oft mühsamen, langwierigen und nicht leicht begehbaren Weg auf uns zu nehmen, an das Gute im anderen Menschen zu glauben, uns in ihn einzufühlen, uns mit ihm zusammenzuschließen und ohne Zwang an ihn zu appellieren. Einen kurzen, leicht begehbaren und einfachen Weg zum Ziel – einen sogenannten Königsweg – gibt es nicht.

Der andere Mensch, unser Gegenüber, unser Mitbürger und Artgenosse ist gerne bereit, unser Angebot anzunehmen, wenn er die Möglichkeit bekommt, sich frei und ohne jeglichen Zwang dafür zu entscheiden. Auch er will gut leben mit seinen Kindern. Auch er hilft dem anderen gerne.

Bereits vor über 100 Jahren schrieb der russische Anarchist, Geograph und Schriftsteller Fürst Peter Kropotkin (1842 bis 1921) in seinem Buch „Die gegenseitige Hilfe in der Tier- und Menschenwelt“, dass in Natur und Gesellschaft keineswegs nur ein Kampf aller gegen alle (Sozialdarwinismus) stattfindet, sondern dass ebenso das Prinzip der „gegenseitigen Hilfe“ vorherrscht. Diejenigen Lebewesen, die dieses Prinzip umsetzen, würden erfolgreicher überleben. Kropotkin beobachtete sowohl die Natur als auch die Naturwesen und bezog seine Erkenntnisse auf den Menschen.

Das Gemeinschaftsgefühl zur leitenden Idee erheben 

Dieses Prinzip der gegenseitigen Hilfe muss auf jede erdenkliche Art und Weise in den Gedanken und sittlichen Handlungsprinzipien der Menschen und in der Solidarität, im Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl, in der Brüderlichkeit und im Gemeinschaftsgefühl der Menschen verankert werden. Aus der Einsicht um die Zusammengehörigkeit aller, die Menschenantlitz tragen, erwuchsen die Lehren der sittlichen Führer der Menschheit, die Weisheit des Laotse, das Gebot der Nächstenliebe und die unzähligen Formen des gesellschaftlichen Lebens und Verhaltens, in denen der Gemeinsinn zum Ausdruck kommt.
Für Alfred Adler, den Begründer der Individualpsychologie, besteht die „tiefste Idee aller Kultur (…) in der endgültigen Verwerfung des Strebens nach Macht und in der endgültigen Erhebung des Gemeinsinns zur leitenden Idee.“ Das sagte er bereits vor 100 Jahren. Alle unsere Bestrebungen in der Welt und der Wissenschaft sollten das Leitmotiv haben, in Zukunft einen Menschentypus hervorzubringen, für den – wie es Alfred Adler formulierte – Gemeinschaftsgefühl und mitmenschliche Verbundenheit ebenso selbstverständlich sind wie das Atmen (3).

Man kann die Mahnrufe des menschlichen Gemeinschaftsgefühls wohl unterdrücken; gänzlich ausmerzen kann man sie nie, denn das Geschenk der Evolution besteht im sittlichen Bewusstsein des Einzelnen, in der Einsicht in die Verantwortung aller gegenüber allen. Unsere Aufgabe für die Zukunft scheint deshalb vor allem die Pflege und Verstärkung der Gemeinschaftsgefühle zu sein. Kein Mittel darf uns zu gering sein, keine Anstrengung zu mühsam, um den Menschen besser in das soziale Gefüge einzuordnen.

Die in der Erziehung erworbene Angst vor dem Mitmenschen überwinden

Diesem hehren Ziel steht jedoch bei den meisten Menschen eine in der Kindheit erworbene und nur schwer zu überwindende Gefühlsreaktion entgegen: die Angst vor dem Mitmenschen. Diese Angst ist nicht angeboren. Der Mensch kommt ohne Angst zur Welt und erwirbt sie erst im Laufe seiner Entwicklung als Folge der traditionellen autoritären und religiösen Erziehung. Deshalb haben fast alle erwachsenen Menschen Angst – bewusst oder noch viel häufiger unbewusst. Sie ist Ausdruck einer Irritation und hat wenig mit der realen Situation zu tun.

Die Angst durchzieht das ganze Um und Auf des Menschen, sein Tun und Handeln, wie er sich im Leben und in der Gemeinschaft gibt und bewegt. Sie verhindert ihm das Denken und macht ihn unfähig, nur irgendeine Situation real und vernünftig einzuschätzen. Er ist nicht mehr der Macher seines Lebens, sondern die Angst treibt ihn.

Das Menschenbild der christlich-abendländischen Kultur besagt, dass der Mensch – auch schon das kleine Kind – schlechte Eigenschaften in sich trägt. Mit dieser Information – sei sie bewusst oder unbewusst – tritt der Erzieher der heutigen Zeit an das Kind heran. Immer vermutet er einen bösen Willen beim Kind. Er weiß nicht, dass das Kind ganz auf die Beziehungspersonen ausgerichtet ist, dass sein ganzes Sehnen und Trachten dahin geht, von den Eltern geliebt und geschätzt zu werden, dass es noch so gerne kooperiert. Das Kind ist von Natur aus gut.

In Wirklichkeit jagen Eltern und Erzieher dem Kind mit jeder Anwendung von Gewalt, sei es in Form von Strenge oder auch Verwöhnung, große Ängste ein. Das Kind lernt, Angst zu haben; es lernt, sich vom Mitmenschen bedroht zu fühlen; es erlebt, dass mit dem Menschen nicht gut Kirschen essen ist. Die Gefühlsreaktion der Angst wird ein Bestandteil seines Charakters. Das Menschenbild, welches es in den frühesten Kindheitsjahren bei seinen Eltern erworben hat, trägt es in jede Beziehung unbewusst hinein.

Auch heute noch wird das Kind mit Gewalt und Missachtung seiner Persönlichkeit erzogen. Dadurch beginnt das Kind sich vom Menschen abtzuwenden. Es ergibt sich eine verneinende Tendenz, die sein späteres Leben beeinflusst. Es verspricht sich nicht mehr viel vom Menschen. Die gewalttätige Behandlung erschüttert seine Persönlichkeit zutiefst und erweckt in ihm Aversionen gegen den Mitmenschen. Das Vertrauen zum Menschen, das eigentlich das Fundament der Persönlichkeit und die natürliche Auffassung vom Leben wäre, kann nicht entstehen.

Das Kind erlebt auch, dass die elterliche Autorität über allem steht. Es erlebt, dass es nur eine richtige Meinung gibt, und das ist die des Vaters, der Autorität. Es erlebt, dass man gewisse Meinungen nicht haben soll. Es lernt die Gewalt und die Sanktionen, die von den Eltern ausgehen, derart zu fürchten, dass es keinen Widerspruch mehr wagt, weder im Denken noch im Handeln. Als Erwachsener ist der Mensch nicht mehr in der Lage, einen eigenen Gedanken zu fassen, weil seine Angst vor den Folgen – irdischen oder überirdischen – ihn lähmt. Er wird nervös und ungehalten, wenn er nur schon eine andere Meinung hört.

Auf diesem Boden ist es dem Menschen nicht möglich, sich mit anderen Meinungen auseinanderzusetzen. Er kann vom anderen Menschen nur noch schwer etwas annehmen. Seine Angst wird zum dominierenden Beziehungsproblem. Er kennt die freie Auseinandersetzung nicht, er kennt nur Befehl und Gehorsam. Er ist gewohnt, die Meinung der Autorität ungeprüft zu übernehmen. Er hat zudem als Kind erlebt, dass er mit vielen Meinungen belastet wurde, die er in keiner Weise überprüfen konnte. So findet er sich damit ab, dass vieles nicht verstehbar ist und dass das Unverständliche nicht angezweifelt werden darf.

Diese Einschüchterung von Verstand und Vernunft geht in unserer Kultur einher mit der religiösen Erziehung, mit irrealen Informationen über Geister, Teufel und Engel.

Der Mensch wird zwar weder religiös noch gottesgläubig geboren, doch das geistig gesunde und unverkrüppelte Kind gerät in eine Gesellschaft, in der wahnhafte Ideen und Illusionen vorherrschen. Kaum zeigen sich beim kleinen Kind die ersten seelischen Regungen und es lernt zu sprechen, wird es von der Gesellschaft, das heißt von den Eltern und der Kirche „in Obhut genommen“. Es wird ihm klar gemacht, dass sich sein Wesen bezüglich des Naturgefühls und der Weltanschauung nicht frei entwickeln darf. Will es verhindern, mit allgemeiner Verachtung und höllischen Peinigungen bestraft zu werden, muss es sein Wesen in eine bestimmte kirchliche Form pressen.

Ausblick

Dank der Erkenntnisse der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie weiß man heute, wie die Angst vor dem Mitmenschen entsteht. Man kennt die Ursachen genau. Man weiß auch, wie der Mensch die Angst hinter sich bringen kann. Der heutige Mensch müsste deshalb nicht mehr von Ängsten geplagt sein. Diese Ängste lassen sich in einer vertrauensvollen therapeutischen Beziehung zu einem Fachmann verändern respektive überwinden. Indem der Mensch Mitgefühl und Verständnis erlebt, kann er diese Ängste verlieren (4).

Und die Pädagogik in Elternhaus und Schule hat auf das autoritäre Prinzip – das Jahrhunderte lang als fraglos gültige Grundlage des erzieherischen Verhaltens angesehen wurde – und auf Gewaltanwendung zu verzichten. Erzieher haben sich mit wahrem Verständnis dem kindlichen Seelenleben anzupassen, haben die Persönlichkeit des Kindes zu achten und haben sich ihm freundschaftlich zuzuwenden. Eine solche Erziehung wird einen Menschentypus hervorbringen, der keine „Untertanen-Mentalität“ besitzt und darum für die Machthaber in unserer Welt kein gefügiges Werkzeug mehr sein wird.

*

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.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe.

Fussnoten 

[1] Rolland, Romain (1988). Clerambault. Geschichte eines freien Gewissens im Krieg. Reinbek bei Hamburg, S. 12

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Internationale

[3] Heinz L. / Ansbacher, Rowena R. (Hrsg.). (1982). Alfred Adlers Individualpsychologie. Eine systematische Darstellung seiner Lehre in Auszügen aus seinen Schriften. München, Basel

[4] a.O.

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.

***

Fascism is a governmental system in which the means of economic production and delivery of services are privately owned but government-controlled. Throughout history — before even getting to its racism and wars — fascism has led to the glorification of the state and the destruction of personal liberty. It is happening here.

During the past few months, we have learned that the major credit card companies have begun to record transactions at gun shops so as to enable the feds to learn the identity of patrons. These are lawful gun shops selling lawful products to lawful purchasers. The credit card records do not reflect precisely what was purchased — it might have been $2,000 for a gun safe or for gun safety lessons — but they do record the purchase amount and the contact information of the purchaser.

The problem here comes about when the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives come calling with their so-called National Security Letters in order to find out who is purchasing what. The George W. Bush-championed Patriot Act of 2001 — the most horrific congressional assault on personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalized dissent — permits federal agents to bypass the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment when they want private records that are in the hands of a custodian.

These NSLs are really nonjudicial search warrants in which one federal agent has authorized another to seek your records. Since the gun shop purchase consists of the exercise of the natural right to exchange value for a lawful product and since the product purchased is an extension of the natural right to self-defense, the former protected by the Fifth Amendment and the latter by the Second Amendment, there is no lawful reason for the feds to know who has made these purchases.

Prior to the Patriot Act, if the feds came calling upon the custodian of your records, the custodian informed you of the government’s interest in your records, and you had a reasonable time period to challenge the feds in court. Today — notwithstanding the free speech protections in the First Amendment — it is unlawful for a custodian to inform you that the feds have come calling.

Thus, the records held by your computer, telecom, financial, health care, utilities and credit card service providers, your physicians and lawyers, may all be accessed without search warrants and without notice to you.

Under the Constitution, where federal gun registries are not permitted, it is none of the federal government’s business who has purchased what from a gun shop.

Moreover, since the Supreme Court has characterized the right to self-defense as fundamental, akin to the freedom of speech, there is no more authority under the Constitution for the feds to learn the identity of gun shop patrons than there is for them to learn the identity of bookstore patrons.

The additional danger here is to the democratic process. These decisions to keep records of sales and make them available to federal agents were made by government bureaucrats and corporate bosses, not by Congress. This is a creeping deterioration of the right to keep and bear arms because the feds are notoriously anti-gun, no matter who is president and no matter what the Supreme Court rules the Second Amendment protects.

Add to this the new program concocted by Visa whereby it will keep records of credit card purchases in which it will rank the purchased products’ conformity with the green climate change agenda view of carbon emissions, and make those records available to the Treasury Department, and you see a further whittling away of personal privacy.

It gets worse.

Last week, Amazon announced a bizarre new partnership with the New York City Police Department whereby if you live in New York City and install Amazon’s Ring service at the front entrance to your apartment — and thus permit Amazon to record the audio and video of all who come and go at your entrance — the NYPD will have real-time access to the same audio and video.

This is yet another example of law enforcement intruding into private property — the home — without a search warrant, without probable cause of crime and without articulable suspicion.

The Amazon/NYPD partnership — just like the credit card/BATF partnership and the Visa/Treasury partnership — was never authorized by legislation. All these symbiotic relationships, just like the now well-known Big Tech/Department of Homeland Security partnership producing censorship of speech the government hates and fears, were born by bureaucrats using government carrots and sticks and the acquiescence of gutless corporate chieftains willing to please their government masters.

The government’s appetite for surveillance is insatiable. Yet, the dual purposes of the Fourth Amendment — by requiring judicial search warrants based on probable cause of crime and specifically describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized — are to keep the government off the peoples’ backs and to compel law enforcement to focus on crimes that have already been committed.

May the government lawfully engage in fishing expeditions? In a word: NO.

The secondary purposes of the Fourth Amendment are to prohibit general warrants — not based on probable cause of crime and not specifying the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized — and to require that before the government begins to gather any evidence of crime, it has articulable suspicion about the crime that has been committed and the person or place to be investigated.

Moreover, articulable suspicion alone — the threshold for commencing all criminal investigations — does not justify any search, seizure or non-public surveillance.

What we have here is the stealth use by government of private enterprise to do its unconstitutional dirty work, thus far untested in the courts but unconstitutional on its face. What secret favors is the government giving in return?

*

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 Global Look Press / Jaap Arriens

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 Israeli military on Wednesday published pictures of joint aerial exercises with the US that were held this week and simulated attacks on Iran.

The drills were held over Israel and the Mediterranean Sea. According to the Times of Israel, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said the exercises involved four Israeli F-35 fighter jets that joined four US F-15s and a US KC-135 tanker aircraft that refueled two Israeli F-16s.

While Israel often threatens to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, it’s not clear if they have the capabilities to pull off the operation on its own. Israel currently relies on aging tankers for mid-air refueling, which aren’t expected to be capable of supporting the strikes on Iran.

The drills came after the head of the IDF, Aviv Kohavi, was in Washington and urged US officials to step up planning for joint attacks on Iran. Upon his return to Israel, Kohavi said that the US and Israel agreed to “significantly expand” joint military activity.

The IDF said that during this week’s drills, Israel’s Intelligence Directorate “conducted an extensive simulation that replicated a campaign against distant countries,” referencing Iran.

“These exercises are a key component of the two militaries’ increasing strategic cooperation in response to shared concerns in the Middle East, particularly those posed by Iran,” the IDF said.

Israeli officials have been hyping up the threat of Iran’s nuclear program, but the US recently acknowledged in its Nuclear Posture Review that Tehran is not making a nuclear weapon. That conclusion hasn’t stopped the threats from Israel or the US as Robert Malley, President Biden’s special envoy for Iran, warned in October the US would use a “military option” against Iran as a “last resort” to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image: Photo of the drills released by the IDF

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 York Times has found another neo-Nazi militia to fawn over in Ukraine. The Bratstvo battalion “gave access to the New York Times to report on two recent riverine operations,” which culminated in a piece (11/21/22) headlined “On the River at Night, Ambushing Russians.”

Since the US-backed Maidan coup in 2014, establishment media have either minimized the far-right ideology that guides many Ukrainian nationalist detachments or ignored it  completely.

Anti-war outlets, including FAIR (1/28/22, 3/22/22), have repeatedly highlighted this dynamic—particularly regarding corporate media’s lionization of the Azov battalion, once widely recognized by Western media as a fascist militia, now sold to the public as a reformed far-right group that gallantly defends the sovereignty of a democratic Ukraine (New York Times, 10/4/22; FAIR.org,  10/6/22).

That is when Azov’s political orientation is discussed at all, which has become less and less common since Russia launched its invasion in February.

‘Christian Taliban’

The lesser-known Bratstvo battalion, within which the Times embedded its reporters, is driven by several far-right currents—none of which are mentioned in the article.

Bratstvo was founded as a political organization in 2004 by Dmytro Korchynsky, who previously led the far-right Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO).

Korchynsky, who now fights in Bratstvo’s paramilitary wing, is a Holocaust denier who falsely blamed Jews for the 1932–33 famine in Ukraine, and peddled the lie that “120,000 Jews fought in the Wehrmacht.” He has stated that he sees Bratstvo as a “Christian Taliban” (Intercept, 3/18/15).

In the 1980s, the Times portrayed the religious extremists of the Afghan mujahideen—who were receiving US training and arms—as a heroic bulwark against Soviet expansionism. We all know how that worked out.

In an echo of that propaganda campaign, the Times neglected to tell its readers about the neo-Nazi and theocratic politics of the Bratstvo battalion. Why should anyone care who else Bratstvo members would like to see dead, so long as they’re operating in furtherance of US policymakers’ stated aim of weakening Russia?

Modern-day crusade

The article’s author, Carlotta Gall, recounted Bratstvo’s Russian-fighting exploits in quasi-religious terms. Indeed, the only instances in which the Times even hinted at the unit’s guiding ideology came in the form of mythologizing the unit’s Christian devotion.

Of Bratstvo fighters embarking on a mission, Gall wrote, “They recited a prayer together, then loaded up the narrow rubber dinghies and set out, hunched silent figures in the dark.” Referring to battalion commander Oleksiy Serediuk’s wife, who also fights with the unit, Gall extolled, “She has gained an almost mythical renown for surviving close combat with Russian troops.”

The piece even featured a photograph showing militia members gathered in prayer. Evoking the notion of pious soldiers rather than that of a “Christian Taliban,” the caption read, “Members of the Bratstvo battalion’s special forces unit prayed together before going on a night operation.”

The Times also gave voice to some of the loftier aims of Bratstvo’s crusade, quoting Serediuk’s musing that, “We all dream about going to Chechnya, and the Kremlin, and as far as the Ural Mountains.” Nazi racial ideologues have long been enamored by the prospect of reaching the Urals, which they view as the natural barrier separating European culture from the Asiatic hordes.

While plotting Operation Barbarossa, Hitler identified the Urals as the eastern extent of the Wehrmacht’s planned advance. In 1943, referring to the Nazi scheme that aimed to rid European Russia of Asiatic “untermenschen” so the land could be settled by hundreds of millions of white Europeans, Himmler declared, “We will charge ahead and push our way forward little by little to the Urals.”

‘Mindset of the 13th century’

The only two Bratstvo members named in the piece, meanwhile, are Serediuk and Vitaliy Chorny. While Chorny—who the Times identified as the battalion’s head of intelligence gathering—is quoted, his statements are limited to descriptions of the unit’s fighting strategy. Serediuk’s recorded utterances are similarly lacking in substance.

Far more illuminating is an Al Jazeera article (4/15/15) titled “‘Christian Taliban’s’ Crusade on Ukraine’s Front Lines,” which quotes both Serediuk and Chorny extensively. Serediuk, Al Jazeera reported, “revels in the Christian Taliban label.” In reference to his decision to leave the Azov battalion, the piece went on to say:

Serediuk didn’t leave the Azov because of the neo-Nazi connections, however—extreme-right ideology doesn’t bother him. What does irk him, however, is being around fighters who are not zealous in their religious convictions.

In the same piece, Chorny invoked the violently antisemitic Crusades of the Middle Ages to describe Bratstvo’s ideological foundation:

The enemy—the forces of darkness—they have all the weapons, they have greater numbers, they have money. But our soldiers are the bringers of European traditions and the Christian mindset of the 13th century.

To circumvent the Times’ exultant narrative, one has to do a certain amount of supplementary research and analysis. But even the most basic inquiry—searching “Bratstvo battalion” on Google—reveals the far-right underpinnings of the unit with which the Times embedded its reporters.

The seventh search result is a June 2022 study from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, which reported, “Another such far-right entity is the so-called Brotherhood (Bratstvo) ‘battalion,’ which includes Belarusian, Danish, Irish and Canadian members.”

The ninth result is an article from the Washington Free Beacon (4/6/22), which quoted a far-right Canadian volunteer as saying on Telegram that he was “fighting in the neo-Nazi ‘Bratstvo’ Battalion in Kyiv.”

SS memorabilia

In a world where journalists actually practiced what they preached, someone at the paper of record surely would have noticed the Nazi insignia appearing in two photos in the piece. In this world, however, the Times either forgot how to use the zoom function—though the paper made extensive use of this capability when reporting on China’s Communist Party Congress the month before (FAIR.org, 11/11/22)—or they simply did not want to report on this ugly and inconvenient discovery.

One soldier is seen wearing an emblem known as a “Totenkopf” in a photo of Bratstvo’s prayer circle. The Totenkopf, which means “death’s head” in German, was used as an insignia by the Totenkopfverbande—an SS unit that participated in Hitler’s war of annihilation against the Soviet Union, and guarded the concentration camps where Nazi Germany condemned millions of Jewish men, women and children to death.

Individuals donning the Totenkopf also took part in the murder of millions of others in these camps, including Soviet prisoners of war, political dissidents, trade unionists, persons with disabilities, homosexuals and Romani people.

In September, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy posted—and then quietly deleted—a picture on social media of himself with a number of soldiers, one of whom was wearing a Totenkopf patch similar to that seen in the Times’ photo of Bratstvo’s prayer meeting. One can easily find this particular iteration on Amazon or eBay.

Later in the Times article, another photograph of a soldier wearing a slightly different version of the insignia appeared. Here, bathed in the light of an interior room and staring out from the very center of the image, the Totenkopf is even harder to miss. Amazon’s product description for this specific variant reads, “This gorgeous replica piece takes you back to World War II.”

If the Times simply failed to identify the Totenkopf in two separate photos—both of which were taken by a Times photographer while he was embedded with Bratstvo, and were then featured prominently in the article—that would certainly amount to a journalistic failure.

The alternative scenario is that the Times did recognize the SS memorabilia worn by the soldiers they chose to embed with, and decided to publish the images anyway without commenting on the 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.

Featured image: The New York Times (11/21/22) captioned this photo, “Members of the Bratstvo battalion’s special forces unit prayed together before going on a night operation.”

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 we need to do is take a broad glance across the radical changes that have taken place since the turn of the millennium to realize the rapid degeneration of American culture and society. To acknowledge that the US is now at its lowest point since the founding of the nation is an understatement. And yet we cringe at the need for having serious conversation with ourselves. As a civilization, and this applies to many other developed nations that the US considers to be allies, we refuse to reflect back upon what should have been done to have mitigated our path towards self destruction and what we have enabled to be done and worse directly participated in. 

Image is by Elekhh – CC BY-SA 3.0

This week, the New York Times, along with several other mainstream media publications, have finally come forward to challenge the US government’s indictment of Julian Assange on accusations of treason. However, these have been the very same media outlets who relied on Wikileaks’ materials and investigations while at the same time giving vocal support to the government’s criminal charges. Assange’s revelations were not only accurate, but from the perspective of a higher moral ground Assange’s activities were heroic. But for the powerful, who engage in reprehensible criminal actions, Assange must be punished. Some elected officials have gone so far as to advocate for his execution.  The media’s complicity in promulgating the government’s condemnation of Assange, and every other whistleblower who reveals government cover-ups and crimes, displays a collective cowardice. How many other revelations might there be if the media didn’t fear people like Assange who bring forth new information about government and corporate improprieties and corruption?

Looking back at the gradual decline of American education, how did we reach a stage where teaching Math or English can be racist? However, today the cult of cultural woke claims it is. Teachers are unwillingly forced to acquiesce to their unions’ demands to embrace critical race theory, a distortion of fundamental psychological principles that is determined to discover racist tendencies present in every aspect of human interaction.  Critical race theory’s egregious threat to any potential goal to reach a unifying civilization is its assault on the very idea of a free society. Woke ideology’s mission is to dismantle a free society where there is only a collective and no longer distinct individuals capable of exerting free will. In fact, similar to ranting New Atheists such as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, the advocates of wokeness deny free will exists.  Pretending to be the postmodern champions of civil rights, its followers instead erase whatever has been gained by  history’s protectors of human rights. Every imaginable absurdity of human creativity is simply thrown into the heap of irrational nonsense, hyperactive emotional afflictions, to be codified into laws. And those who resist should be banned, censored and punished.

The consequences of the dumbing down of the Western mind to a level of adolescent tantrums is being witnessed in all its perverted glory during the Covid-19 pandemic and more recently following Russia’s special military operations to de-Nazify and demilitarize the Ukrainian Russophobic regime. The inanity of America’s political elites and their European allies following the Obama/Clinton 2014 coup in Kiev has now created a hot war with Russia by proxy, a war NATO is incapable of winning. Again we observe the outright ludicrousness of our media spinning absurd propaganda lies and misinformation that defies any reality based upon facts. Virtually everything we have been told about the efficacy of face masks, lockdown policies and the mRNA vaccines, as well as Zelensky’s imaginary victories against an overwhelmingly superior Russian military, has been sheer fantasy.  The official narratives regarding both the pandemic and the new cold war against Russia indicate that a kind of woke-based mentality has penetrated our entire executive and legislative branches of governance. This grotesque twisting of the intellect needs to rewrite history in order to mask its underlying stupidity.

This trend to revise history to accommodate their inhumane military escapades for regime change was on full display during John Stewart’s recent interview with Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. The two former hardened neocon secretaries of the State Department twisted, gnarled and fabricated documented facts to excuse their military campaigns to violently  bring about regime changes to sovereign nations, despite whatever criticism one may have against those countries.  And the American public, regardless of the lies voiced by the media, that can simply put on their thinking caps and do a little bit of extracurricular reading after turning off CNN, MSNBC and the other compromised news networks rooting for the American imperialist project.

Oddly, for reasons that are difficult to fathom in their entirety, the political, industrial and corporate machinery speak in a single voice and refuse to challenge official chronicles built upon delusional aspirations of total control. Three years into the Covid era, it has only been the cadres of courageous physicians, nurses and scientists who have broken away from the hypnosis of the NIH-Big Pharma matrix to speak truth at enormous cost to their reputations and careers. They too are being canceled and threatened with the loss of their medical licenses for observing the inconsistencies and contradictions between evidence based scientific data and the cherry picked science sanctified by the federal health agencies and Gates funded global medical institutions, such as the World Health Organization.

During the course of the pandemic, we are observing our cities being increasingly ghettoized. Covid lockdown policies have resulted in the closure of thousands of small businesses and a complete restructuring of the employer-employee relationship. During the phase of dramatic unemployment, Western cities and districts have essentially legalized random looting of stores. In effect, California’s Prop 47 forbids employees to interfere with looters or else be branded as racist. In Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle, gangs send street thugs and homeless people to load up on merchandise under the helpless watch of security guards.  Even large national chain stores have had to close in many cities. How can any society be considered sane when authorities support thieves over the rights of store owners who are victimized? In New York, practically crime has been unofficially ruled as legal with a revolving door policy between the street and the court with an unlikely chance of being sentenced to prison. Consequently criminals continue to rob citizens, jack cars, sexually harass or even on occasion kill while knowing they will likely be released. All the while, the victims of these crimes are ignored.

The majority of Americans, both on the left and right, suffer from chronic confirmation bias and a rigid self-righteousness about the superiority of American values and ideals. This cultural blindness is especially pernicious in the halls of government and corporate boardrooms. The consequence has been that Americans exhibit a remarkable ability to evade criticisms against the degenerate trends in the US that are being witnessed by leaders in foreign nations. For example, regardless of your opinions about China’s ruling Communist party and its human rights record, the Chinese government is widely recognized for having achieved a miracle by lifting nearly 800 million of its citizens out of poverty during the past four decades, according to the World Bank. Therefore, when the Chinese government observes the growing poverty in cities across America and rising crime it is viewed as an abomination of human decency. For a nation that prides itself in winning the economic race against China, it is disgrace we seem unable to lift 38 million citizens out of poverty. Average Americans carry exorbitant debt with no relief or security in sight.

The failure of American education is another shameful plague ravishing youthful minds. Woke liberalism encourages children to act and make decisions without parental knowledge or consent. In place of the nuclear family, the state is becoming the new surrogate. In order to protect students’ fragile emotions, colleges need to become stress-free sanctuaries of comfort and entertainment with easy access to anti-anxiety-depression medications and legions of behaviorists and counselors to ensure students’ mental afflictions are normal and precious. In the past, unless teachers and professors engaged in a morally egregious act, students collectively demanding their expulsion was unheard of. Today, woke students are organizing to remove any professor who even mistakenly offends their precious race theory sentiments.

All of the points noted above have now been institutionalized into a  faux liberal Democrat Party and being imported into corporate human resource departments. A weird political wokeness is now becoming the Democrats’ fundamental zeitgeist.  As long as the public identifies with this aberrant corporate Democrat ideology, they are protected. On the flip side, Republicans nurture their own delusions, which would lead to a social landscape similar to Russia. We are stuck with a pathetic choice between two destructive political calamities. In the meantime, everywhere we look America is descending to a third-world status with a much larger bank account. US healthcare is the most expensive in the world– $4 trillion annually–but the nation ranks at the bottom of the 39 other developed countries. How is it that medical errors and prescription drugs is the third leading cause of death and now quickly overtaking cancer following the roll out of the experimental Covid vaccines?

Sadly, there seems to be no effort by America’s leadership to remedy the causes behind our social and cultural collapse. There is no reverse gear in American politics. Nor is there any remorse for the poor decisions that are ushering our domestic downfall. And the public repeatedly fails to organize independently of their political allegiances to hold anyone accountable.  Where are the demonstrations against our military ventures destroying numerous innocent lives overseas or protests against domestic policies contributing to homelessness, poverty, injustice, etc.  Like the Romans, our political architecture gives the public bread and circus, a 24/7 hundred course meal of rapacious hedonic imagery and lies broadcast through a highly propagandized media. Daily we witness the images and sound bites of a nation engrossed in a debauchery that Dante couldn’t have imagined and yet we either applaud or remain silent.

Can anyone think of a single groundbreaking accomplishment by either political party that has made the US or the world a more equal and safer place to live during the past three decades?  We have failed to do so.

*

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.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow

They are regular contributors 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.

***

In recent months, two Pfizer officials have bragged about moving vaccine science forward at a speed that disallows proper scientific protocols from being followed, and the release of reformulated mRNA COVID boosters without testing is now the norm.

In November 2022, recently retired head of vaccine R&D at Pfizer, Kathrin Jansen, said “we flew the aeroplane while we were still building it. We couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much at risk.” Pfizer compressed its vaccine development timeline from 10 years to a mere nine months by simultaneously developing and testing the product in human trials.

Pfizer and other COVID jab makers hid side effects by eliminating the control groups long before the studies were over

Vaccine makers are readying to release other mRNA shots, many of which are being fast-tracked and predicted to receive authorization in months rather than years. Moderna is working on a three-in-one shot for COVID, flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), and they seem to expect releasing it before clinical trials are finished

Pfizer quoted and relied on data from Israel when it sought approval from the FDA, and as it turns out, the Israeli government hid information about side effects. It didn’t even implement its surveillance system until a year after the shots rolled out, and when the data were analyzed, researchers concluded there were causative links between certain side effects and the jabs

*

In the video above, Del Bigtree with The Highwire reviews how the precautionary principle and long-standing safety guidelines in medicine have been eliminated with the COVID shots, and how data showing harms are being ignored, suppressed and manipulated to hide the truth.

In recent months, no less than two Pfizer officials have bragged about moving vaccine science forward at a speed that virtually guarantees that proper scientific protocols will be abandoned.

In early October 2022, during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.¹

Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk.”

“We flew the aeroplane while we were still building it. We got creative — we couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much ‘at risk.” ~ Kathrin Jansen, Pfizer vaccine R&D

Then, in November 2022, recently retired head of vaccine R&D at Pfizer, Kathrin Jansen, told an interviewer that “we flew the aeroplane while we were still building it.”²

As noted in that interview, Pfizer compressed its vaccine development timeline from 10 years to a mere nine months. Well, you cannot do that unless you cut certain corners and develop and test the product more or less simultaneously. In this case, human trials began even though the preliminary testing was extremely minimal. That’s what she’s talking about when she says they built the plane in midair.

They Did Everything at Your Risk

“We got creative — we couldn’t wait for data, we had to do so much ‘at risk,’” Jansen said. There are those words again — doing everything “at risk.” In other words, the risks were not part of the equation, and let’s be clear, the risk they’re referring to is the risk a person takes when they take the shot.

Pfizer’s primary focus was to create a shot that minimized the symptoms of infection, but aside from that, there was no time to assess side effects or long-term drawbacks of the technology, such as antibody-dependent enhancement, myocarditis, or spontaneous abortions.

This is probably why Pfizer and the other COVID jab makers all decided to eliminate the control groups long before the studies were even over. This way, side effects could be hidden, and we see the effects of that decision now.

Myocarditis, blood clots, lethal heart attacks, strokes, cancer and sudden death are all skyrocketing, but since there’s no official control group to compare with, those trends are written off as either normal or coincidental. You’ve probably seen that heart attacks are now blamed on everything from hot weather and cold showers to soil microbes in your garden, climate change and loud noises.

So, a more accurate statement would be that Pfizer did everything “at your risk.” They risk nothing. They get paid whether the shots work or not, and they have zero liability for injuries and deaths, financial or otherwise. The person who takes on all the risk is the one who takes the shot. They could lose their health, their career, everything they own and their very life.

Jansen admits “the mRNA platform wasn’t ready for prime time” when they decided to use it, and that there were stability and formulation issues, all of which were literally decided on the fly, often based on little or no data.

To her credit, Jansen stresses that this is “not a model for the future,” because “it’s not sustainable” to be working at warp speed all the time. Unfortunately, those who are continuing this work apparently disagree, because warp speed rollout with minimal or no testing is, in fact, the new norm already.

Warp Speed Is the New Norm

We know warp speed is the new norm because of a decision made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this past summer. During its June 28, 2022, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting, they approved a bivalent COVID shot for fall 2022.³

With that vote, they sneaked in a whole new policy, a new framework, under which reformulated COVID shots will be treated as biologically similar to existing shots and therefore be allowed to skip clinical trials.

During that meeting, they were originally scheduled to vote on the Future Framework policy question of whether reformulated shots should be treated as new molecular entities subject to formal review. They never addressed that policy question and instead skipped right to the vote on a bivalent COVID shot for the fall.

By approving it, knowing there would be no time for testing and data gathering, they replaced the old evidence-based system through a sleight of hand. The bivalent shots received emergency use authorization (EUA) at the end of August 2022, based on the antibody levels in eight mice.

Moderna, which received EUA for its bivalent booster at the same time as Pfizer, also used mice to ascertain antibody responses, but has not disclosed the number of mice used.

So, clearly, we are still moving at warp speed, without regard for risk. And already, vaccine makers are readying to release other mRNA shots, many of which are being fast-tracked and predicted to receive authorization in months rather than years.

Other mRNA Approvals Expected With Little or No Data

For example, Moderna is working on a three-in-one shot for COVID, flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), and they seem to fully expect releasing it before clinical trials are finished. As reported by CBC News:⁴

“Moderna is actively promoting a combined COVID-19, flu and RSV vaccine … But while a safe and effective vaccine would be welcome as Canada faces a surge in pediatric RSV cases, stubbornly high COVID hospitalizations and deaths and steeply rising flu cases, the pharmaceutical company hasn’t released data to support the vaccine’s safety or efficacy …

Moderna’s decision to promote its vaccine before completing Phase 3 clinical trials — in which the vaccine would be tested on a larger group as part of a randomized, double-blind study — is controversial. It’s also raised concerns from vaccine researchers and infectious diseases experts about the motivations behind prematurely marketing the shot.

‘There’s still more questions than answers, obviously, with releases like this that come from companies without accompanying data,’ said Matthew Miller, a vaccine researcher and associate professor of infectious diseases and immunology at McMaster University.

‘I think we need to be really cautious. We have no data on safety, no data on effectiveness or efficacy or age groups. How would you handle updating various components of that vaccine? Lots and lots of questions’ …

Developing a vaccine for RSV, let alone combining one with COVID and flu, is no small feat — and the complications around dosing, timing and age considerations could pose major challenges for the vaccine maker down the road.

‘Having a single formulation increases the complexity of updating that formulation annually,’ said Miller … ‘So now, instead of dealing with four flu strains, you’re adding in RSV and COVID and having a combined shot might actually be more complex in some ways than having separate formulations that are co-administered at the same time.’”

In addition to fast-tracking mRNA injections for a variety of respiratory viruses, vaccine makers are also loading their pipelines with mRNA shots for diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis (MS), birth defects and rarer diseases.

Curiously, while mRNA shots are being hailed as the new and improved answer for every ill, Moderna president Stephen Hoge and chief technical officer Juan Andres cashed out hundreds of millions of their stock options earlier this year,⁵ which seems odd if everything is going well and no future trouble is expected.

Government and Corporate Interests Have Become One

Aiding and abetting the circumvention of the precautionary principle are contract research firms that run medical research trials for drug companies and federal agencies alike, thereby giving the drug companies the inside track on drug approvals.^6,7

As noted by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the COVID pandemic has erased the boundaries between corporate interests and those of our government, and with that, there are few left to trust.

“Talk about foxes guarding the henhouse,” Thacker writes.⁸ “Or, maybe, one fox raising and caring for the hens, another alerting the farmer when it’s time for dinner — and a third setting the farmhouse table for a feast.

That is the highly murky and incredibly profitable world of contract research organizations (CROs), private companies that specialize in recruiting patients and running medical research trials.

In the last handful of years, the [FDA] contracted a CRO to work with the National Institutes of Health to determine how companies run some drug trials; Pfizer hired a CRO to run their COVID-19 vaccine trial; a CRO calmed fears about the safety of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine after the FDA and NIH raised safety data concerns.

And just a few weeks back the federal government awarded a CRO a contract to run an anthrax vaccine trial to prepare for a biological attack. And here’s the funny thing. All this overlapping and interconnected corporate and government work involves the exact same CRO: ICON.”

Thacker contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), asking them to explain “how ICON can run clinical trials for federal agencies while also helping private companies gain federal approval,” and “what HHS does to ensure ICON’s federal work benefits taxpayers and not their private clients.”

After initially getting the runaround he was eventually told to ask ICON to explain their “internal firewalls.” The HHS spokesperson did promise to send Thacker “language HHS puts in contracts to ensure research organizations like ICON protect against conflicts of interest,” but he never did. Make of that what you will.

FDA Authorized Pfizer Jab Based on Questionable Data

"The Ministry of Health in Israel is actively hiding critical information abt side effects from the Israeli public…Why is that important?…[In] all the approval stages of the FDA…Pfizer is quoting & relying on data from Israel." —MIT professor Retsef Levi

👇PREMIERE 7:30pm ET! pic.twitter.com/KJSRbnNAeW

— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) November 15, 2022

Making an already dangerous situation worse, vaccine companies and governments are working overtime to hide and suppress data showing the COVID jabs are a medical disaster, and have hidden unfavorable data from the very beginning. The basic data gathering has also been shockingly lax across the world, considering the stakes.

As noted by MIT professor Retsef Levi in The Epoch Times interview above,^9,10 Pfizer quoted and relied on data from Israel when it sought approval from the FDA, and as it turns out, the Israeli government hid information about side effects.

Even more surprising, Levi claims the Israeli government lied when it said it had a robust system for monitoring and tracking side effects from the start. That surveillance system wasn’t launched until a year after the rollout of the shots, Levi says. A research team was eventually hired to analyze the data, and their findings were disconcerting.

Unlike what was told to the public, many of the side effects were both common and long-lasting. The Ministry of Health was advised to think in terms of “medical-legal” when communicating this to the public, as the Ministry might be held liable for telling the public side effects were rare and of short duration.

In other words, they were informed they’d grossly misinformed the public and could be held accountable for injuries. The Ministry’s solution? Fire the research team and alter the report’s data and conclusions.

In the interview, Levi explains how some of the data manipulation was done. For example, they massively lowered the number of post-jab menstrual irregularities by counting both women and men. You don’t need to be a scientist to realize that by counting men, who cannot menstruate, you end up with a wild misrepresentation of the incidence of menstrual irregularities.

Most egregious of all, the Ministry hid the fact that the research team found clear evidence of causality, as patients, when rechallenged with another dose, would experience a resurgence of symptoms and/or a worsening of symptoms. Adding insult to injury, even though the Ministry knows exactly who these patients are, they have not reached out to help them medically or compensate them for injuries that have been clearly linked to the shots.

Excess Death Rates Continue to Climb

Mortality statistics also reveal we’ve been sold a sack of lies. In the video above, nurse instructor John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews some of the latest excess death statistics from the U.K., which show that, in October 2022, the average weekly excess death rate was 1,564.

In 2020, the average weekly excess death rate was a mere 315, and in 2021 it was 1,322. For the week ending October 21, 2022, the excess mortality was 1,822, which is 15.7% above the five-year average.

So, there are now far more non-COVID deaths than there were COVID deaths during the height of the pandemic, before there were any COVID jabs. In particular, data from the King’s Fund show excess deaths from cardiovascular disease and diabetes are mounting.¹¹

Yet, while the number of people dying were a media obsession during 2020 and 2021, now that the death toll is far greater than what we saw at any point during the pandemic, mainstream media remain quiet, and seem completely uninterested in finding out why people are dying at historically unprecedented rates.

Autumn Booster Campaigns Leave Death in Its Wake

The Daily Sceptic also reported striking parallels between the autumn booster campaign, specifically, and excess deaths in the U.K.:¹²

“Potential new support for the role of the vaccines [in excess non-COVID deaths] can be seen in the chart below. I have plotted the autumn vaccine doses in the over-75s (the age group which makes up the large majority of deaths) and excess non-COVID death occurrences (in red), revealing a striking correlation … COVID death occurrences (in blue), on the other hand, rise and peak several weeks later.

… [The] Scottish Unity Edinburgh Group sent me this chart showing a similar correlation in Scotland between deaths and the autumn booster rollout.”

New Zealand Booster Campaign Linked to Excess Deaths

Similarly, an earlier study^13,14,15 published June 28, 2022, found that, in New Zealand, the age groups that were most likely to have received a COVID booster in the winter of 2021 had 7% to 10% more excess deaths than age groups that were ineligible for boosters. The graph below illustrates how the rise in excess mortality coincided with booster uptake. According to the study’s author, economics professor John Gibson:¹⁶

“The results suggest 16 … excess deaths per 100,000 booster doses, amounting to over 400 excess deaths in New Zealand given the booster doses administered to date. If this rate of excess deaths is extrapolated to other countries, it amounts to over 300,000 excess deaths worldwide …

The ratio of vaccine risk to benefits likely has swung more towards risk than during the original randomized trials, due to dose-dependent adverse events and to fixation of immune responses on a variant no longer circulating.”

I, for one, am not surprised by these kinds of statistics, and I don’t think vaccine makers are either. When you take off in an unfinished plane, crashing is to be expected because, in the real world, you cannot build planes in midair. Likewise, in the real world, you have to do extensive, long-term testing, starting in animals, to be sure a drug is safe. The concept of fast-tracking has been proven a dangerous failure. How long will it take before government and industry admit it?

*

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 Twitter Rob Roos October 11, 2022

² Nature November 11, 2022

³ The Defender June 29, 2022

⁴ CBC November 12, 2022

⁵ CNBC March 10, 2022

^6, 8 Disinformation Chronicle November 1, 2022

⁷ Twitter Paul Thacker November 4, 2022

⁹ Twitter Jan Jekielek November 15, 2022

¹⁰ The Epoch Times Retsef Levi Interview

¹¹ Telegraph October 29, 2022

¹² The Daily Sceptic November 10, 2022

¹³ EconPapers Rollout of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines Is Associated With Rising Excess Mortality in New Zealand

¹⁴ Clark County Today July 18, 2022

^15, 16 The Expose July 7, 2022

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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.

***

During the pandemic, several doctors in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) hit the headlines for opposing Covid measures. State-sanctioned medical authorities responded by warning physicians that if they “put the public at risk with misinformation,” they may face investigations and regulatory action. Now, just 18 months later, these threats from medical authorities have evolved into a sweeping piece of legislation that includes two-year jail sentences for doctors who are deemed to be spreading certain types of “false or misleading information.”

The new legislation, Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act (HPOA), was approved by the legislature last Thursday and immediately received Royal Assent. A Cabinet order will determine when it comes into force.

According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that defends the freedoms of Canadians, the bill will permit BC’s Health Minister to appoint College Boards who have the power to enforce many of the bill’s provisions. The bill also gives the Health Minister powers to enforce some provisions.

These combined powers can be used to jail, fine, and suspend doctors who are deemed to have spread certain types of “false or misleading information to patients or the public” and force doctors to get vaccinated as a condition of being eligible to practice. These powers are outlined in sections 259, 514, 518, 506, 511, and 200.

You can see the full text of Bill 36 here.

Powers to suspend and impose limits on health practitioners

Section 259 (“Summary protection orders”) states that health practitioners can be suspended or have limits imposed on their practice authority if they provide “false or misleading information to patients or the public” and it’s deemed that “a person who acts on the information is significant risk of harm” or providing the information is deemed to be a “health hazard” under the Public Health Act.

The Public Health Act classifies any activity that “is likely to interfere, with the suppression of infectious agents or hazardous agents” as a health hazard. This definition is broad and could easily be applied to criticism of vaccines, masks, lockdowns, thermal surveillance, lateral flow tests, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, antibody tests, and any other measures that authorities claim are necessary to stop the spread of Covid or another infectious disease.

Bill 36 also doesn’t define “false or misleading information” which raises the possibility that doctors could be suspended for sharing something that challenges the current narrative and later turns out to be true.

During the pandemic, multiple statements that were branded false later turned out to be true, such as those related to vaccines. Initially, high-ranking public health officials praised the purported 90% Covid-19 vaccine efficacy rate and said the vaccine will protect against the delta variant. Big Tech platforms made questioning the effectiveness of the vaccine a bannable offense. Yet this year, high-ranking health officials have reversed their stance and admitted that they “knew” Covid-19 vaccines wouldn’t prevent infection.

Powers to jail and fine health practitioners

Section 514 (“Offences”) and Section 518 (“Penalties”) permit fines of up $200,000 per individual or $500,000 per company and prison terms of up to two years for those that “knowingly” disclose information that contravenes a provision of Bill 36.

This seemingly suggests that someone who “knowingly” violate’s Bill 36’s rules on false or misleading information can be jailed or fined.

Just like the term “false or misleading information,” the term “knowingly” isn’t defined in Bill 36 and there’s no methodology or test in the bill that describes how courts will determine whether someone knowingly violated the rules.

Powers to perform warrantless search and seizures

Section 506 (“Search and seizure order”) permits judges to authorize a person to search and seize items from a health practitioners’ premises on the pre-crime-esque premise that the target will “likely contravene” a provision of Bill 36.

And section 511 (“Warrantless search”) allows those petitioning the judge for a search and seizure order to perform warrantless searches if they deem there to be “grounds for a search and seizure order” and “the delay necessary to obtain the order would result in the loss or destruction of evidence.” Those performing warrantless searches are also allowed to prevent the lawful owner of the premises from entering and seize items if they deem there to be “reasonable grounds” for it.

This seemingly means that if a health practitioner is deemed to be “likely” to break the bill’s false or misleading information rules or “likely” to push back against the bill’s mandatory vaccine provisions, even when they haven’t actually done any of these things, they could have their premises searched and items seized without a warrant if the person performing the search decides that there are grounds and that evidence could be destroyed.

Powers to force health practitioners to get vaccinated

Section 200 (“Eligibility to practise”) allows the Health Minister to introduce regulations that make being “vaccinated against specified transmissible illnesses” a condition of eligibility to practice. This means that doctors could be forced to get the Covid vaccine and any other vaccines specified by the Health Minister in order to continue practicing.

“An end run around democratic checks and balances”

Bill 36 has been blasted by legal groups and political parties.

“The legislation represents an end run around democratic checks and balances,” the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms wrote in a statement on Bill 36.

BC lawyer Charlene Le Beau added:

“The enactment of Bill 36 would evidence a further erosion of the rights and freedoms our Charter is supposed to protect, particularly individual liberty. As Aristotle posited, ‘The basis of a democratic state is liberty.’”

David Leis, the vice president of engagement and development at the public policy think tank the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, called the bill “a full-frontal assault on the professional integrity and freedom of the health-care professions” and said the bill is “entirely inappropriate.”

*

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 Reclaim the 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.

***

Senator Rand Paul asserted Thursday that Anthony Fauci is directly responsible for funding dangerous research that likely killed millions of people, and that he “won’t get away.”

“Likely there is no public health figure who has made a greater error in judgement than Dr Fauci,” Paul declared in a Fox News appearance, adding “the error of judgement was to fund gain of function research in a totalitarian country.”

Fauci funded “research that allowed them to create super viruses, that in all likelihood leaked into the public and caused seven million people to die,” Paul declared.

“This is right up there with decisions, some of them malevolent or military to kill millions of people,” The Senator further urged.

Watch:

The Senator made the comments after Fauci appeared in a fawning Washington Post interview, where he was labeled a “hero,” complained about being a victim, and couldn’t think of anything he did wrong.

Fauci: "I didn’t do a study on it, but from what I’m seeing … the people who are spreading misinformation & disinformation, seem to be relentless … It’s almost as if we’re outgunned by the people who are spreading disinformation." pic.twitter.com/Pb1Pei7C7x

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 1, 2022

Paul further noted that “It goes to judgement, talk about errors, you think he might apologise to the world… to support that kind of research then look the other way and say nothing to see here, and to cover it up.”

“For the last two years he’s been covering his tracks, but we’ve caught him red handed and he won’t get away,” Paul asserted, adding “historically [Fauci] will be remembered for one of the worst judgments in the history of modern medicine.”

Paul also commented on efforts he is leading to overturn the Biden Administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for military personnel.

“They deserve to have their religious freedom, as well as their medical choices and freedom to decide what goes into their body,” Paul noted.

He continued,

“We know this, and this is a scientific fact, the vaccine does not prevent you from getting an infection, it doesn’t prevent you from transmitting an infection, and for young people there isn’t significant evidence to show that it reduces the severity or hospitalisation.”

“The military has become so ‘woke’ and they’re demanding you get a vaccine that you don’t need, so something’s got to change,” the Senator further urged.

*

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 a screenshot via Summit 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.

***

In July 2022, the Canadian government announced its intention to reduce “emissions from the application of fertilizers by 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030.” In the previous month, the government of the Netherlands publicly stated that it would implement measures designed to lower “nitrogen pollution some areas by up to 70 percent by 2030,” in order to meet the stipulations of the European “Green Deal,” which aims to “make the EU’s climate, energy, transport and taxation policies fit for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.”

In response, Dutch “farm and agriculture organizations said the targets were not realistic and called for a protest,” which led farmers and their supporters to rise up across the country. The artificially designed Green Deal is one of the goals of Agenda 2030, which was adopted by 193 member states of the United Nations (UN) in 2015.

In addition to the UN, Agenda 2030 is also supported by a number of other international organizations and institutions, including the European Union, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Bretton Woods Institutions, which consist of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is also endorsed by some of the most powerful agrichemical multinational corporations in the world, such as BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical, DuPont, and Syngenta, which, together, control more than 75 percent of the global market for farm inputs. In recent years, “the acquisition of Syngenta by ChemChina, and the merger of Bayer and Monsanto” have “reshaped the global seed industry.” Additionally, “DuPont de Nemours was formed by the merger of Dow Chemical and DuPont in 2017.” However, “within 18 months of the merger the company was split into three publicly traded companies with focuses on the following: agriculture with Corteva, materials science with Dow and specialty products with DuPont.”

In recent years, all of these corporations have issued statements suggesting that the agriculture sector will undergo major changes over the upcoming three decades, and that they are committed to doing their parts to accelerate the transition to so called green policies. Accordingly, they advocate for governments to redirect public finance away from conventional farming and toward regenerative agriculture and alternative protein sources, including insect farming and lab-grown meats.

Moreover, BASF, Syngenta and Bayer are members of “the European Carbon+ Farming Coalition,” which includes a number of “organizations and stakeholders along the food value chain,” such as “COPA-COGECA, Crop In, European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF), European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT) Food, HERO, Planet Labs,” “Swiss Re, University of Glasgow, Yara, Zurich and the World Economic Forum.” Originally, this “coalition emerged as a partnership between the World Economic Forum’s 100 Million Farmers platform and its CEO Action Group for the European Green Deal.”

Its objective is to “decarbonise the European food system” by accelerating the transformation of farming and agricultural practices. More specifically, the European Carbon+ Farming Coalition seeks to attain “zero gross expansion in the area of land under cultivation for food production by 2025, reduction in total territories used for livestock of about one-third by 2030, and a consequent freeing up of nearly 500 million hectares of land for natural ecosystem restoration by the same date.” According to the WEF, in addition to benefitting the environment, such changes will also be economically advantageous, as “changing the way we produce and consume food could create USD 4.5 trillion a year in new business opportunities.”

In order to accelerate the transformation of farming over the coming decades, BASF calls for requiring “farmers to decrease their environmental impact” by reducing “CO2 emissions per ton of crop by 30 percent,” and applying “digital technologies to more than 400 million hectares of farmland.” BASF also supports the wide use of a number of new products, including “nitrogen management products,” herbicides, “new crop varieties,” “biological inoculants and innovative digital solutions,” so as to make farmers “more carbon efficient and resilient to volatile weather conditions.” It is estimated that such changes would “contribute significantly to the BASF Group target of €22 billion in sales by 2025.”

Meanwhile, Syngenta, the world’s second-largest agrochemical enterprise (after Bayer), which is owned by a Chinese state-owned company called ChemChina, focuses on “carbon neutral agriculture” under the pretense of “combatting climate change.” More precisely, it supports “providing technologies, services, and training to farmers,” as well as the further development of new gene-edited seeds that would lower the emission of CO2. According to Syngenta, “gene-edited crops” will be widely used and cultivated across the globe “by 2050.”

This company also promotes “a transformation toward regenerative agriculture,” which is claimed to “lead to more food grown on less land; reduced agricultural greenhouse gas emissions; increased biodiversity; and enhanced soil health,” though there is scant scientific evidence or long-term data to back up these assertions. Nonetheless, Syngenta argues that the world needs “governments and media … to encourage widespread adoption” of regenerative practices by as many farmers as possible.

Bayer also advocates for regenerative agriculture to help “farmers significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gas their operations emit, while also removing carbon from the atmosphere.” It further claims that it is necessary “to shift to a regenerative approach and make crops more resilient to climate impacts.” Additionally, much like Syngenta, Bayer supports the development of “new gene editing technologies” in order to reduce “the environmental footprint of global agriculture.” Looking ahead, Bayer foresees that, “in agriculture, biotechnology will be a critical enabler” that will be used to “feed the 10 billion people that will be on the planet by 2050 while at the same time fighting the impact of climate change.”

Similar to Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta, DuPont also seeks to contribute to decreasing “dependence on fossil fuels, and protecting life and the environment.” Its response primarily focuses on facilitating the production and consumption of alternative protein sources that can reproduce “the texture and appearance of meat fibers, and can be used to extend or replace meat or fish.” DuPont pointed out that “in 2016, Americans consumed about 26 kg of beef per capita, at least half of which was eaten in the form of a hamburger. Replacing just half of America’s burger meat with SUPRO® MAX protein,” which has a carbon footprint that is up to eighty times lower than dairy and meat proteins, is equivalent removing “more than 15 million mid-sized cars from the road.”

Some of the world’s most powerful multinational agrichemical corporations have benefitted immensely from international trade agreements that put their interests ahead of those of small- and medium-size farms, as well as the masses, when it comes to transforming the food and agriculture sectors. In particular, the World Trade Organization’s agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), which was adopted in 1994, played a major role in destroying the livelihoods of many farmers, while proving lucrative to agrichemical giants like BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical, DuPont, and Syngenta. This is mainly because TRIPS has allowed for the patenting of seeds and plants.

As a result, native herbs and plants in a number of different countries, many of which had previously been farmed for generations, became the sole properties of powerful agrichemical multinational corporations. After plants and herbs have been patented, local farmers are forbidden from engaging in the traditional and longstanding practices of saving and replanting their own seeds. Instead, they are required to pay the patent holding corporations for the same seeds that they had previously produced, saved, replanted, and exchanged at no cost.

Powerful agrichemical multinational corporations have also furthered their own interests and agendas by exerting unprecedented influence over research and development in the food industry, while ignoring any findings demonstrating that their business practices were harmful to the natural environment. In particular, some of these major agrichemical corporations have focused their efforts and resources on studying “genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the creation of stronger pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, and defending the performance of these products.”

They have also supported the expansion of GMO crops with the knowledge that their cultivation involves “the application of larger quantities” of “synthetic fertilizers and pesticides,” which has led to large amounts of toxic chemicals contaminating soil and water sources. Basically, these agrichemical corporations have been largely responsible for creating many of same environmental problems that they now claim need to be urgently solved through Agenda 2030.

There is a real possibility that the radical and large-scale transformations of the entire food industry and human eating habits being pushed by the social engineers of Agenda 2030 are leading the masses toward a dramatic decrease in living standards. Lessons from the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century revealed that it is very difficult to fix big mistakes attributed to the large-scale central planning of social engineers, because doing so often requires “major social transformation” or the “remodelling the whole of society,” which can result in widespread unforeseen consequences or events, major destructive outcomes, and “inconvenience to many people,” in the words of Karl R. Popper.

The intense and coordinated international effort to facilitate an artificially designed transformation of the global food industry, based on Agenda 2030, is a testimony to the fact that we are witnessing the pendulum of civilization swinging back in many advanced societies, where striving to achieve a comfortable life could rapidly be replaced by a struggle for bare necessities in a lower level of existence, which is not supposed to occur in advanced societies.

The masses need to be made to realize that the social engineers of Agenda 2030 are “false prophets,” who are misguiding them to the point where they will be “haunted by the specter of death from starvation.” This may well lead to the emergence of “irreconcilable dissensions within society,” whereby food riots, conflicts, and violence could inevitably “result in a complete disintegration of all societal bonds,” as Ludwig von Mises put it.

*

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 Mises Wire.

Birsen Filip holds a PhD in philosophy and master’s degrees in economics and philosophy. She has published numerous articles and chapters on a range of topics, including political philosophy, geo-politics, and the history of economic thought, with a focus on the Austrian School of Economics and the German Historical School of Economics.

She is the author of the upcoming book The Early History of Economics in the United States: The Influence of the German Historical School of Economics on Teaching and Theory (Routledge, 2022). She is also the author of The Rise of Neo-liberalism and the Decline of Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Adobe Stock

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.

***

“Nothing in the world is more exciting than a moment of sudden discovery or invention, and many more people are capable of experiencing such moments than is sometimes thought.”

Bertrand Russell (May 18, 1872–February 2, 1970) endures as one of humanity’s most lucid and luminous minds — an oracle of timeless wisdom on everything from what “the good life” really means to why “fruitful monotony” is essential for happiness to love, sex, and our moral superstitions.

In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for “his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.” On December 11 of that year, 78-year-old Russell took the podium in Stockholm to receive the grand accolade.

Later included in Nobel Writers on Writing (public library) — which also gave us Pearl S. Buck, the youngest woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature, on art, writing, and the nature of creativity — his acceptance speech is one of the finest packets of human thought ever delivered from a stage.

Russell begins by considering the central motive driving human behavior:

All human activity is prompted by desire. There is a wholly fallacious theory advanced by some earnest moralists to the effect that it is possible to resist desire in the interests of duty and moral principle. I say this is fallacious, not because no man ever acts from a sense of duty, but because duty has no hold on him unless he desires to be dutiful. If you wish to know what men will do, you must know not only, or principally, their material circumstances, but rather the whole system of their desires with their relative strengths.

[…]

Man differs from other animals in one very important respect, and that is that he has some desires which are, so to speak, infinite, which can never be fully gratified, and which would keep him restless even in Paradise. The boa constrictor, when he has had an adequate meal, goes to sleep, and does not wake until he needs another meal. Human beings, for the most part, are not like this.

Illustration by Alice and Martin Provensen from ‘Homer for Young Readers,’ 1965. 

Russell points to four such infinite desires — acquisitiveness, rivalry, vanity, and love of power — and examines them in order:

Acquisitiveness — the wish to possess as much as possible of goods, or the title to goods — is a motive which, I suppose, has its origin in a combination of fear with the desire for necessaries. I once befriended two little girls from Estonia, who had narrowly escaped death from starvation in a famine. They lived in my family, and of course had plenty to eat. But they spent all their leisure visiting neighbouring farms and stealing potatoes, which they hoarded. Rockefeller, who in his infancy had experienced great poverty, spent his adult life in a similar manner.

[…]

However much you may acquire, you will always wish to acquire more; satiety is a dream which will always elude you.

In 1938, Henry Miller also articulated this fundamental driver in his brilliant meditation on how money became a human fixation. Decades later, modern psychologists would term this notion “the hedonic treadmill.” But for Russell, this elemental driver is eclipsed by an even stronger one — our propensity for rivalry:

The world would be a happier place than it is if acquisitiveness were always stronger than rivalry. But in fact, a great many men will cheerfully face impoverishment if they can thereby secure complete ruin for their rivals. Hence the present level of taxation.

Rivalry, he argues, is in turn upstaged by human narcissism. In a sentiment doubly poignant in the context of today’s social media, he observes:

Vanity is a motive of immense potency. Anyone who has much to do with children knows how they are constantly performing some antic, and saying “Look at me.” “Look at me” is one of the most fundamental desires of the human heart. It can take innumerable forms, from buffoonery to the pursuit of posthumous fame.

[…]

It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the influence of vanity throughout the range of human life, from the child of three to the potentate at whose frown the world trembles.

Illustration by Maurice Sendak for ‘Nutcracker’ by E.T.A. Hoffmann.

But the most potent of the four impulses, Russell argues, is the love of power:

Love of power is closely akin to vanity, but it is not by any means the same thing. What vanity needs for its satisfaction is glory, and it is easy to have glory without power… Many people prefer glory to power, but on the whole these people have less effect upon the course of events than those who prefer power to glory…

Power, like vanity, is insatiable. Nothing short of omnipotence could satisfy it completely. And as it is especially the vice of energetic men, the causal efficacy of love of power is out of all proportion to its frequency. It is, indeed, by far the strongest motive in the lives of important men.

[…]

Love of power is greatly increased by the experience of power, and this applies to petty power as well as to that of potentates.

Anyone who has ever agonized in the hands of a petty bureaucrat — something Hannah Arendt unforgettably censured as a special kind of violence — can attest to the veracity of this sentiment. Russell adds:

In any autocratic regime, the holders of power become increasingly tyrannical with experience of the delights that power can afford. Since power over human beings is shown in making them do what they would rather not do, the man who is actuated by love of power is more apt to inflict pain than to permit pleasure.

Illustration by Alice and Martin Provensen from ‘Homer for Young Readers,’ 1965.

But Russell, a thinker of exceptional sensitivity to nuance and to the dualities of which life is woven, cautions against dismissing the love of power as a wholesale negative driver — from the impulse to dominate the unknown, he points out, spring such desirables as the pursuit of knowledge and all scientific progress. He considers its fruitful manifestations:

It would be a complete mistake to decry love of power altogether as a motive. Whether you will be led by this motive to actions which are useful, or to actions which are pernicious, depends upon the social system, and upon your capacities. If your capacities are theoretical or technical, you will contribute to knowledge or technique, and, as a rule, your activity will be useful. If you are a politician you may be actuated by love of power, but as a rule this motive will join itself on to the desire to see some state of affairs realized which, for some reason, you prefer to the status quo.

Russell then turns to a set of secondary motives. Echoing his enduring ideas on the interplay of boredom and excitement in human life, he begins with the notion of love of excitement:

Human beings show their superiority to the brutes by their capacity for boredom, though I have sometimes thought, in examining the apes at the zoo, that they, perhaps, have the rudiments of this tiresome emotion. However that may be, experience shows that escape from boredom is one of the really powerful desires of almost all human beings.

He argues that this intoxicating love of excitement is only amplified by the sedentary nature of modern life, which has fractured the natural bond between body and mind. A century after Thoreau made his exquisite case against the sedentary lifestyle, Russell writes:

Our mental make-up is suited to a life of very severe physical labor. I used, when I was younger, to take my holidays walking. I would cover twenty-five miles a day, and when the evening came I had no need of anything to keep me from boredom, since the delight of sitting amply sufficed. But modern life cannot be conducted on these physically strenuous principles. A great deal of work is sedentary, and most manual work exercises only a few specialized muscles. When crowds assemble in Trafalgar Square to cheer to the echo an announcement that the government has decided to have them killed, they would not do so if they had all walked twenty-five miles that day. This cure for bellicosity is, however, impracticable, and if the human race is to survive — a thing which is, perhaps, undesirable — other means must be found for securing an innocent outlet for the unused physical energy that produces love of excitement… I have never heard of a war that proceeded from dance halls.

[…]

Civilized life has grown altogether too tame, and, if it is to be stable, it must provide harmless outlets for the impulses which our remote ancestors satisfied in hunting… I think every big town should contain artificial waterfalls that people could descend in very fragile canoes, and they should contain bathing pools full of mechanical sharks. Any person found advocating a preventive war should be condemned to two hours a day with these ingenious monsters.

More seriously, pains should be taken to provide constructive outlets for the love of excitement. Nothing in the world is more exciting than a moment of sudden discovery or invention, and many more people are capable of experiencing such moments than is sometimes thought.

Complement Nobel Writers on Writing with more excellent Nobel Prize acceptance speeches — William Faulkner on the artist as a booster of the human heart, Ernest Hemingway on writing and solitude, Alice Munro on the secret to telling a great story, and Saul Bellow on how literature ennobles the human spirit — then revisit Russell on immortality and why science is the key to democracy.

*

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 images in this article are from The Marginalian

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 principle of infectious diseases is “antimicrobial stewardship” which involves choosing the right antibiotic for the right patient and never over-prescribing or blanket covering patients who don’t need treatment. 

Another principle is “narrowing the spectrum” of a drug once the organism is identified by culture or other methods.  These fundamental approaches to the use of antibiotics work to limit the problem of bacterial resistance and the development of “superbugs.”  Every year hospitals each produce their antibiogram or report of their common infections encountered and what antibiotics either are effective (organism is sensitive) or ineffective (organism is resistant).  In the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic these principles have been applied to the use of monoclonal antibodies and the process explains why various EUA products (e.g., bamlanivimab) were pulled from the market when they were understood to be no longer effective at neutralizing SARS-CoV-2.   This entire thought process has been thrown out the window for COVID-19 vaccines.  For 18 months the ancestral strain Wuhan Institute of Virology Spike protein was the featured antigen for Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Novavax vaccines.  Within a few months, there was mounting evidence that SARS-CoV-2 easily mutated to escape the reach of antibodies generated by the vaccines which would apply to serious invasive illness (IgG and IgM).   Because the COVID-19 vaccines have never been demonstrated to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 in the nasopharynx, the only theoretical benefit would be for systemic disease.   It has now become apparent that nature has the upper hand over the vaccine manufacturers as SARS-CoV-2 has far greater alacrity.  Because replication can allow changes in genetic code that rapidly allow continued survival, SARS-CoV-2 enjoys a library of ~28k mutations of which ~4.5K are in the receptor binding domain of the Spike protein or the tip of the spear.

Wang R, Chen J, Hozumi Y, Yin C, Wei GW. Emerging Vaccine-Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Variants. ACS Infect Dis. 2022 Mar 11;8(3):546-556. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.1c00557. Epub 2022 Feb 8. PMID: 35133792; PMCID: PMC8848511.

Wang and colleagues using detailed modeling techniques of the mutations prevalent in the more intensely vaccinated countries has shown indeed mass vaccination is backfiring and fueling more viral resistance to the limited antibody library that could be generated by the vaccines.[i]  Wang’s analysis suggests that future vaccine development against SARS-CoV-2 is hopeless.  The virus is simply too nimble and can manipulate the “binding free energy” between the RBD and its human target the ACE2 receptor.  This means the more vaccinations are delivered the greater the number of mutant stains and the longer the virus will propagate and extend the pandemic.  Thus, a key step in ending the pandemic will be termination of mass vaccination.  The virus doesn’t stop until mankind stops.

*

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.

Note

[i] Wang R, Chen J, Hozumi Y, Yin C, Wei GW. Emerging Vaccine-Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Variants. ACS Infect Dis. 2022 Mar 11;8(3):546-556. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.1c00557. Epub 2022 Feb 8. PMID: 35133792; PMCID: PMC8848511.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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 private medical clinic has opened in Lucca, Italy that is devoted to caring for patients who have been injured by the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.

The clinic was opened by a group of doctors and health workers who were recently reinstated to their positions after newly-elected Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government removed discriminatory legislation that barred vaccine-free Italians from working in healthcare.

An Italian medical rights group celebrated the clinic as “helpful” and “welcoming,” but a left-wing political party from Tuscany has attempted to pressure the mayor of Lucca to publicly disavow the clinic seeking to help heal those suffering from COVID vaccine injuries.

The local Partito Democratico (Democratic Party) released a statement saying “we believe the mayor needs to take a position, and distance himself from what is happening on this front in our city.”

The statement was made even after the party admitted that the group who started the clinic did so with the intention of helping the vaccine-injured, and that the group also wanted doctors to have freedom of conscience protections when practicing medicine.

Italy has flipped the script on COVID restrictions since the election of Meloni, who has admitted that Italy had the “most restrictive anti-COVID measures in the entire Western world,” but was still “among the countries with the highest numbers of deaths and infections.”

She vowed that her government “will not replicate that pattern in any way,” promising to never  “limit fundamental freedoms.”

Under previous Prime Minister Mario Draghi, the then left-wing government had enacted severe measures against Italians who chose not to take the COVID jab, restricting them from many aspects of public life under the guise of the “Super Green Pass.”

Under the restrictions, all Italians were required to be jabbed or provide proof that they had previously recovered from COVID in order to work, and all those over 50 years old had to be vaccinated or they would be fined by the government on a monthly basis.

In response, Italians protested in massive numbers, and it is believed that support swelled for the populist Meloni as a result of her opposition to such measures.

*

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 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.

***

The Swiss Confederation usually imports electricity from France and Germany to keep the lights on over the winter, but this year neither country has any power to spare. Many French nuclear power plants are down after years of postponed maintenance, while in Germany we suffer from a superfluity of idle wind turbines and a (self-imposed) shortage of natural gas.

The Federal Council of Switzerland has therefore published draft legislation, which outlines four tiers of escalating measures to conserve electricity and avert potential blackouts. The first prescribes a lot of temperature restrictions for things like refrigerators and washing machines. The second includes more unusual rules, such as the demand that heating in clubs and discotheques “be set to the lowest level or switched off completely,” and that “streaming services … limit resolution of their content to standard definition.” The third foresees cutting business hours, banning the use of Blue Ray players and gaming computers, and also limiting the use of electric cars, which should be driven only when absolutely necessary. A fourth and final tier mandates closure of ski facilities, casinos, cinemas, theatre and the opera.

A lot of these rules look unenforceable, but they said the same thing about contact restrictions during the pandemic. It turns out that the state really can prevent you from socialising with people in your own home if it wants to, especially when there’s no shortage of prying neighbours eager to snitch.

Feasibility isn’t the point, though. It’s the optics here that are most astounding. Electric vehicles, which politicians have heavily subsidised as one of their primary policy responses to climate change, are just now crashing against that other great arm of the green agenda, namely renewable energy. You can’t drive everyone into ever greater dependence upon the electrical grid, while also orchestrating an energy transition to wind (which hardly blows in Germany, except in the north) and solar (which generates no meaningful power in the depths of the Central European winter). Gas from Russia was the magic ingredient that kept the whole renewables charade going, and we’re out of that now. There’s no way to cover up the failure; not even the green-friendly German media has any excuse or messaging angle here.

*

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 eugyppius: a plague chronicle

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.

***

After a terrorist attack in Istanbul killed six and wounded 81, Turkey retaliated, launching a fierce air campaign against targets it claimed to be Kurdish militias in northern Iraq and Syria supporting the PKK. Whether Erdogan will stop there remains unclear as he threatens Turkey’s fourth ground incursion into Northern Syria since 2016 – a threat he has made without follow through since May 2022. The U.S. force presence in Northeastern Syria has historically forced Turkey’s hand to tread lightly along the border. However, just last week, a Turkish airstrike landed within 300 meters of American positions, north of Hasakah. Luckily, no American troops were present at the time.

American forces in Syria are currently balancing on a tripwire, caught in a NATO ally’s crossfire. No matter how problematic of an ally Turkey may be, no country should risk conflict with an ally without a strong interest in doing so. Thus, the most recent near-miss begs the question: what is the U.S. interest in remaining in Syria for an eighth year? Just as in Afghanistan, the U.S. mission in Syria has distorted and morphed over the years from clear and limited to endless and unachievable. To remain is inexcusable.

U.S. forces have been stationed in Northeast Syria since 2015, training, arming, and supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a coalition of militias that includes the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). The U.S. first intervened with the stated objective of eliminating ISIS’s territorial caliphate. Partnering with the SDF was always a means to this end, and it was achieved in 2019. While remnants may lurk in disparate pockets of Syria’s deserts, ISIS holds no territory and lacks the resources or capability to hold or retake territory.

Still, U.S. forces remain in Syria, dismissing their original goal and adopting the new objective of a so-called “enduring defeat” of ISIS. Of course, the reality is that those arguing for an “enduring defeat” are arguing for a perpetual U.S. occupation of Northeast Syria under a more palatable pseudonym. The war on terror, by nature, is not a war that could or would plausibly be won by military force alone. For every ISIS leader, there is another standing behind him.

Further, when defining an “enduring defeat,” advocates for staying in Syria also commit the sin of falsely conflating U.S. interests with those of its partner forces, mirroring America’s mistakes in its two-decade-long war in Afghanistan. After the United States defeated the Taliban government, it should have withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2002. Yet, American leaders continued to distort the original objective, staying for 19 years and leaving U.S. troops to fight and die for nation-building and democratization.

Policymakers fuel this misconception by continuing to mischaracterize the Kurds as U.S. allies. Wartime allies, such as the local partner forces used throughout the U.S. war on terror, are inherently temporary ones: U.S. obligations to them end after the mutual objective is achieved. As with most partnerships, the U.S.-Kurdish joint mission was never borne of benevolence, on either side. Instead, it was based on the existential threat that ISIS posed to SDF territory and the U.S. interest in eliminating ISIS’s capability to launch attacks against the U.S. homeland.

While one can support Kurdish independence movements, empathize with their desire for an autonomous state, or sympathize with the persecution they face at the hands of both the Syrian regime and the Turkish government, one can also admit that they are not U.S. ‘allies’ and their aims are not ours. Whether the United States withdraws tomorrow, in a year, or in a decade, the Kurds’ external threats will not disappear when the United States is no longer around to protect them forever. It may be difficult to stomach, but the United States would be wise to consider what comes after a withdrawal and seek other arbiters for the Kurds’ security.

While unsavory, the Syrian regime, which possesses a strong, self-proclaimed interest in maintaining Syria’s original borders, would likely provide the Kurds with the necessary protection and deny Turkey from any further incursions. In 2019, after President Trump green-lit Erdogan’s ground incursion, the Kurds were able to strike a deal with Damascus and halt further Turkish advances. Kurdish autonomy or democratic aspirations may not be achieved through such negotiations; however, the Kurds could likely argue for a status quo ante – regaining what they had before the civil war – as well as maintaining their self-defense capabilities in exchange for the regime’s protection.

One can easily sympathize with the Kurds and condemn Erdogan’s brutal campaign against them. Yet, the consequences of the United States remaining in Syria should not be overlooked or minimized. For an American to die three years after the objective was achieved, caught in the crossfire of a conflict it no longer possesses an interest in, would be indefensible. American servicemen and women should not be put at needless risk due to a policy driven more by inertia than interests.

In 2002, President George W. Bush described the history of conflict in Afghanistan as one of “initial success followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure.” Unfortunately, despite thousands of Americans losing their lives in these endless wars in the Middle East, America appears to continue to have learned nothing.

*

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.

Natalie Armbruster is a research associate at Defense Priorities.

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.

***

Many scientists lobbying for the deregulation of agricultural biotechnology ‘new genomic techniques’ (NGTs) in the European Union have either direct or indirect interests in commercialising and marketing new genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They have patents or patent applications or other connections to the seed industry.  

That is the conclusion of a September 2022 investigatory report commissioned by the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament – Behind the smokescreen: Vested interests of EU scientists lobbying for GMO deregulation. These scientists will benefit financially or in terms of career development, either personally or through their organisations.

FOAM Organics Europe, an umbrella organisation for organic food and farming, notes that a group of 91 international scientists and policy experts have released a public statement opposing the use of the term ‘precision breeding’ to describe gene editing, on the grounds that it is “technically and scientifically inaccurate and therefore misleads parliament, regulators and the public” because gene editing is neither precise nor is it breeding.

FOAM quotes Claire Robinson, from industry watchdog GMWatch, who says:

“It is not only misleading but also dangerous, as deregulating these new techniques will have serious socio-economic consequences as well as potentially serious impacts on health and the environment.”

The European Court of Justice recognised this in 2018, ruling that organisms obtained with new genetic modification techniques must be regulated under the EU’s existing GMO laws. But there has been intense lobbying from the agriculture biotech industry to weaken the legislation: the industry had by late 2021 spent at least €36 million lobbying the EU.

The push for GMOs and their newer NGT versions is relentless – despite the risks and despite most of the public not wanting them. That is according to research by Pew Research Center conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. For instance, in Russia, 70% of the public regard GM foods as generally unsafe to eat. The figure is 62% in Italy, 58% in India and 57% in South Korea.

In reviewing research findings into public perceptions of GMOs, GMWatch concludes that many consumers do not want GM (including gene-edited) foods and a large majority want to see gene-edited foods assessed for safety and labelled.

The case for GM is weak, despite incessant industry PR about GM being necessary to feed the world.  GMWatch notes that GM crops do not increase intrinsic yield and, in some cases, they decrease it (noted in the book GMO Myths and Truths). Moreover, world hunger is not caused by a lack of agricultural productivity but by poverty and an inherently unjust globalised food system.

Yet, around the world, the industry’s drive to get GM crops into fields persists. In India, the country’s apex regulatory body recently sanctioned GM mustard for cultivation. This would be India’s first GM food crop.

This, despite a public interest litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court to prevent cultivation and the widespread rejection of GM mustard by farmers’ organisations. Something not lost on Ashwani Mahajan, national co- convenor of Swadeshi Jagran Manch, a body that promotes self-reliance and associated with the country’s ruling BJP.

He states on Twitter:

“WHAT AN IRONY! Government is yet to find a respected farmer leader of repute to support GM Mustard and they say that they are bringing GM Mustard in farmers’ interests.”

Ashwani refers to a letter written by farmers leaders to PM Modi urging him to immediately put a stop to GM mustard.

The concerns set out in the letter by farmers’ leaders have been elucidated in the numerous affidavits as part of the GM mustard PIL before the Supreme Court (the online article Prominent Lawyer Prashant Bhushan Urges Indian Government to Stop Commercialisation of GM Mustard provides an overview of some of the key evidence).

The letter objects to the decision of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee to approve the environmental release of GM HT Mustard, hybrid DHM-11 and its parental lines. These parental lines will be distributed to private and public sector researchers to develop other hybrids.

The farmers leaders say to PM Modi:

“The farmers are already in distress! This HT (herbicide-tolerant) mustard will further coerce them towards the usage of a deadly herbicide (glufosinate) which will only benefit large agro-chemical corporations like Bayer, the producer of this herbicide. Your Ministry’s regulators have made various ‘claims’ in favour of the release of DHM-11, all of which lack logic or science.”

The letter states that independent scientists have exposed claims about yield increases through GM HT mustard to be hollow and unfounded. Data has been rigged and manipulated and protocols have been severely compromised:

“It is unscientific that the Government of India and its regulators are parroting the false claims of the crop developers… yields are going to decline if this GM mustard is approved – that is because this GM mustard is a low-yielder compared to other non-GM varieties and hybrids in the market.”

It is often stated that this GM mustard is an Indian creation. But the letter makes it clear it is a Bayer construct, a patented technology of Bayer Crop Science, and this has been concealed from the people of India.

Independent experts who have looked into the biosafety data submitted by the crop developer at Delhi University have clearly pointed out that GM mustard has not been tested rigorously and adequately and has never been tested as a herbicide tolerant crop.

The farmers’ leaders say:

“What is also important to note is that glufosinate is a dangerous herbicide, like glyphosate. It is irresponsible for the regulatory body to recommend environmental release, and then ask for testing to be done post-environmental release, knowing fully well that GM technology is a living technology, irreversible and uncontrollable.”

Supporters of GM mustard say it will help reduce the edible oil import bill of India. But India is nearly self-sufficient when it comes to mustard demand and supply. The letter also discusses adverse trade implications of allowing GMOs to contaminate India’s food supply.

PM Modi is also made aware that GM crops like DHM-11 will contaminate neighbouring crops by outcrossing. He is asked: How will the purity of seeds and crops be maintained and protect organic certification? And given that GM Mustard is herbicide tolerant, there is the strong possibility that farmers will end up on a financially costly health- and environment-damaging chemical treadmill.

The letter states that GM technology is unproven and heavily dependent on agro-chemicals. It says GM crops will be an unnecessary addition of pressure into a system that is already squeezing the farmer dry, adding to the riskiness in farming.

Moreover:

“GM crops clearly are a relinquishment of our sovereignty to corporate interests that will threaten our food supply and our ability to control our own food chain.”

India is a centre for diversity for mustard and several high-level official committees have time and time again recommended against transgenic technologies in crops for which the country is the centre of origin or centre of diversity.

The letter concludes with the warning:

“If the Government of India does not put the interests of ordinary citizens like us in policy-making around such hazardous technologies, we will be forced to step up our struggles to protect our interests.”

Such action is necessary because farmers and the public are rejecting GMOs but compromised scientists and policy makers are promoting a risky technology with unproven need to help boost industry profit by facilitating market capture and the displacement of indigenous systems of production.

*

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.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.

Featured image is from Beyond GM

Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

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 draft of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes billions in military aid for Taiwan, but Congress isn’t sure if the funds will be approved, Defense News reported on Thursday.

The funding includes $10 billion in the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program over five years, giving Taiwan $2 billion each year until 2027. It also includes $1 billion in annual presidential drawdown authority, which would allow the US to send Taiwan arms directly from US military stockpiles, the most common method the US is using to arm Taiwan.

While the funding for Taiwan is included in NDAA, members of Congress aren’t sure if it will get past the appropriations committees. Lawmakers say that in order to get the funds for Taiwan, cuts need to be made elsewhere and Democratic appropriators aren’t sure if they want to do that.

Democrats are particularly concerned about cutting the State Department’s budget to fit in the FMF for Taiwan, and it’s not clear if they would be willing to increase the department’s top line.

The State Department’s 2022 budget was $55 billion, including $6 billion for FMF, which Taiwan does not yet receive. The plan to give the island $2 billion in FMF would make it the second-highest recipient of the program behind Israel, which receives $3.3 billion in FMF each year.

But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are keen to begin unprecedented military aid for Taiwan, which will be a highly provocative move toward China, and will likely find a way. The Washington Post first reported the plan to give Taiwan $3 billion in annual military aid and cited congressional aides who said if the funds aren’t appropriated, the White House could ask Congress to approve the aid as emergency funding as it has been doing for Ukraine.

The $10 billion in FMF is an effort to incorporate into the NDAA a piece of legislation known as the Taiwan Policy Act. The bill was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in September and included $6.5 billion in FMF, which was raised to $10 billion.

The effort to arm Taiwan comes as China has been warning the US against increasing support for the island. Before voting on the Taiwan Policy Act, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) recognized how China would view the legislation. “We’re doing something that’s highly provocative and bellicose,” he said before voting in favor of the bill.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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.

***

Heading into its tenth month, the war in Ukraine, and the resulting political, social and economic upheavals brought about by Russia’s illegal invasion, have given rise to a narrative in Washington notable both for its ferocity and unanimity. 

A coterie of neoconservative and liberal interventionist ‘thought-leaders’ with a direct line to the Biden National Security Council have ruled as out-of-bounds views which take into account the role the United States and NATO, or even Ukraine itself, may have played in bringing about the current crisis. Such views have been deemed largely irrelevant to what is seen as a global battle, in which Ukraine is currently the most important front, between an alliance of global authoritarians on the one hand (Russia, China, Iran) and the forces of freedom and democracy (Ukraine, the U.S., NATO) on the other.

The trouble with much of what passes for informed analysis on the current state of affairs in Ukraine is that it is clouded by what the Biden administration and its eager servants in the media wish to be true, rather than by what is actually true. That, as a recent Quincy Institute panel on the Global South demonstrated, enormous swathes of the world outside of Europe and the Anglophone North Atlantic do not share the NATO-centric view of Russian aggression seems rarely, if ever, taken into account by Washington’s foreign policy “Blob.” Yet, as the journalist and grand strategist Walter Lippmann once observed, “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”

Venturing into this contentious territory are three authors who, as Lippmann once did, dissent from the new Cold War orthodoxy. Each of the three books under review helps to illuminate different aspects of the current war and the concomitant crisis in relations between Russia and the West.

A too often overlooked (or ignored) cause of the cycle of endless tragedy which characterizes Ukraine’s post-Cold War trajectory is Ukrainian nationalism. It didn’t have to be this way. At the end of the first Cold War, President George H.W. Bush traveled to Kiev in 1991 and warned that the U.S. would:

…not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”

But Bush, who lost his bid for reelection the following year, ended up being ignored. And in the intervening three decades, Ukraine’s domestic politics have been trapped in a seemingly endless and tragic cycle of revolution and recrimination.

In The Tragedy of Ukraine, What Classical Greek Tragedy Can Teach Us About Conflict Resolution (De Gruyter, 2023), scholar Nicolai N. Petro posits that the cycle owes itself to the “lack of meaningful dialogue between Galicia and Donbass, the cultural heartlands of Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking Ukraine” which “runs through Ukrainian history like a red skein.”

As Petro sees it,

“Such a dialog will be possible only if Russophone Ukrainians are embraced as true Ukrainians and not treated as potential traitors within their own country. Ukraine’s ability to break the cycle of tragedy will ultimately depend on this.”

The solution offered by Petro, to apply to the Ukraine crisis the lessons handed down to us by the ancient Greek tragedians, is timely, original, and most of all, wise. As Petro puts it, “In the centuries since the fall of Athens, Greek tragedy has continued to be a source of inspiration for…all the humanities, but its most important function – that of sparking dialogue among citizens on civic values and behavior – has been all but forgotten.” Petro believes that efforts, such as the Minsk protocols and the National Platform for Reconciliation and Unity, failed to bring about peace to Ukraine because they “did not include any mechanisms for fostering social healing among Ukrainians themselves. That is why a greater awareness of classical Greek tragedy,  which saw social healing as one of its core therapeutic functions, can be so valuable for Ukraine.”

And so, if Petro provides us with a lens from antiquity with which to view the Ukraine crisis, Hall Gardner’s Toward an Alternative Transatlantic Strategy (Foundation Perspective and Innovation, 2022), provides us with a valuable critique from present-day Europe. Gardner, a professor of international relations at the American University of Paris,  believes that the Biden administration’s policy of trying to simultaneously “cooperate” and “constrain” peer rivals, notably Russia and China (a policy that Gardner calls “constrainment”), is misguided. As he points out, “the effort to find common interests with rival states is taking place in a context in which those ‘intersecting interests’ are essentially American-defined priorities and not necessarily major priority for Russia, China or for other rivals and allies.”

The way Gardner sees it, the best way forward for the West is through an equitable partnership between Europe and the United States which must replace Washington’s rule by diktat. Whether the war in Ukraine will hasten or delay such a development is anyone’s guess. But Gardner’s offering is timely given the rift that has opened up between the Biden Administration and its European allies in recent weeks. “The fact is,” an anonymous senior European official told Politico  last week, “if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the U.S. because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons.”

Yet given the chaos and, yes, tragedy now engulfing Ukraine, policymakers across the West might do well to reflect on how we got to this point in the first place. In How The West Brought War To Ukraine (Siland Press, 2022), Dr. Benjamin Abelow, a nuclear arms activist and graduate of Yale Medical School, gives a concise, thorough chronology of U.S. policy toward Russia over the past 30 years.

According to Abelow, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, if seen through the prism of our own demands for a hemispheric sphere of influence via the Monroe Doctrine, is not necessarily the expression of “unbridled expansionism” on the part of  “a malevolent Russian leader.” It is instead  “a violent and destructive reaction to misguided Western policies.” Abelow succeeds in prompting the reader to question the regnant Western narrative of the conflict and, in so doing, helps point the way towards what a negotiated settlement might look like.

In the end, Western policymakers would do well to take seriously the advice offered by the aforementioned authors. Whether or not they will do so remains, alas, an open question.

*

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 courtesy of Sonja Van den Ende

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.

***

Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) agreed last month for BP to begin drilling for and producing natural gas in a major project off the north African country’s coast.

The UK corporation, whose board of directors includes former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers, controls exploration areas in Libya nearly three times the size of Wales.

For a long time, British officials have sought to profit from oil in Libya, which contains 48 billion barrels of reserves – the largest oil resources in Africa, accounting for 3% of the world total.

BP is one of the few international oil and gas companies with exploration and production permits in Libya. Muammar Gaddafi nationalized its assets in Libya shortly after seizing power in a 1969 coup that called into question the entire British position in the country and region.

Following years of tensions between the two countries, Prime Minister Tony Blair met Gaddafi in 2004 and struck the so-called “Deal in the Desert,” which included a $900 million exploration and production agreement between BP and Libya’s NOC.

BP re-entered the country in 2007, but its operations were halted by the 2011 NATO-backed aggression on the country, resulting in ousting Gaddafi and later killing him.

BP operations resumed after the signing of a memorandum of understanding in 2018 between the NOC and Eni, the Italian oil major, to resume exploration, with Eni as the oil field operator. BP CEO Bob Dudley hailed the agreement as an important step “toward returning to our work in Libya.”

The $8 billion BP-ENI project includes two exploration areas, one onshore in the Ghadames basin and one offshore in the Sirte basin, totaling approximately 54,000 km2. The Sirte basin concession alone encompasses an area larger than Belgium.

The UK’s other oil major, Shell, is also “preparing to return as a major player” in Libya, according to its statement in a confidential document. After putting its Libyan operations on hold in 2012, the corporation is now planning to explore new oil and gas fields in several blocks.

Oil bribery

In September of last year, a third British company, Petrofac, which provides engineering services to oil operations, was awarded a $100 million contract to help develop the Erawin oil field in Libya’s deep southwest.

Petrofac was at the time under investigation for bribery by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO). One of its executives, global head of sales David Lufkin, had already pleaded guilty in 2019 to 11 counts of bribery.

The SFO convicted and fined Petrofac on seven counts of bribery between 2011 and 2017 in the month following the award of the Libya contract.

The company pleaded guilty to using agents to bribe officials to the tune of £32 million in order to win oil contracts in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

“A key feature of the case,” the SFO noted, “was the complex and deliberately opaque methods used by these senior executives to pay agents across borders, disguising payments through sub-contractors, creating fake contracts for fictitious services and, in some cases, passing bribes through more than one agent and one country, to disguise their actions.”

It works with BP in several countries around the world, including Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Oman, and in the North Sea.

Backed by UK government

All three British firms re-entering Libya have close ties to the British government. During some of the years when Petrofac paid bribes, the company was led by Ayman Asfari, who donated nearly £800,000 to the Conservative Party between 2009 and 2017.

David Cameron appointed Asfari, who is now a non-executive director of Petrofac, as one of his business ambassadors in 2014.

In May 2019, when Petrofac was under investigation by the SFO, UKEF provided £700m in project insurance for the design and operation of an oil refinery at Duqm in Oman, a project in which Petrofac was named as the sole UK exporter.

Petrofac was one of five companies that sponsored the official reopening of the British Embassy in Tripoli in June of this year.

Ambassador Caroline Hurndall told the audience,

“I am especially proud that British businesses are collaborating with Libyan companies and having a meaningful impact upon Libya’s economic development. Many of those businesses are represented here tonight.”

BP and Shell are close to Whitehall, with a long history of personnel revolving between the corporation and former senior civil servants.

Control of oil

Despite all that has befallen the north African nation, Libya was the UK’s third largest source of oil last year, after Norway and the US, supplying 7.8% of all British oil imports. Oil provides over 90% of Libya’s revenue, which makes it the country’s lifeline.

However, the country’s NATO-backed aggression has provoked a battle for control over the oil industry which has been described as being in “disarray”, with “little clarity on who really is in control of the nation’s most valuable resource.”

UK ministers have long sought access to Libya’s oil in the international rivalry over access to the key resource. Documents obtained by the oil-focused NGO Platform in 2009 revealed that Labour ministers and senior civil servants met with Shell at least 11 times and possibly as many as 26 times in less than four years to discuss the company’s oil interests in Libya.

*

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.

***

We, the undersigned, proclaim our opposition to the G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration, as a gross violation of national sovereignty, individual liberty, health freedom, personal privacy, and the right to travel.

The G20 Declaration intends:

• Global digital vaccine passports and digital IDs connected to global digital health networks to travel
• Central Bank Digital Currencies to track and control purchases and behavior
• Escalating internet surveillance and censorship using the pretense of “disinformation”
• Expanding global governance through the Trojan Horse of a Bio-Security apparatus
• “Reforms” in food production and distribution which will harm small farmers and dictate what foods we may eat

We call on all elected officials to take a stand with ‘we the people’ and publicly denounce this latest attempt by global elites to advance their dystopian vision of a techno-feudal state with us as digitally branded subjects.

Background

On Nov. 15-16, 2022, a select group of unthinkably wealthy business leaders and high-ranking political officials met in Bali for the annual G20 conference with designs on mapping out their global ambitions to construct an international system of technocratic compliance and control.

The objectives of this global scheme are detailed in the 59-page 2022 G20 Bali Update and condensed in the G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration.

The meeting culminated with the leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies signing a pledge that seeks to achieve seismic transformations of all global commerce, travel, health freedom, privacy, and communication.

Beyond the rhetorical artifice of “inclusivity”, “diversity”, “sustainability” and an array of obligatory buzzwords and catchphrases, the document reads like a blueprint for a billionaire’s utopia and a digital plantation for the rest of humanity.

Items featured on the wish list of the G20 globalists include:

1) The establishment of a global digital vaccine passport and a digital ID connected to global digital “health” networks without which, travel would not be allowed:

We support the WHO mRNA Vaccine Technology Transfer hub as well as all as the spokes in all regions of the world with the objective of sharing technology and technical know-how on voluntary and mutually agreed terms.

We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, under the framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations. We support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks as part of the efforts to strengthen prevention and response to future pandemics, that should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates.

 2) Introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) which are programmable:

We encourage central banks, other public authorities and the payments industry to continue to work collaboratively on these important initiatives to enhance cross-border payments. We welcome the report by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) on interlinking payment systems and the role of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that was presented in a joint workshop by the Indonesian G20 Presidency in coordination with the BIS CPMI and the BIS Innovation Hub…We also welcome the joint report by the BIS CPMI… We welcome continued exploration of how CBDCs could potentially be designed to facilitate cross-border payments, while preserving the stability and integrity of the international monetary and financial system.

CBDC would allow central banks to dictate the development of digital currencies. The programmability of CBDCs could allow central banks to directly gain control over purchases and behaviors of transacting parties.

3) Escalating internet surveillance and censorship using the pretense of “disinformation”:

We acknowledge that affordable and high-quality digital connectivity is essential for digital inclusion and digital transformation, while a resilient, safe and secure online environment is necessary to enhance confidence and trust in the digital economy […] We acknowledge the importance to counter disinformation campaigns, cyber threats, online abuse, and ensuring security in connectivity infrastructure.

4) Expanding global governance through the Trojan Horse of a Bio-Security apparatus:

We reaffirm our commitment to strengthen global health governance, with the leading and coordination role of WHO and support from other international organizations. We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument that should contain both legally binding and non-legally binding elements to strengthen pandemic PPR and the working group on the International Health Regulations that will consider amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) mindful that the decision will be made by World Health Assembly.

This is yet another attempt to exploit “health emergencies” to expand the power of supranational organizations such as the World Health Organization.

5) “Reforms” in food production and distribution which will be to the detriment of small farmers and local food production in addition to dictating which foods we may eat, while benefiting agricultural monopolies and the biotech industry.

We will also implement the One Health approach, intensify research on food science and technology…

We are committed to supporting the adoption of innovative practices and technologies, including digital innovation in agriculture and food systems to enhance productivity and sustainability…We will promote responsible investments in agricultural research and science and evidence-based approaches.

The One Health approach has been described as a blueprint for taking over food chains and natural areas in the name of public health.

“Adoption of innovative practices and technologies” is intended for the advancement of Biotech Agribusiness and its products such as lab grown meat. “Responsible investments in agricultural research and science” translates to control of food systems and the creation of food dependency through GMO food systems.

In conclusion, the intent of this plan is CONTROL — to create a series of monopolies, cartels and oligopolies that govern food, energy, healthcare, travel, commerce and all aspects of our lives.

This most recent meeting and “commitment” from the G20 representatives is yet another attack on the dignity and freedoms of people of the world.

The problems of the world require local solutions tailored to individual communities, not top-down diktats from unelected, unaccountable technocrats who aim to transform our societies under the pretense of health, environment, equity, and inclusivity.

Together, we proclaim our opposition to this latest attempt to subjugate humanity. We demand our public servants denounce the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration and stand with the people they represent.

“If ever there was a time for humanity to wake up now is the time” – Vandana Shiva

On November 28, 2022, this proclamation was authored and signed by,

Leslie Manookian, Founder and President
Health Freedom Defense Fund

*

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

Featured image is from Dr. Rath Health Foundation

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.

***

Gérard Araud was not mincing his words.  As France’s former ambassador to Washington, he had seen enough.  At a November 14 panel hosted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft titled “Is America Ready for a Multipolar Word?”, Araud decried the “economic warfare” being waged by the United States against China, expressing the view that Europe was concerned by the evident “containment policy” being pursued.

Araud is very much the diplomat establishment figure, having also served as French representative to the United Nations from 2009 to 2014.  But despite his pedigree, he was most keen to fire off a few salvos against such concepts as the “rules-based order” so treasured by the Anglosphere and the “West” more broadly defined.  “To be frank, I’ve always been extremely sceptical about this idea of a ‘rules-based order’.”  Both he and the French in general loved the United Nations, “but the Americans not too much”.

With unerring frankness, he also noted that the UN and broader international hierarchy was dominated by the US-European bloc.  The undersecretaries to the organisation reflected that fact, as did the stewardship of the World Bank and the IMF.  “So that’s the first element: this order is our order.”

The second element was historical: the balance of power as it was in the war-ruined world of 1945.  “Really people forget that, if China and Russia are obliged to oppose [with] their veto, it is because frankly the Security Council is most of the time, 95% of the time, has a Western-oriented majority.”

French President Emmanuel Macron has adopted elements of Araud’s thinking, notably regarding the problems and limits of US domination, while still reasserting the value of France’s own global imprint.  Such actions and sombre strategizing are taking place in the shadow of the West’s decline.  In a recent closed-door meeting with his top diplomats, Macron remarked that

“the international order is being upended in a whole new way.  It is a transformation of the international order.  I must admit that Western hegemony may be coming to an end”.

This theme of decline in Macron’s is an ongoing Spenglerian motif.  It surfaced at the end of the G-7 summit in 2019, where he reflected on the decline of Western dominance while pondering the finance-obsessed nature of the global market economy.  This was pretty rich coming from a banker, though he was certainly right on the issue of greater multipolarity.

To his diplomats, Macron paddled in the waters of history, reflecting on French power in the 18^th century, the Industrial Revolution led by Britain in the 19^th century, and the brute dominance of the United States from the 20^th century.  With typically Gallic, broad stroke synthesis, he suggested that “France is culture, England is industry, and America is war.”

Then came the finger pointing, sharply directed at the biggest of culprits and the underminers of the West.  “Within Western countries, many wrong choices the United States has made in the face of crises have deeply shaken our hegemony.”  It was not something that began with the Trump administration; previous US presidents “made other wrong choices long before Trump, Clinton’s China policy, Bush’s war policy, Obama’s world financial crisis, and quantitative easing policy.”

To this swipe at Washington could be added the role of emerging powers, which were underestimated by the West “not just two years ago, but as early as ten or twenty years ago.”  He admitted that “China and Russia have achieved great success over the years under different leadership styles.”

Despite such rueful admissions about decline, Macron is still keen to pursue a form of geopolitical balancing, notably in the Indo-Pacific.  This is code for the pursuing French interests in a region that is increasingly looking like exploding into a folly-driven conflict between the Chinese and US camps.  But Paris is hardly going to miss out pushing the credentials of its defence industry, which took a bruising with the scuppering of the Attack Class submarine deal with the Australian government in September last year.

In February, Macron convinced Jakarta to ink a deal worth $8.1 billion for 42 Rafale fighter jets produced by Dassault Aviation.  Two diesel-electric Scorpène-class attack submarines produced by the Naval Group have also been added to the mix, along with ammunition, making the arrangements with Jakarta some of the most lucrative for France in Southeast Asia.

On his current visit to Washington, Macron is facing those old problems of US power.  While Australia was designated assassin in killing off the submarine contract, the ammunition came from Washington as part of the AUKUS security pact, a spear pointing at China in the Indo-Pacific.  President Joe Biden has merely described the handling of the whole matter as “clumsy”.

Then come such issues as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which gives advantageous climate subsidies to US companies over their European counterparts, and how the Ukraine War is to be addressed.  Biden has no inclination to speak to Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, content to let the war rage as long as it bleeds Russia; Macron has been more than willing to keep the lines open, acknowledging that diplomacy, however frail, must at least be drip-fed.

In his own reflections on what could be done regarding the US-Western parochialism of the rules-based order, Araud made the obvious point.  Any genuine international system purporting to be undergirded by rules had to integrate “all the major stakeholders into managing of the world, you know really bringing in the Chinese, the Indians, and really other countries, and trying to build with them, on an equal basis, the world of tomorrow.”  What a daring idea, and one that is bound to avoid a global conflict.  For that reason, it won’t be embraced.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

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.

***

United States President Joe Biden while running for office in 2020 pledged to become the most pro-union head-of-state in the history of the government.

However, many within the labor movement are incensed that Biden would demand that the House of Representatives and the Senate force the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS), SMART-TD, and Brotherhood of Maintenance Way Employees Division which represent more than half of all railroad workers to accept a labor agreement previously rejected by large numbers within the membership. (See this)

The president had intervened several weeks ago utilizing a decades-old federal law, the 1926 Railway Labor Act, which allows the administration and Congress to impose contracts that would prevent a strike within the transport industry. Any labor action which might disrupt interstate commerce such as ground and air transport could be halted through government intervention. (See this)

Biden cited the current state of the U.S. economy as a rationale for his approach to the deadlock in negotiations between the labor unions and the Association of American Railroads which controls the private operations of the industry. The deal Biden attempted to force on the Railroad owners and unions failed to be ratified by key elements of the workers.

Even after the midterm elections of November 8 where the president and Democratic members of Congress praised the electorate for voting in large numbers hence preventing far worse outcomes within the House and Senate, the rights of workers were so rapidly denied. In the weeks leading up to the midterm elections, Biden warned against the threat of far-right extremism and fascism in the U.S. He declared that democracy itself was on the Midterm ballot since the entire electoral process was vehemently attacked on January 6 of 2021 at the Capitol Building.

Yet, when the still sitting Democratic House and Senate were provided an opportunity to rebuke the Biden anti-labor policies, they decided to approve a contract which denies paid sick leave for railroad workers. The House bill initially voted on did place the 7 days paid sick leave clause into the text. Nonetheless, in the Senate, this key demand of the workers was denied.

Such an approach to the interests of organized labor and the working class in general illustrates the actual class character of the Democratic Party leadership which heavily relies upon unions and African Americans to win local, statewide and national elections. Absent the passage of legislation to ensure and enhance the voting rights of African Americans and other nationally oppressed peoples in the U.S., millions still went to the polls to cast their ballots largely for the Democratically-dominated Congress.

The December 6 runoff election in Georgia for the Senate has been marked by nationwide efforts on the part of Democratic-oriented political action committees to pour money into the state in support of the incumbent Raphael Warnock. The results of the Georgia Senate runoff election will determine whether the chamber will be evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans or a one-member majority for the Democrats if Warnock prevails. Even with a split Senate, Vice President Kamala Harris, as the President of the Senate, could break any tie vote.

A statement from Tony Caldwell, President of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED) in the Railroad industry said in a letter to the Senate on the present situation:

“Railroad workers are at their breaking point. An extension of the stats quo will also deny railroad workers a much needed and well-deserved increase to their pay during a period where they have felt the woes of inflation. It has been three years since Railroad Workers have received a raise. They should not have to wait two more months.” (See this)

Based upon these developments, the ongoing efforts to organize within the low-wage service sectors of the labor market will continue to face formidable challenges. The potential for a Teamsters’ strike against UPS in 2023 could evoke similar anti-union actions by the administration.

Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency Files Complaint against Jackson, Mississippi

In another move within the same week, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced several legal actions involving the water crisis in the majority African American municipality of Jackson, the capital of the State of Mississippi. On behalf of the EPA, the Justice Department leveled a complaint against the administration of the beleaguered city saying it had failed to enforce the Clean Water Act.

Immediately a federal judge accepted the Justice Department complaint along with the appointment of a third-party administrator to manage the water system in Jackson. In addition to the EPA complaint filed by Garland, negotiations will be underway for a period of six months related to the implementation of a federal consent decree on the Jackson water system.

Jackson’s problems became national news in the summer of 2022 when residents were unable to use the water supplied by the city’s treatment plant. Although the state government dominated by Republican Governor Tate Reeves has blamed the water crisis on the Jackson administration of Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba, others have cited the decades-long neglect and disinvestment by the state and federal governments in Jackson as well as scores of other majority African American populated cities.

Image: Jackson Mayor Chokwe A. Lumumba and Governor Tate Reese

A report published on November 30 by the Associated Press notes that:

“The department filed a proposal to appoint a third-party manager for the Jackson water system. That is meant to be an interim step while the federal government, the city of Jackson and the Mississippi State Department of Health try to negotiate a court-enforced consent decree, the department said in a news release.”

Garland in a press release emphasized that he was compelled in:

“[T]aking action in federal court to address long-standing failures in the city of Jackson’s public drinking water system. The Department of Justice takes seriously its responsibility to keep the American people safe and to protect their civil rights. Together with our partners at EPA, we will continue to seek justice for the residents of Jackson, Mississippi. And we will continue to prioritize cases in the communities most burdened by environmental harm.”

Vangela M. Wade, CEO of the Mississippi Center for Justice indicated her hope that the Justice Department intervention would improve the status of the Jackson water system. Nonetheless, she pointed out as well that:

“[T]he deplorable and unsafe condition of Jackson’s water system didn’t happen overnight but stems from decades of neglect and the intentional disinvestment of resources for the majority-Black municipality.”

Governor Reese, who has consistently attacked the Jackson administration of Mayor Lumumba, praised the action taken by the Justice Department. He noted the fact that the control of the water system was finally being taken out of the control of the city government.

Reese said in a press release:

“It is excellent news for anyone who cares about the people of Jackson that the Mayor will no longer be overseeing the city’s water system. It is now out of the city’s control, and will be overseen by a federal court.”

Denial of Democracy and Self-Determination

The situation in Jackson is not an isolated one in the U.S. Numerous majority Black cities throughout the country have been subjected to similar violations of home rule and the right to self-determination.

Cities in Michigan such as Detroit, Flint, Inkster, Highland Park, etc., have been forced into emergency management effectively denying their right to vote for officials who embody the authority inherent in the municipal charters and state constitutions. Even the emergence from emergency management and bankruptcy, the state governments backed up by Washington and Wall Street continue to inflict regressive tax measures which transfer billions of dollars to the rich while driving working class and impoverished people out of the municipalities.

Mississippi historically has been one of the most repressive states since the period of antebellum slavery. As a center for cotton production and the interstate slave trade, after the Civil War until well into the 20th century, the African American population proportionately had been one of the largest in the U.S.

Many African Americans were lynched by law-enforcement personnel and white mobs in the state during the late 19th and 20th centuries. Mississippi was a focal point of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, prompting economic and violent retaliation against African Americans and their allies seeking change to the status quo.

It was in the state of Mississippi that one of the earliest independent political organizations was established, the Freedom Democratic Party. The MFDP registered people to vote and carried out a challenge to the seating of the all-white Democratic Party delegates present at the 1964 Democratic National Convention held in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Later in June 1966, the slogan Black Power was advanced by Willie Ricks and Stokely Carmichael, leaders in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Later in 1968, the state and its capital of Jackson was designated as the center of the Republic of New Africa (RNA), which has sought to found an independent Black nation in five southern states.

Since the era of Reconstruction, where two African Americans, Hiram Revels and Blanche K. Bruce were elected by the state legislature to serve in the Senate representing Mississippi, no one else from the community has worked in the same capacity. These factors highlight the contradictions within the national politics of the Democratic and Republican parties. The fairness supposedly guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has never been fully implemented by the federal courts and the administrative apparatus of the state.

Whether in the realm of labor rights for living wages and safe working conditions to the guarantees that the oppressed peoples have democratic due process and self-determination, the U.S. political and economic system has failed. Under socialism the working class could be ensured of adequate wages, quality conditions within the workplace and the necessary social needs of the proletariat, farmers and youth.

With the abolition of institutional racism and national oppression, African Americans and other people of color communities would enjoy the same rights and privileges as those within the white population. African Americans are in desperate need of self-determination and equal protection under the law necessitating the complete transformation of capitalist society.

*

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 images in this article are from the author

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 September 30, 2022

***

You may want to take note of this recent quote by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban:

 ”The armed conflict in Ukraine will continue until 2030, as a result, Ukraine will lose half of its territory, and the EU will cease to exist by that moment.  This conflict could have been local, but due to the intervention of the West,  it became global, as a result of which the EU economy was destroyed.”

Mr. Orban also seems to have the support – at least the tacit support – of the The Visegrad Group, consisting of four countries, the V4.

It is an informal regional format of cooperation between the four Central European countries: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are not only linked by neighborhood and similar geopolitical situations but above all by common history, traditions, culture, and values. The V4 was founded in February 1991 in Visegrád, Hungary, by the four member countries.

The above statement is a response by PM Victor Orban to the European Commission’s (unelected) President Ursula van de Leyen’s threat to Hungary of cutting them off the 7.5 billion Euros which they are due under the European Union’s so-called Cohesion Policy. It is the EU’s main investment policy, sort of a COVID compensation.

Under the EU rule, the Cohesion Fund provides support to Member States with a gross national income (GNI) per capita below 90% of the EU-27 average. The purpose of the subsidy is to strengthen the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU.

Within that framework, the Cohesion Policy’s purpose is to benefit all regions and cities of the Union and promotes economic growth, job creation, business competitiveness, sustainable development and environmental protection.

So, why the threat? Because Mr. Orban refuses to sanction Russia?

Because he expresses his right of a sovereign state – and as the leader of Hungary, he is supported by about 70% of the people – of all those who see national sovereignty as more important than following the dictate of a defunct European Union, a US vassal par excellence.

And – while war is never justified – Mr. Orban understands why Russia had to take actions to protect the Russian people in the Donbas area, plus to demilitarize the Nazi state of Ukraine – especially the Azov Battalion(s) which were fighting alongside Hitler’s troops against the Soviet Union during WWII.

Let alone the constant an ever-increased pressure from the Washington / Pentagon directed NATO, encroaching Russia; plus, the fact that neither of the two Minsk Agreements (September 2014 and April 2015), sponsored by France and Germany, on settling the Ukraine conflict, were ever adhered to.

See this full BBC report on Ms. Victoria Nuland, Deputy Secretary of State in 2014 “F**k Europe”, and more. This conversation preceded by days only the western-inspired – US, EU, NATO – 22 February 2014 Maidan Coup against Ukraine’s legitimately and democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

Also, to be mentioned are the twenty or thirty-some grade 4 (war-type) biological, US-funded and built laboratories in the Ukraine territory. This was admitted by the very Ms. Nuland before a US Congressional Committee. These labs were a direct danger to Russia. Obviously, President Putin couldn’t just stand by, watching NATO arming and training the Ukraine military with “boots on the ground”.

All of this, of course, is known to the European Commission. Ms. Von der Leyen knows exactly the truth about Ukraine, but keeps lying to the European people, helped massively by the corrupted media. Therefore, Europeans are blinded and keep yelling almost in unison: Russia-Russia-Russia!

Given these circumstances, one wonders whether there is a wanton agenda of knowing self-destruction of the European Union by the EC leadership. In fact, they know exactly what they are doing.

Washington / NATO have chosen their best candidates to carry out their nefarious agenda.

The records of corruption of Ms. Von der Leyen and German Chancellor Scholz, who is betraying Europe and his country every day, speak for themselves.

*

Now comes Italy

When Italy was preparing for their elections to be held last Sunday – 25 September 2022, and a coalition of right-wing parties, all opposed to sanctioning Russia – seemed to emerge as the winner, Ms. Von der Leyen, again lifted her finger pointing at Italy, reminding Italians that they should vote according to the European mandate, neoliberal, of course, and for the Globalist agenda.

Ms. von der Leyen hinted that the country could face punishments such as those recently leveled against Hungary and Poland if the upcoming election results in the predicted right-wing sweep.

“My approach is that whatever democratic government is willing to work with us, we’re working together,” she said in response to a question over whether she had “concerns” about Sunday’s Italian parliamentary vote, in which the conservative Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) are projected to take first place.

“If things go in a difficult direction, I’ve spoken about Hungary and Poland, we have tools,” von der Leyen explained (RT, 23 September 2022).

These tools refer to withholding the Cohesion Fund money. If anything, this statement incited an ever-stronger Italian vote to the right.

In the meantime, the election outcome is clear. A coalition led by Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party. Ms. Meloni is expected to form the country’s most rightwing government since the end of the second world war. It will also be including the far-right League, led by Matteo Salvini, as well as Forza Italia, headed by three-times Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Mr. Salvini denounced von der Leyen’s “shameful arrogance” and called on the EC to “respect the free, democratic and sovereign vote of the Italian people!”

Ms. Giorgia Meloni will lead as the first woman in recent Italian history, Italy’s new Government.

The Italian Coalition Parties are all not very EU-friendly. They will certainly not be bullied by Ms. von der Leyen. And she knows that, as well as all her backers and those who give the orders, Washington, NATO, the Pentagon and the gigantic invisible financial complex behind the WEF’s Globalization Project, the One World Order (OWO).

What if Italy and / or Hungary would leave the EU?

Italy being one of the original members of the European alliance, tracing its origins back to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), established, respectively, by the 1948 Treaty of Brussels, the 1951 Treaty of Paris and 1957 Treaty of Rome.

Let’s not forget either, the original idea for a European Union, the creation of the Treaty of Rome, came from the Rockefellers. They knew already then that a rebuilt Europe, especially with Germany leading, could become an undesired competition for the United States. But as an association of countries with one currency, they could be controlled. But they should never become one country, similar to a US-style federation. That would be too dangerous as an economic block.

With the also planned destruction of the Soviet Union by a Cold War and all the fake danger-propaganda that went along, ending successfully for the US in 1991, things looked good for the single Empire.

But then came Vladimir Putin, and nothing went the way projected by the west, mainly Washington. Because Europe under the spell and imagined “danger” of the USSR, was already under the wings of her protector and mentor, Washington, Pentagon and then the ever-expanding NATO. In fact, Europe didn’t have her own army. NATO would take care of Europe’s defense.

The only then visionary who saw and predicted Europe’s demise under NATO and without her own military, was General Charles de Gaulle, France’s President until 1969. He exited France from NATO, until French President Sarkozy re-entered France to the Atlantic Alliance in 2009.

*

Back to Italy.

It could, indeed, be the end of the European Union as we know it, if Italy leaves the alliance, or even better, when Italy and Hungary leave the alliance. Were Hungary to exit the EU, she would most likely be followed by her allies of the Visegrad Group (V4 = Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary).

See this 4 min video “Shameful Arrogance”.

And there is more – underwater Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipeline explosions.

On 27 September 2022, several deep-sea explosions destroyed both German-Russian gas pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and 2. This supposes that no pressuring, or second-thought by Germany’s leadership or Parliament, or business community, could reverse Germany’s decision on sanctioning Russia and on refusing to buy Russian Gas.

There is no way that the EU, headquartered in Brussels, alongside with NATO, was unaware of the destruction plan. Hence, this is an EU act of suicide, willingly destroying Germany’s economy, and with it a large proportion of the European / EU economy – and the European people’s living standard.

So, that this long-planned Washington dictated and EU agreed act of self-demolition cannot be reversed, the two pipelines had to be destroyed. Four explosions in total, as registered by Denmark and Sweden. Untreated gas is bulging up from the sea, near Denmark. Environmental and health consequences cannot yet be assessed.

But the escaping gas’ worth, after two days, had already been assessed at 2 billion euros.

Indeed, reversing their commitment to Washington to destroy Europe, was a risk for the western wannabe Empire powers, the US / NATO. If Germany was to abandon her destructive decision for ethical or conscientious reasons, to safe her population from a predicted “extremely cold winter”, and from an imploding economy – as we currently witness – the western globalization, alias OWO-plan would fail.

These pipeline explosions are an open declaration of war at Europe. At the people of Europe. And this – very likely – in full knowledge of Brussels, i.e., the EU Commission, or at least the head of the EC.

Already on 22 February 2022, responding to a journalist’s question what Washington would do if Germany would decide despite their current sanctioning of Russia, to buy Russian gas to salvage their economy and possibly the lives of many Germans, Biden said that they had means to sabotage the pipelines of the Baltic Sea. See 35-second video.

On 2 September 2022, Russian intelligence agencies have already reported US / NATO military maneuvers with underwater drones, loaded with explosive devices. See this and this.

On 26 September 2022, US / NATO special underwater torpedoes blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2.

No matter all the evidence that Brussels was fully aware of this “Act of War” against Europe, launched by the US / NATO, EU’s massive and as usual deceptive hypocritical posturing takes on shameful proportions. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said Wednesday that the bloc was “deeply concerned” about the damage to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines connecting Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea.

“Europe vows ‘robust and united’ response to suspected sabotage of two Russian gas pipelines.”

The sabotage act may have left permanent irreparable damage, if not repaired quickly as the infiltrating sea water may quickly corrode the pipelines, a German unnamed official said, according to an RT Report.

Who is going to repair the damage in time, so that corrosion may not leave permanent damage?

Germany will most likely not have the US/NATO permission to do so, and Russia – well, NATO will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.

At this stage, Russia may be most interested in stopping the gas from flowing, to halt the economic losses and potential environmental damage.

*

In summary, all is pointing in the direction of destroying Europe from all angles and sides: Dismantling the European Union. The presumed One World Order Government does not want to deal with a bloc of countries, encompassing 500 million people and an estimated GDP of US$ 17 trillion equivalent (2022), de facto the world’s third largest economy, after the US and China (2022 est. US and China US$ 20 trillion and US$ 19.9 trillion, respectively).

So, the destruction of the European economy and annihilation of the EU – the alliance of European countries that were never allowed by Washington to become a Federation, as is the United States of America – is a plan, the EC is fully aware of and has agreed to.

This may also explain Britain’s exit from the EU.

The aggressive provocations on Italy, a founding father of the EU, plus Hungary and by association the V4, are the empire’s strategy to collapse the EU, executed by the very European Commission.

Being aware of the plan, may shake up sufficient high-ranking politicians, and especially business people and CEOs to stop it; to stop at least the economic destruction of Europe. The EU in its current form is a disgrace. Dismantling it, returning to sovereign nation states would be an advantage for humanity. It would allow a fresh, non-globalist start – one giant step away from a globalized OWO.

*

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.

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

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

Featured image: Ursula von der Leyen (Source: Britannica.com)

The Dark Origins of the Davos Great Reset

F. William Engdahl, November 23 , 2022

Gene-based Vaccination — Quo Vadis?

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, November 29 , 2022

Video: 90 Sudden or Unexpected Canadian Doctor Deaths: Dr. William Markis Interview

William Markis, November 20 , 2022

Video: The “Death Tsunami” Is Here. “You should never ever take any Covid shot anymore”. Dr. Sherry Tenpenny

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, November 8 , 2022

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The COVID Pandemic Farce Served as a Trial Balloon for the New World Order

His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò, November 25 , 2022

How Blackrock Investment Fund Triggered the Global Energy Crisis

F. William Engdahl, November 24 , 2022

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario “Suggests”: Unvaccinated Patients Are Mentally Ill and Should be Put on Psychiatric Medication

Jim Hoft, November 21 , 2022

Don’t Get Jabbed: Powerful Video on “Killer Vaccine” that Needs to be Watched by Everyone

JRickey Productions, November 26 , 2022

Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide: Dr. Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer “Confidential Report”

Dr. Naomi Wolf, November 24 , 2022

PfizerGate: Official Government Reports prove Hundreds of Thousands of People Are Dying Every Single Week Due to COVID-19 Vaccination

The Expose, November 6 , 2022

Accused of “Corona Insanity”: Swiss Doctor Locked Away in Mental Asylum for Speaking Against COVID Laws, April 2020

Martin Armstrong, November 24 , 2022

Pfizer Appears to Have Corrupted the Entire Western World

Dr. Robert Malone, November 9 , 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, November 23 , 2022

The Big Lie: Worldwide Energy Shortage Plus Multiple Crises – All Manufactured – Meant for Destruction of Western Civilization

Peter Koenig, November 29 , 2022

Graphene COVID Kill Shots: Let the Evidence Speak for Itself

Dr. Ariyana Love, November 24 , 2022

The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

James A. Lucas, November 8 , 2022

The Covid “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s A Criminal Undertaking

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 26 , 2022

Endgame Ukraine; Putin’s Battleplan

Mike Whitney, November 27 , 2022

Washington’s Plan to Break Up Russia

Mike Whitney, November 24 , 2022

Why Are Cancers Escalating Post-mRNA Vaccination?

DailyClout, November 4 , 2022

Debunking Lies About the War in Ukraine

By Eric Zuesse, December 01, 2022

Before Ukraine’s President Volodmyr Zelensky quit negotiations with Russia to settle the war in Ukraine, he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on 20 March 2022, “I made a point that the war in Ukraine has been lasting for eight years. It’s not just some special military operation.”

Zelensky’s $1 Trillion ‘Reconstruction’ Pipe Dream

By Drago Bosnic, December 01, 2022

It’s safe to say the world has gotten used to mind-blowing statements coming from the detached Kiev regime, as this has become their common theme. Apart from boastful claims of supposed “victories” of the Neo-Nazi junta forces against the Russian military, talks of how much financial assistance is necessary is the usual topic in Kiev.

Children’s Health Defense Seeks Access to Sworn Depositions in Lawsuit Alleging Feds Colluded with Big Tech to Censor COVID Content

By Children’s Health Defense, December 01, 2022

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and three other organizations are seeking open public access to critical sworn depositions and documents already produced on behalf of plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging the federal government colluded with several Big Tech firms to censor COVID-19-related content on social media.

Australian PM Tells US to Drop Charges Against Julian Assange

By Dave DeCamp, December 01, 2022

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Wednesday said that he has personally asked the US government to drop its case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is an Australian citizen.

Turkey’s Repression of the Kurds, Kurdistan as an Independent State, “The Kosovo Syndrome”

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, December 01, 2022

The Kurds are mostly discriminated against and oppressed in Turkey in comparison with all present-day states of their residence. The Kurds have not recognized in Turkey as a separate ethnolinguistic minority with their own language and culture regardless of the fact that they compose one-fifth of total Turkey’s inhabitants and being together with the Greeks and the Armenians the oldest population in Turkey living in Anatolia almost 3.000 years before the first (Seljuk) Turks came there at the end of the 11^th century.

Ukraine – Russia War: Is a Doomsday Scenario Looming? Or Is There Reason for Hope?

By Peter Koenig, December 01, 2022

Everybody predicts we are going to face an ice-cold winter in the Global North, especially in Europe and particularly in Ukraine. In the meantime, Russia is amassing along the northern Ukrainian border some half a million-plus troops and about 1,500 tanks and massive-massive artillery.

Eight Reasons Why Now Is a Good Time for a Ukraine Ceasefire and Peace Talks

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, December 01, 2022

As the war in Ukraine has dragged on for nine months and a cold winter is setting in, people all over the world are calling for a Christmas truce, harkening back to the inspirational Christmas Truce of 1914. In the midst of World War I, warring soldiers put down their guns and celebrated the holiday together in the no-man’s land between their trenches.

David Ray Griffin (1939-2022). The Man and His Work: A Synopsis

By Elizabeth Woodworth, December 01, 2022

David Ray Griffin was Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, from 1973-2004.  With his senior, Dr. John Cobb Jr., he co-founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973. Griffin has stated that “the task of a theologian is to look at the world from what we would imagine the divine perspective, one that would care about the good of the whole and would love all the parts.”

War on Global Agriculture: The Unsustainable ‘Sustainable’ UN Agenda 2030

By F. William Engdahl, December 01, 2022

Over the past weeks a coordinated all-out assault on our agriculture—the ability to produce food for human existence—has begun. The recent G20 governmental meeting in Bali, the UN Agenda 2030 Cop27 meeting in Egypt, the Davos World Economic Forum and Bill Gates are all complicit.

We Will be Sacrificed for Global Standardization of Systems

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, December 01, 2022

Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century) is the inventory and control plan for all land, water, minerals, plants, animals, construction, means of production, food, energy, information, education and all human beings in the world.

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

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

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

***

It’s safe to say the world has gotten used to mind-blowing statements coming from the detached Kiev regime, as this has become their common theme. Apart from boastful claims of supposed “victories” of the Neo-Nazi junta forces against the Russian military, talks of how much financial assistance is necessary is the usual topic in Kiev. The regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky is never tired of demanding yet another few billion dollars (euros and pounds are good enough, too) per month to support the political West’s favorite puppet regime. However, his most recent statements make every other demand look entirely “reasonable”. Namely, the Kiev regime frontman now wants over $1 trillion for the supposed “reconstruction” of the country.

During a video address on November 29, Zelensky stated that it would cost more than $1 trillion to “rebuild” Ukraine. If the number sounds astounding, that’s quite expected, given that it’s over five times the country’s 2021 GDP. However, even this sounds laughable when the second requirement is listed – this “reconstruction” plan would come into effect only after the military superpower with over 6,000 thermonuclear warheads next door is somehow “defeated”. Many have ignored Zelensky’s mind-boggling statements regarding this matter, but he keeps insisting that this is precisely what the Kiev regime needs.

“The reconstruction of our country will become the most momentous economic, technological, and humanitarian project of our time. Even now, we engage dozens of our partner countries to rebuild Ukraine,” Zelensky said during his late-night video address on Tuesday, according to a report translated by Newsweek. “The total volume of work amounts to over a trillion dollars,” he added.

Zelensky mentioned the figure while talking about his hopes that the country would host the World’s Fair in 2030. Another interesting aspect of the plan was that foreign governments and corporations could become “permanent sponsors of specific regions, cities or economic sectors”. Apart from being unrealistic, Zelensky’s ideas are also boiling down to the direct colonization of Ukraine. By giving control of different regions of the country to “permanent sponsors”, the Neo-Nazi junta frontman is effectively fracturing what’s left of the country and giving it to foreign corporate interests in a free-for-all exploitation scheme.

According to Western-backed, Latvia-based news outlet “Meduza”, Zelensky is hoping to develop a system that will allow “partner countries” to become “patrons” of Ukrainian regions, cities or businesses. “We’re already seeing interest [in the program] from France, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Turkey, Poland, Portugal, Czechia, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Austria, Greece, Canada, the U.S., Japan, and Australia. And that’s not an exhaustive list,” he said.

Interestingly, the mind-blowing $1 trillion figure was mentioned by Zelensky at least once before, but it somehow went under the radar of most mainstream media. The first time he mentioned it publicly was on September 6, when he was invited to virtually “ring” the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange. Zelensky used this unique opportunity to float the idea and initially appealed for “at least” $400 billion in foreign funds. “The general project of Ukrainian reconstruction will be the largest economic project in Europe of our time. The largest for several generations. Its volume is already estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars,” he stated at the time and then added: “And with the necessary modernization of the Ukrainian infrastructure, taking into account security needs, it is more than a trillion dollars and in a fairly short term – less than ten years.”

As previously mentioned, the country’s GDP was just over $200 billion in 2021, according to official data from the World Bank. This effectively means that the Kiev regime is demanding others invest half a decade’s worth of Ukrainian “peacetime” GDP. Although this may seem like a dumbfounding request, what’s even more staggering is the fact that at least one US-based think tank already backed the proposal. The renowned Washington DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) openly supported the idea, claiming that “it would provide strategic benefits to the United States.”

In a November 22 report titled “United States Aid to Ukraine: An Investment Whose Benefits Greatly Exceed its Cost”, CSIS authors argued the following: “In practice, Ukraine cannot continue to fight and to recover without continuing aid from the US and other powers. Moreover, if the war drags on as it well may do, the total costs of both the war and recovery states could easily rise well over $500 billion. A truly long war could put the total cost of the war and recovery to a trillion dollars or more.” The report further states: “So far, there has been only limited domestic political resistance in the United States to continuing civil and military aid to Ukraine.”

This clearly implies that the authors think the US government should always insist on more financial “assistance” to the Kiev regime and push back against anyone trying to focus on mounting domestic issues. Given just how corrupt the Neo-Nazi junta is, it’s hardly surprising there’s a lack of enthusiasm for this idea among many in the US. The recent FTX-Kiev regime-DNC scandal, along with the fact that Washington DC cannot account for over $20 billion in previous “aid” provided to the Neo-Nazi junta, all serve as a testament to the skepticism many Americans feel in this regard. Considering the current state of the US (and global) economy, who could possibly blame them.

*

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 Zero Hedge

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.

***

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and three other organizations are seeking open public access to critical sworn depositions and documents already produced on behalf of plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging the federal government colluded with several Big Tech firms to censor COVID-19-related content on social media.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Ty and Charlene Bollinger on Nov. 17 moved to intervene in the Missouri v. Biden First Amendment case on behalf of the public interest, themselves and their respective organizations: CHD, Mercola.com, The Truth About Vaccines and The Truth About Cancer.

The intervention will allow them — and the public at large — to gain access to specific discovery and depositions — including Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Nov. 23 testimony — for use in pending litigation against social media platforms.

Commenting on the motion to intervene, Kennedy said:

“It’s neither beneficial to democracy nor public health that the audio-visual recordings of key depositions describing the secret communications between key government actors and social media executives remain hidden from the American people.

“Social media platforms continue to muzzle dissenters for exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize government policies while the proof of this illegal collaboration with government officials remains sealed.”

Kennedy, Mercola and Charlene and Ty Bollinger are among the 12 individuals singled out by the Center for Countering Digital Hate as belonging to the “Disinformation Dozen” due to content they shared on social media and websites regarding vaccines.

The motion to intervene explains that these free speech advocates and their organizations have been censored and de-platformed by major social media platforms that are working with — and taking orders from — the federal government.

According to the motion:

“These Defendants have colluded with private actors (1) to curb the Applicants’ criticism of government response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and (2) to silence the Applicants’ disfavored facts and opinions concerning a variety of subjects, including Covid-19’s possible lab-leak origin, the comparative benefits of early treatment and natural immunity, and the risks or inefficacy of Covid-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use.”

The materials sought by the groups are expected to capture top-level communications between the federal branch and social media tech executives to censor and suppress a wide swath of online COVID-19 news, criticism of the government’s vaccine mandates and lockdowns and discussion of the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origins.

“If the Biden Administration instructed Big Tech to censor Bobby Kennedy, Children’s Health Defense, Mercola and the Bollingers, we need to see what they’ve said, and it must stop,” said CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland. “The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring its critics — full stop. This is what our democracy requires as the bedrock of all other freedoms.”

Missouri and Louisiana on May 5 sued the Biden administration in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleging the government colluded with Big Tech firms Twitter, Meta(Facebook’s parent company), Youtube, Instagram and LinkedIn to censor certain viewpoints under the guise of preventing the circulation of “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

District Judge Terry Doughty fast-tracked the case toward a hearing to stop it in its tracks and enjoin the government-directed social media giants’ version of a “Ministry of Truth.”

“We were censored, shadowbanned, de-platformed for sharing stats, facts and scientific data about COVID-19, taken from the government’s own websites — the same facts the current director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fauci and others are now saying are true after two-plus years of denying these facts,” said Charlene Bollinger, founder and CEO of The Truth About Cancer & Vaccines.

Bollinger added:

“We were right all along. We should never have been censored. The world needs to hear our voices in order to make informed decisions about their health. What has happened to RFK Jr., Dr. Mercola, to us, and many others should never have happened.

“Our government has colluded to hide the truth about COVID, and we need the truth to ensure this never happens again. Lives are on the line. Informed consent and real science will save countless lives. It is our mission to reach everyone with the truth to support life.”

Judge Doughty allowed the state attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana to take depositions of key Biden administration officials, including Fauci, ex-White House press secretary Jen Psaki, White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan.

According to G. Shelly Maturin II, counsel for intervenors, the censorship case is “possibly the most important first amendment case of our lifetime, the outcome of which will determine whether we continue in the Orwellian/Huxley dystopian world” or whether we “take back our God-given rights enshrined in our Constitution.”

The plaintiffs and defendants must reply to the motion to intervene by Dec. 1, and Kennedy, Mercola and the Bollingers must respond by Dec. 8. Judge Doughty is expected to rule quickly thereafter.

*

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 CHD

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.

***

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Wednesday said that he has personally asked the US government to drop its case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is an Australian citizen.

Albanese, who previously rejected public pressure to push for Assange’s release, said that he raised the issue with US officials in recent meetings.

“The government will continue to act in a diplomatic way, but can I assure the member … that I have raised this personally with representatives of the United States government,” Albanese said.

“My position is clear and has been made clear to the US administration – that it is time that this matter be brought to a close,” the Australian leader added.

Assange has been held in London’s Belmarsh Prison since April 2019 as the US is trying to extradite him for exposing government secrets and war crimes. The US Department of Justice has indicted Assange using the Espionage Act for receiving and publishing leaks from whistleblower Chelsea Manning, a standard journalistic practice.

If extradited to the US, Assange could face a sentence of up to 175 years in a maximum security prison for his journalism. Albanese’s comments came after The New York Times and four major European news outlets finally spoke out for Assange in a letter to the US government.

In the letter, the five news organizations said that “publishing is not a crime” and that it was time for the US “to end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.” The letter acknowledged that Assange’s work “in the public interest is a core part of the daily work of journalists.”

The DOJ declined to comment when asked by Antiwar.com if dropping the charges against Assange was being considered.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image: Anthony Albanese (Source: Republic World)

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.

***

Lie #1: The war started on 24 February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine.

Before Ukraine’s President Volodmyr Zelensky quit negotiations with Russia to settle the war in Ukraine, he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on 20 March 2022, “I made a point that the war in Ukraine has been lasting for eight years. It’s not just some special military operation.” Zakaria had asked him “You have said recently that Ukraine perhaps will not be a member of NATO. You have admitted that. Could that — there are people who ask, could that concession, had you made it clearly and loudly earlier, could that have prevented this war?” Zelensky’s reply said that for Ukraine to make such a “concession” — unless some NATO countries would step up to provide “guarantees” to Ukraine’s winning this eight-year war — would be unacceptable to Ukrainians, because this war had started “eight years” earlier, and they wouldn’t accept now — after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 — a “concession” of an indispensable part of what their military has been fighting for ever since long before that, going all the way back to 2014 — virtual if not official membership in NATO, so that American missiles can then become posted on Ukraine’s border only 317 miles away from Russia’s command center in The Kremlin. That has always been Ukraine’s goal throughout this eight-year war. And for Ukraine to “concede” it to Russia now would be for Ukraine to lose what they have been waging war for eight years in order to attain. He also told Zakaria that Ukrainians would never accept any concession to Russia on what was, before 2014, Ukrainian land: Crimea and Donbass: “Any compromises related to our territorial integrity and our sovereignty … We cannot concede to it.”

The NATO issue is part of that:

“NATO could be a source of guarantees for Ukraine, but we are not accepted as a member of NATO, so Ukraine has to seek for other security guarantees from individual countries, that could be NATO members. That is what we are proposing, a number of leaders of world countries could be the source of guarantees for Ukraine. They could be part of this circle of powerful countries. That is what we can talk about, security guarantees for Ukraine.”

His war in Ukraine is a war for “sovereignty” within the Ukraine that existed before 2014, and including Ukraine’s right to allow U.S.-or-allied missiles to be posted there within only a five-minute flight-time away from nuclear-annihilating The Kremlin.

He even said that “We are running out of time. You have to admit Ukraine into NATO right now.

We do not have much time. You have to accept Ukraine as a member of E.U. [as a stepping-stone to being allowed into NATO]”. In other words: Only as a temporary measure would he accept some NATO countries offering to provide “guarantees” to Ukraine’s winning this eight-year war — and he is holding the same goal now, that Ukraine’s Government has been pursuing ever since 2014: for U.S. missiles to be able to be placed in Ukraine and thus only a five-minute missile flight-time from The Kremlin. (During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK refused to allow Soviet missiles to be placed 1,131 miles away from Washington DC.)

Here is a video of the 2014 regime-change in Ukraine which had produced this war. And here is what had led up to that historic regime-change event. And here is how that historic regime-change event ultimately produced Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

So: the Big Lie about Ukraine’s war is that it started on 24 February 2022, instead of during 20-26 February 2014. Even Ukraine’s President acknowledges that it is false. For some reason, the leaders of Ukraine’s ‘allies’ (especially the U.S.) do not acknowledge it.

Lie #2: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 was “illegal”.

Here is why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 could her considered as legal under international law:

No one maintains that U.S. President John F. Kennedy lacked international legal authorization to invade the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union were to place its nuclear-warheaded missiles in Cuba only 1,131 miles away from Washington DC. Everyone recognized that if the Soviet Union and Cuba were to do that, it would constitute an act of aggression against the United States, because those missiles would be so close to America’s command-center in DC as to enable a blitz nuclear attack by the Soviet Union so fast as to possibly prohibit America’s strategic command to recognize the attack in time to launch its own, retaliatory, missiles.

This is the principle, that any major world power possesses the national self-defense right to prohibit any bordering nation from allowing weaponry and forces of a major world power that is hostile to this major world power to be placed in that bordering nation.

Whereas Cuba is 1,131 miles away from DC, Ukraine is only 317 miles away from The Kremlin. Five minutes away from The Kremlin would be so close as to mean game-over for Russia, checkmate by the U.S.

JFK demanded from both Cuba and the Soviet Union, that there will NEVER be Soviet missiles placed in Cuba, and the Soviet Union then promised that they would comply with that national-security demand by the U.S.; thus, WW III was averted.

This time around, the aggressors were America and Ukraine; and Russia (facing an even bigger threat than America did in 1962) imposed the same demand as JFK did, but its enemies were/are determined and clear aggressor nations — they refused to comply.

Why does ANYONE allege that allowing the United States to place its missiles only 317 miles (a 5-minute missile-flight away) from The Kremlin would not constitute aggression by the U.S. and Ukraine against Russia? Allowing Ukraine into NATO would grant the Governments of U.S. and Ukraine a right to place U.S. missiles 317 miles from The Kremlin — something that no rational Government of Russia would ever allow to happen. As Russia’s Government has said, this issue of permanently excluding Ukraine from NATO is “a matter of life and death” for Russia. And THAT is the reason it is.

The Cuban-Missile-Crisis precedent acknowledged that Russia now has a national-defense right to demand that Ukraine NEVER be allowed into NATO. This is what U.S., its NATO anti-Russian military alliance, and the existing Ukrainian Government, refuse to acknowledge.

On 17 December 2021, Russia demanded, from both the U.S. and its anti-Russian military alliance NATO, promises in writing, that Ukraine WILL NOT BE ALLOWED INTO NATO. On 7 January 2022, America and its NATO aggression-alliance both said no.

That left Russia either to capitulate to America and its NATO, or else to invade Ukraine in order to prevent that aggressor — America — from doing essentially what JFK had gotten the Soviet Union to do: to agree to the defending major world power’s extremely reasonable (actually necessary) demand and so promise NEVER to allow Ukraine into NATO.

America (and its NATO) thus forced Russia to invade Ukraine, in order to prevent nuclear “Checkmate!” by the U.S. regime. The aggressor was America — NOT Russia.

All of the U.S.-and-allied propaganda organs (including academic ones) that use the lying phrase “Russia’s illegal invasion of ukraine” must therefore be recognized as being the liars that they actually are. (Otherwise: they must declare JFK to have been violating international law by threatening Khrushchev with an American invasion if Soviet missiles would be placed in Cuba.)

What the Cuban-Missile-Crisis example displays is a more detailed statement of the Westphalian Principle or “Westphalian State System” as Oxford Reference defines that:

OVERVIEW

Westphalian state system

QUICK REFERENCE

Term used in international relations, supposedly arising from the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War. It is generally held to mean a system of states or international society comprising sovereign state entities possessing the monopoly of force within their mutually recognized territories. Relations between states are conducted by means of formal diplomatic ties between heads of state and governments, and international law consists of treaties made (and broken) by those sovereign entities. The term implies a separation of the domestic and international spheres, such that states may not legitimately intervene in the domestic affairs of another, whether in the pursuit of self‐interest or by appeal to a higher notion of sovereignty, be it religion, ideology, or other supranational ideal. In this sense the term differentiates the ‘modern’ state system from earlier models, such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire.

Richard Coggins

RTC

From:  Westphalian state system  in  The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics

That cites two “Empires” — Holy Roman, and Ottoman — but actually ALL empires violate Westphalianism. That includes today’s American empire.

During WW II, the advocates of Westphalianism were FDR and Stalin, and the opponents of Westphalianism were Churchill, Hirohito, Mussolini, and Hitler. Truman and his personal hero Eisenhower became FDR’s successors, and both of them were opponents of Westphalianism. This was the reason why the Cold War started: both of the first two American Presidents after FDR were imperialists. They created today’s military-industrial-complex-controlled America, the international American dictatorship that now exists and which has replaced FDR’s democracy.

An interesting sidelight to this is that whereas Sunni Islam, and the passion that some of them have for establishing an international “Caliphate,” accept imperialism or even advocate it (as Caliphate-proponents do), Shiite Islam opposes imperialism, and this has been one of the major reasons why Shiite Iran is rejected by all imperialistic Governments. Here is how Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei phrased this in his 21 October 2006 “Leader’s Speech in Meeting with Soldiers and Commanders of the Sacred Defense Era”:

There are two major differences between a defensive and an offensive war in terms of meaning and content. One difference is that an offensive war is based on transgression and aggression, but this is not the case with a defensive war. The second difference is that a defensive war is a place where zeal, courage and deep loyalty to ideals emerge. These ideals may be related to one’s country or … one’s religion. …. This does not exist in an offensive war. For example, when America attacks Iraq, an American soldier cannot claim that he is doing it for the love of his country. What does Iraq have to do with his country? This war is at the service of other goals, but if an Iraqi person resists this military invasion and presence inside his country, this means showing resistance and defending one’s country, national identity and those values that one believes in. …

Since the day the regime of Saddam attacked Tehran and struck the airport until the day Imam (r.a.) accepted the resolution – was a glorious era. And it continued to be a glorious era until Saddam attacked again and our revolutionary and mujahid people took over the entire desert. Basiji youth from throughout the country participated in the war and they put in an astonishing performance. This time – the second time that Iraq had attacked – they managed to make it retreat.

Between 1953 and 1979, Iran had been part of (i.e., a vassal of) the then-growing American empire, and Khamenei in that speech made a principled repudiation of THAT America — the post-FDR, imperialistic, America. But that America is now bipartisan in both of America’s political Parties, and is at war against the anti-imperialist nations of today, mainly Russia, China, and Iran — but also against any nation that is friendly toward any of those three. The anti-imperialist nations are pro-Westphalian; the imperialist nations are (and always have been) anti-Westphalian.

Ever since Obama’s coup in Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine has been and is a U.S.-vassal nation. Its demand to have the right for U.S. missiles to be positioned only about 300 miles away from the Kremlin is actually a U.S.-NATO demand that is placed upon this vassal-nation’s leaders as a precondition to be able to receive weapons from U.S.-NATO against Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion. Zelensky is a U.S.-NATO stooge. This entire problem is a problem of U.S. imperialism. Ukraine is America’s proxy. Russia is defending itself against U.S. aggression.

Today’s international law doesn’t mention the Westphalian Principle, because FDR had died and the U.N. (which he invented and named) became created in Truman’s image, not in FDR’s; and so it accepts imperialism (which FDR passionately despised and loathed). That’s part of the gutting which has resulted, of FDR’s envisioned U.N.

Lie #3: Russia’s 24 February 2024 invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked.

Click on this to see instances of that rabidly false allegation; and here and here are two typical examples of it. But the provocation is America’s demand that its vassal-nation Ukraine must have a ‘right’ to place U.S. missiles only 5 minutes from Moscow. It is outrageous, and a violation of Westphalianism (which is based upon a clear distinction between aggressor and defender).

Lie #4: Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine was aggressive not defensive.

Consequently, the phrases “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine”and “Russian aggression against Ukraine”, which are two typical phrases in media reports and official statements against Russia in this war — typical examples being this and this — all are baldfaced lies. Why are they used against Russia now, when in 1962 no one was alleging that JFK acted other than defensively in the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Furthermore: he wasn’t responsible for his neoconservative predecessor Eisenhower’s having positioned U.S. missiles in Turkey in 1959, which had precipitatedwhat Khrushchev did in Cuba. In the settlement that avoided WW III, Soviet missiles were removed from Cuba and American missiles were removed from Turkey. The U.S. regime was actually the aggressor in the combined 1959-1962 Turkey-Cuba Missile-Crisis.)

Any alleged report that employs any such phrase as “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine” and “Russian aggression against Ukraine”, is propaganda — lying ‘news’ or ‘history’ — that bases itself upon the false unstated assumption that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 started the war in Ukraine, instead of responded to a war in Ukraine that U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration (including Joe Biden) — the American Government — had actually started there, in 2014, against Ukraine’s adjoining nation of Russia. America is planning ultimately to invade Russia from the only nation that is only 300 miles away from Moscow (Russia’s central command — far closer than Cuba was to Washington DC during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis).

Here, as proven in the links, are the historical facts, documenting the U.S. Government’s increasing aggression against Russia — using Ukraine as its primary springboard in its plan to conquer Russia:

The Obama Administration perpetrated in February 2014 a bloody Ukrainian coup (hidden behind popular anti-corruption Ukrainian demonstrations that the CIA and State Department had trained and organized local racist-fascist anti-Russian Ukrainians to lead) overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine and replacing him by a racist-fascist (ideologically nazi) regime that immediately replaced Ukraine’s generals with ones to ethnically cleanse pro-Russian Ukrainians and kill some and terrorize the others to flee into Russia so as to get rid of the people in the Ukrainian regions that had voted 70% or more for that democratically elected President — and this ethnic cleansing would enable the nazi U.S.-installed regime in Ukraine to be ‘democratically elected’, and so to continue the U.S.-Government’s control over that country, on Russia’s border.

For the full details, see this.

So: all four of those phrases (“Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine”, “unprovoked war in Ukraine”, and “Russian aggression against Ukraine”, and (the one shown at the very top here) “The war started on 24 February 2022,” are lies, which reverse the aggressor (purportedly Russia, but actually America) and the defender (purportedly Ukraine — which is America’s proxy in its war against Russia) — the defender here being actually Russia).

The war in Ukraine started with Obama’s coup, not with Putin’s ultimate response to it (which occurred soon after America’s rejection on 7 January 2022, of Russia’s demand, NOT to allow Ukraine into NATO). Even Zelensky knows this (as was proven here at the start). And both he and his predecessor, Poroshenko, are aware that the February 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President and installation of the post-coup regime means that their own Presidencies were and are likewise illegal.

America’s plan here is to place its missiles on Ukraine’s border with Russia, only a five-minute-missile-flight away from blitz-nuking The Kremlin and thereby behead Russia’s central command — too fast for Russia to be able to launch its retaliatory missiles.

What is the power of lies?

In a U.N. General Assembly vote on November 14th, the U.N. General Assembly (which has no power) voted by 94 votes for, 73 abstentions, and only 14 votes against, a Resolution to demand that Russia pay restitution to Ukraine, for the war in Ukraine — that America started against Russia by its 2014 coup. America — a proven dictatorship and police-state — leads the world’s ‘democracies’ this way.

Often, lies have more of an impact than truths do. And, this time, that impact can even turn out to be WW III. That’s why calling-out these lies, by the U.S. regime, against Russia, is essential — in order to prevent WW III.

*

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 is a professional lie-debunker. His new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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 recent blast hit the center of Istanbul resulting in several casualties. The Turkish authorities were very quick to announce the identity of the suicide person: A Kurdish woman in close relation with the Kurdistan Workers Party. Nevertheless, this terror act in Istanbul, followed by a new Turkish military intervention (aggression) in North Syria, once again opened the “Kurdish Question” which is in direct connection with the question of Kurdistan’s independence and terrorism as the political instrument in the realization of the national projects and ultimate goals.

The role of Russia in solving the “Kurdish Question” in the Middle East can be of crucial importance and a double-fold nature:

1. To openly support minority rights of the Kurds for self-determination including and a right for the national-state independence according to, for instance, the US’s policy-pattern upon Kosovo case; and

2. To provide by all means hidden support to the Kurdish freedom-struggle terrorism in Turkey as a matter of revenge for both Turkey’s direct support of the Chechen separatist rebels in the 1990s on Russia’s territory and for the Turkish bastard-style crashing the Russian military plane in 2015.

Kurdish majority (Source: Dr. Vladislav Sotirovic)

The Kurds are mostly discriminated against and oppressed in Turkey in comparison with all present-day states of their residence. The Kurds have not recognized in Turkey as a separate ethnolinguistic minority with their own language and culture regardless of the fact that they compose one-fifth of total Turkey’s inhabitants and being together with the Greeks and the Armenians the oldest population in Turkey living in Anatolia almost 3.000 years before the first (Seljuk) Turks came there at the end of the 11^th century.

There are three fundamental specific reasons for the current Kurdish separatist movement in Turkey out of the common Kurdish wish and right to have their own national state as one of the oldest ethnolinguistic people in both the region of the Middle East and the world:

1. Visible economic underdevelopment of the Kurdish eastern part of Turkey compared with the rest of the country as a result of asymmetric economic and development policy by Ankara.
2. Stubborn reluctance of any kind of the Turkish government to recognize the Kurdish separate existence as the ethnic group of its own specific language and culture as a result of the Ottoman/Turkish assimilation policy of all Muslim inhabitants of the country.
3. The Turkish rejection to recognize a minority status of the Kurds by granting a national-cultural or political autonomous status for Turkey’s Kurdistan that is a consequence of the continuation of Ankara’s unlawful administration of part of ethnographic Kurdistan as such autonomy was internationally recognized by the Peace Treaty of Sèvres in 1920.

Ankara’s discrimination and oppressive anti-Kurdish policy led finally to the establishment of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in 1978 for the sake to fight for unrecognized Kurdish minority rights using guerrilla warfare as means to achieve its proclaimed national-political goals.

Ankara from its point of political view declared the PKK as both an illegal and terrorist organization fighting for the destruction of the legal and institutional system of the country which is true from a very technical viewpoint as it was also true that the Kosovo Liberation Army (the KLA) was doing the same with Serbia’s legal and security system in the 1990s but in this case politically and morally supported by Ankara. Undoubtedly, the PKK committed numerous terrorist actions across Turkey in which, according to official governmental sources, around 6.000 people were killed only during the first decade of the PKK activity. The limited fruits of such PKK tactics finally came as Ankara was forced to recognize at least formally the Kurdish cultural distinctiveness if not ethnic and linguistic ones. However, here the crucial question is: How it is possible to have a separate culture without а separate language and even ethnicity? It is a widespread approach that basically separates ethnolinguistic features to create and separate cultural identity as ethnolinguistic and cultural identities are usually understood as synonyms but this formula does not work in Turkey in the case of the Kurds and several other (unrecognized) ethnolinguistic minorities.

Anyway, the PKK’s requirement for either territorial-political autonomy or independence of Kurdistan is unacceptable for Ankara. Subsequently, from the mid-1980s Turkey is directly faced with its own “Kosovo syndrome”.

The Turkish authorities reciprocally answered to the PKK’s brutal warfare through the also brutal treatment of the Kurdish civilians in the war zones in East Turkey.

Hundreds of PKK activists are imprisoned and tortured each year by the Turkish state security forces which succeeded in 1999 (a year of NATO’s military intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia declaratively for the sake to prevent state terrorism over Kosovo Albanian civilians) in arresting the PKK’s leader Abdullah Öcalan (known as Apo) who became under the mockery trial sentenced to death with the state brutality against the Kurds continued.

Nevertheless, only due to the direct pressure by the EU’s Commission in 2002 the pressure against the Kurds became to a certain extent eased as Turkey as a candidate state for the EU’s membership was obliged to adopt new liberal laws by which the Kurds were granted with the rights to maintain their own culture followed by the protection against arbitrary imprisonments and politically colored court investigations. In one word, in order to become the EU’s member state, one of the requirements is to grant every citizen the right to cultural expression, including Turkey’s main minority people, the Kurds, whose aspirations had long been suppressed in pursuit of nation-building goals by successive Turkish governments.

The Kurdish desire to establish Kurdistan as an independent state is opposed by all governments of the current states in which the Kurds live. In the region, especially Turkey is a country that undoubtedly suffered from different aspects of terrorism-related activities and different types of political violence. A long-standing separatist conflict in Turkey caused thousands of lives and imposed state terrorism or “terrorism from above” by Ankara against its own citizens in East Anatolia including martial law in the 1980s. A similar situation was in Iraq during the time of Saddam Hussein. That was and in Turkey still, is a clash between two levels of terrorism: state terrorism vs. sub-state terrorism. Both sides were and are making war crimes, executions, torture, and destruction of material property but the reactions by the West, especially by the US administration, are of a double standard nature as accusing only the Kurdish side of terrorism (the PKK) but not and the Turkish government. However, for the matter of comparison, during the Kosovo Crisis in 1998−1999 both the West and the US saw the terror acts carried out only by Serbia’s government but not by the KLA – a typical terrorist organization as a replica of the PKK, the IRA, the ETA or the Hezbollah. Nevertheless, the most “strange” thing is that Ankara never saw the KLA as a terrorist group or organization and opened in such a way the doors for the moral legalization of the PKK as the freedom fighters’ political-revolutionary party. Ankara made an even more serious precedent by recognizing the independence of Kosovo in 2008 – the state that is governed by ex-MLA’s commanders (as the US’s clients). Subsequently, there is no one reason not to recognize the independent Kurdistan governed by the PKK’s commanders with Abdullah Öcalan as the President (as Hashim Tachi – a commander of the KLA in the 1990s, became a President of the Republic of Kosovo in 2016).

A similar state terrorism policy emerged in Saddam’s Iraq as he time to time enacted oppression of the aboriginal Kurds like it was the case with the “al-Anfal Operation” that was carried out in 1982 (during the Iraqi-Iranian War of 1980−1988) when approximately 8.000 Kurds were arrested and executed. The most brutal military action against the Iraqi Kurds was done in 1988 when the army of Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons and destroyed more than 2.000 Kurdish villages but at that time without any US sanctions as Saddam was at that time an ally of Washington in the US’s struggle against the (Shia) Islamic Republic of Iran regardless the fact that the estimations of the killed ethnic Kurds in this organized genocide range up to 200.000.

Turkey’s policy upon the “Kosovo Question” is already returned as the boomerang to the Turkish home and is going most probably to be solved according to the Kosovo pattern. The role of Russia in solving the “Kurdish Question” in the Middle East is expected to be fundamental concerning primarily Turkey’s Kurdistan at least as a pure matter of a “boomerang revenge policy” for NATO’s/Turkey’s Kosovo strategy.

*

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

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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.

***

“Crush! Kill! Destroy!”—The Robot, Lost in Space

The purpose of a good government is to protect the lives and liberties of its people.

Unfortunately, we have gone so far in the opposite direction from the ideals of a good government that it’s hard to see how this trainwreck can be redeemed.

It gets worse by the day.

For instance, despite an outcry by civil liberties groups and concerned citizens alike, in an 8-3 vote on Nov. 29, 2022, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to allow police to arm robots with deadly weapons for use in emergency situations.

This is how the slippery slope begins.

According to the San Francisco Police Department’s draft policy, “Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD.”

Yet as investigative journalist Sam Biddle points out, this is “what nearly every security agency says when it asks the public to trust it with an alarming new power: We’ll only use it in emergencies—but we get to decide what’s an emergency.”

A last-minute amendment to the SFPD policy limits the decision-making authority for deploying robots as a deadly force option to high-ranking officers, and only after using alternative force or de-escalation tactics, or concluding they would not be able to subdue the suspect through those alternative means.

In other words, police now have the power to kill with immunity using remote-controlled robots.

These robots, often acquired by local police departments through federal grants and military surplus programs, signal a tipping point in the final shift from a Mayberry style of community policing to a technologically-driven version of law enforcement dominated by artificial intelligence, surveillance, and militarization.

It’s only a matter of time before these killer robots intended for use as a last resort become as common as SWAT teams.

Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams—which first appeared on the scene in California in the 1960s—have now become intrinsic parts of local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial federal assistance and the Pentagon’s military surplus recycling program, which allows the transfer of military equipment, weapons and training to local police for free or at sharp discounts.

Consider this: In 1980, there were roughly 3,000 SWAT team-style raids in the U.S. By 2014, that number had grown to more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year.

Given the widespread use of these SWAT teams and the eagerness with which police agencies have embraced them, it’s likely those raids number upwards of 120,000 by now.

There are few communities without a SWAT team today.

No longer reserved exclusively for deadly situations, SWAT teams are now increasingly deployed for relatively routine police matters, with some SWAT teams being sent out as much as five times a day. In the state of Maryland alone, 92 percent of 8200 SWAT missions were used to execute search or arrest warrants.

For example, police in both Baltimore and Dallas have used SWAT teams to bust up poker games. A Connecticut SWAT team swarmed a bar suspected of serving alcohol to underage individuals. In Arizona, a SWAT team was used to break up an alleged cockfighting ring. An Atlanta SWAT team raided a music studio, allegedly out of a concern that it might have been involved in illegal music piracy.

A Minnesota SWAT team raided the wrong house in the middle of the night, handcuffed the three young children, held the mother on the floor at gunpoint, shot the family dog, and then “forced the handcuffed children to sit next to the carcass of their dead pet and bloody pet for more than an hour” while they searched the home.

A California SWAT team drove an armored Lenco Bearcat into Roger Serrato’s yard, surrounded his home with paramilitary troops wearing face masks, threw a fire-starting flashbang grenade into the house, then when Serrato appeared at a window, unarmed and wearing only his shorts, held him at bay with rifles. Serrato died of asphyxiation from being trapped in the flame-filled house. Incredibly, the father of four had done nothing wrong. The SWAT team had misidentified him as someone involved in a shooting.

These incidents are just the tip of the iceberg.

Nationwide, SWAT teams have been employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of nonviolent criminal activity or mere community nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling.

If these raids are becoming increasingly common and widespread, you can chalk it up to the “make-work” philosophy, by which police justify the acquisition of sophisticated military equipment and weapons and then rationalize their frequent use.

Mind you, SWAT teams originated as specialized units that were supposed to be dedicated to defusing extremely sensitive, dangerous situations (that language is almost identical to the language being used to rationalize adding armed robots to local police agencies). They were never meant to be used for routine police work such as serving a warrant.

As the role of paramilitary forces has expanded, however, to include involvement in nondescript police work targeting nonviolent suspects, the mere presence of SWAT units has actually injected a level of danger and violence into police-citizen interactions that was not present as long as these interactions were handled by traditional civilian officers.

Indeed, a study by Princeton University concludes that militarizing police and SWAT teams “provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety or violent crime reduction.” The study, the first systematic analysis on the use and consequences of militarized force, reveals that “police militarization neither reduces rates of violent crime nor changes the number of officers assaulted or killed.”

In other words, warrior cops aren’t making us or themselves any safer.

Americans are now eight times more likely to die in a police confrontation than they are to be killed by a terrorist.

The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is “not that life has gotten that much more dangerous, it’s that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent situations as if they were in a warzone.”

Now add killer robots into that scenario.

How long before these armed, militarized robots, authorized to use lethal force against American citizens, become as commonplace as SWAT teams and just as deadly?

Likewise, how long before mistakes are made, technology gets hacked or goes haywire, robots are deployed based on false or erroneous information, and innocent individuals get killed in the line of fire?

And who will shoulder the blame and the liability for rogue killer robots? Given the government’s track record when it comes to sidestepping accountability for official misconduct through the use of qualified immunity, it’s completely feasible that they’d get a free pass here, too.

In the absence of any federal regulations or guidelines to protect Americans against what could eventually become autonomous robotic SWAT teams equipped with artificial intelligence, surveillance and lethal weapons, “we the people” are left defenseless.

We’re gaining ground fast on the kind of autonomous, robotic assassins that Terminator envisioned would be deployed by 2029.

If these killer robots follow the same trajectory as militarized weapons, which, having been deployed to local police agencies as part of the Pentagon’s 1033 recycling program, are turning America into a battlefield, it’s just a matter of time before they become the first line of defense in interactions between police and members of the public.

Some within the robotics industry have warned against weaponizing general-purpose robots, which could be used “to invade civil rights or to threaten, harm, or intimidate others.”

Yet it may already be too late for that.

As Sam Biddle writes for The Intercept, “As with any high-tech toy, the temptation to use advanced technology may surpass whatever institutional guardrails the police have in place.”

There are thousands of police robots across the country, and those numbers are growing exponentially. It won’t take much in the way of weaponry and programming to convert these robots to killer robots, and it’s coming.

The first time police used a robot as a lethal weapon was in 2016, when it was deployed with an explosive device to kill a sniper who had shot and killed five police officers.

This scenario has been repeatedly trotted out by police forces eager to add killer robots to their arsenal of deadly weapons. Yet as Paul Scharre, author of Army Of None: Autonomous Weapons And The Future Of War, recognizes, presenting a scenario in which the only two options are to use a robot for deadly force or put law enforcement officers at risk sets up a false choice that rules out any consideration of non-lethal options.

As Biddle concludes:

“Once a technology is feasible and permitted, it tends to linger. Just as drones, mine-proof trucks, and Stingray devices drifted from Middle Eastern battlefields to American towns, critics of … police’s claims that lethal robots would only be used in one-in-a-million public emergencies isn’t borne out by history. The recent past is littered with instances of technologies originally intended for warfare mustered instead against, say, constitutionally protected speech, as happened frequently during the George Floyd protests.”

This gradual dismantling of cultural, legal and political resistance to what was once considered unthinkable is what Liz O’Sullivan, a member of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, refers to as “a well-executed playbook to normalize militarization.”

It’s the boiling frog analogy all over again, and yet there’s more at play than just militarization or suppressing dissent.

There’s a philosophical underpinning to this debate over killer robots that we can’t afford to overlook, and that is the government’s expansion of its power to kill the citizenry.

Although the government was established to protect the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the American people, the Deep State has been working hard to strip us of any claims to life and liberty, while trying to persuade us that happiness can be found in vapid pursuits, entertainment spectacles and political circuses.

Having claimed the power to kill through the use of militarized police who shoot first and ask questions later, SWAT team raids, no-knock raids, capital punishment, targeted drone attacks, grisly secret experiments on prisoners and unsuspecting communities, weapons of mass destruction, endless wars, etc., the government has come to view “we the people” as collateral damage in its pursuit of absolute power.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are at a dangerous crossroads.

Not only are our lives in danger. Our very humanity is at stake.

*

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.

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 seems probable that Russia will impose a solution. If, as expected, it becomes clear that the West can’t or won’t negotiate, it will behoove Russia to implement a maximalist solution. Or alternatively, Russia “bargains” by showing that it can create a dead zone in Western Ukraine as big as it likes. If Ukraine and its US minders don’t come to their senses, that dead zone will be awfully big.” —Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism

How does this end?

How does Russia create a “neutral” Ukraine that isn’t armed-to-the-teeth by Moscow’s enemies?

How do they prevent Kiev from conducting joint-military drills with NATO or placing missile sites on Russia’s border?

How do they stop the Ukrainian Army from shelling ethnic Russians in the east or training far-right paramilitaries to kill as many Russians as possible? How does Putin change Ukraine into a good neighbor that doesn’t pose a security threat and that doesn’t fuel anti-Russian hatred and bigotry?

And, finally, how does one resolve the conflict peacefully if one side refuses to negotiate with the other? Check out this clip from an article at Mint News:

“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday signed a decree formally announcing the “impossible” prospect of peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russian President Vladimir Putin…

“He (Putin) does not know what dignity and honesty are. Therefore, we are ready for dialogue with Russia, but with another president of Russia,” Zelensky said on Friday. (Mint News)

The fact that Zelensky will not negotiate with Putin does not mean there will be no settlement. It just means that Zelensky will have no voice in the outcome.

As the more powerful country, it has always been within Russia’s ability to impose a settlement that achieves its basic national security objectives, and that is precisely what Putin will do.

The settlement will not be ideal nor will it completely end the hostilities, but it will provide a layer of protection from Russia’s enemies which is the best that can be hoped for given the circumstances.

Regrettably, the settlement will also terminate Ukraine’s existence as a viable, contiguous state. And– after Russia has finished its special military operation– Ukraine will face a dismal future as a deindustrialized wastelands that is entirely dependent on its allies in the west for its survival.

Map from John Helmer

Here is an excerpt from an article by Moscow-based journalist John Helmer who thinks the Russian army will clear a vast area of central Ukraine in its upcoming winter offensive, and that much of that land will become part of a 100 kilometer-wide Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that will protect Russia from Ukrainian missile and artillery attacks. As Helmer notes, the model for this military-imposed settlement is “the armistice of Panmunjom of July 27, 1953, which ended the Korean War…. On the ground inside the UDZ (Ukraine Demilitarized Zone) there may be no electricity, no people, nothing except for the means to monitor and enforce the terms of the armistice.” Here’s more from Helmer:

Military source:…. Once the destruction of these targets has been completed, the remnants of the infrastructure will be mined, and the area planted with sensing devices. The armies will then begin a rapid, staged withdrawal behind Russian lines where the process of fortification and entrenchment has already begun.”

“Civilians and disarmed Ukrainian troops – except for the Ukro-Nazi units — will be allotted one or two corridors through which they will be permitted to leave the zone. They’d better not dawdle.”…

The sources agree there will be a new military demarcation line before the thaw next spring; they differ on how it is being drawn now, and how it will look next April. “For now the line will be on the Dnieper with the zone extending from the west bank into the rump Ukraine – my guess is at a depth of not less than 100km. This will put Russian territory out of the range of most Ukrainian artillery. A 100km-deep zone will also give the Russian forces time to detect and intercept anything in flight…

“In the northern sector – that’s from Kramatorsk and Slovyansk to Kharkov… these are garrisons and staging areas of hate on or near to Russia’s borders; they will not be spared ….(and) have qualified them for de-electrification, de-population, and de-nazification.”

“The point to emphasize, especially in the Russian operations in the north… will not seize and hold territory. … The idea won’t be to occupy the territory, let alone administer it, for any length of time. The goal will be to destroy enemies who raise their heads and the infrastructure they rely on; lay mines and sensors; and then withdraw.”

“Once the assigned transportation and logistics nodes have been taken, the job of destroying them by engineer units will begin. Bridges, roads, railroads, marshalling yards, rolling stock, airfields, fuel storage and dispensaries, electrical substations, transmission and communications towers, central offices, warehouses, laydown areas, agricultural equipment – anything that could possibly be used to support the Ukrainian-NATO effort east of the zone’s western border will be destroyed. That will be also be the ground forces’ job – more comprehensive and thorough than missile and drone strikes can achieve.”

“Civilians and disarmed fighters, without their motorized equipment, will be permitted to walk out of the zone to specially prepared buses (as Surovikin supervised in Syria) with whatever they can carry on their backs…. Anyone who chooses to stay inside the zone will be informed explicitly via radio, flyers, and loudspeaker that they are considered enemy combatants and will be targeted accordingly. After a prescribed amount of time, the ‘golden bridges’ for the exiting population will be destroyed. For those remaining they will have had no power, sanitation, or communications …”(“Ukraine Armistice– How the UDZ of 2023 will separate the Armies like the Korean DMZ of 1953”, John Helmer, Dances With Bears

Map from John Helmer

Helmer sums it up perfectly. Putin is going to create a vast, uninhabitable no-man’s-land in the center of Ukraine that will separate east from west and end Ukraine’s existence as a viable, contiguous state. This is what a military-imposed settlement looks like. It’s not ideal and it doesn’t necessarily stop all the fighting, but it does address Russia’s basic security requirements which Washington chose to ignore.

Rest assured, that Washington will not like this settlement and will never agree to the new borders. But the United States will not have the final say-so in this matter and that is extremely important, because Washington’s role as the “guarantor of global security” is now a thing of the past. Russia is going to decide Ukraine’s borders and that’s just the way it’s going to be. So, yes, we can expect to hear the gnashing of teeth at NATO Headquarters and the UN and at the White House, but to little effect. The matter is settled unless, of course, the US and NATO want to commit ground forces to the conflict which, we think, will precipitate a split in NATO that will inevitably lead to its collapse. Either way, Ukraine’s fate is going to be decided in Moscow not Washington, and that reality is going to have a significant impact of the distribution of global power. There’s a new sheriff in town and he is definitely not an American.

Bottom line: We think Helmer’s analysis is the most probable scenario going forward.

Putin has showed admirable restraint to this point, but after 9 months of pointless drudgery and carnage, it’s time to wrap this thing up. Moscow has always had a sledgehammer in its toolkit and now it’s going to use it. We would have preferred that it didn’t end this way, but there’s no sense in crying over spilt milk. Washington wanted to stretch this war out for as long as possible to bleed Russia dry so it couldn’t project power beyond its borders or obstruct US plans to “pivot to Asia”. But Putin foiled that plan. He didn’t step into Washington’s trap and he’s not going to pump blood and money down a black hole. He’s going to settle this matter once-and-for-all and be done with it. This is from an interview with Colonel Douglas MacGregor:

“This entire conflict could have been avoided had we simply recognized Moscow’s legitimate interests in what happens in Ukraine…. What happens in Ukraine is important to Russians…. So, we could have intervened early on and said, ‘Let’s have a ceasefire and talk’, in fact, we could have listened to the Russians for the last 10 or 20 years about their concerns about what was happening inside Ukraine. And, I think now we see with the Zelensky regime– a very dangerous government that is incurably hostile to Russia (and) that responds exclusively to instructions from Washington– that has decided that it wants to fatally weaken Russia in any way possible… The solution to this is –not to join this futile and pointlessly destructive war with Moscow– (but) to get some sense into peoples’ minds in the government in Kiev.”Colonel Douglas MacGregor, “Ukraine is about to be Annihilated”, You Tube; 2:10 minute-mark

IMO, the decision has already been made. Ukraine is going to be split in two whether Washington likes it or not. That’s just the way it is.

*

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). 

Featured image is from TUR

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.

***

Everybody predicts we are going to face an ice-cold winter in the Global North, especially in Europe and particularly in Ukraine. In the meantime, Russia is amassing along the northern Ukrainian border some half a million-plus troops and about 1,500 tanks and massive-massive artillery.

Ukraine is already devastated by knocked out electricity, causing blackouts in about 60% of the country, no heating, due to lack of gas and petrol supplies from Russia and / or (auto-)destroyed internal delivery systems, with expected low sub-freezing temperatures of -15 degrees C and more, literally converting millions of people into refugees – towards western Europe.

The situation is already desperate. No Heat. No food. No energy. No light. Darkness and cold. Outright misery.

It’s said, President Putin is just waiting for the ground to freeze solid, so Russian tanks and troops will not get stuck in the mud. Once that happens – he will command the Endgame.

This is Putin’s last option. So, thinks former senior advisor to the US Secretary of Defense, Col. Doug Macgregor – see this interview with Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate.

Former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer and United Nations weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, foresees a similar situation. The Russians have not changed objectives since the beginning of the war – denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, plus protecting the predominantly Russian Donbas Region and other Russian-rooted populations.

No matter what the western mainstream media lies, President Putin has always instructed his generals to avoid targeting civilians, to minimize civilian casualties, and to the extent possible, protect civilian infrastructure. Knowing how the west would react and what western corrupted media would say, President Zelenskyy initiated a program of auto-destruction of everything, including killing his Ukrainian compatriots, accusing Russia. Western media complied. Anything goes, if it helps blaming and destroying Putin and Russia.

The stated Russian goal of denazification and demilitarization is reasonable and would be achievable without constant NATO interference and arming of Ukraine, without non-stop blasting of Russia-Russia-Russia; and without blowing Zelenskyy’s ego out of any human proportion.

Mr. Putin’s proposals for negotiations have been ignored or adamantly refused by Zelenskyy, the western bellboy, as the west is hellbent to destroy Russia and Putin in whatever ways possible. See this, Scott Ritter: “Ukraine cannot win this war. It’s a fantasy”.

Since this is a western war of propaganda (John Pilger), propagating the obnoxiously stupid notion that Ukraine will win this war, there is no pressure from even reasonable westerners (sic) to bring the conflict to the negotiation-table.

Hence, by the war-minded western journalists – main and off-mainstream – without much difference, Putin is showing with Russian troops and war material buildup along Ukraine’s northern frontier, his readiness for a final strike to end this war.

Other journalists and war-luminaries move their thoughts and predictions in the same direction.

The going narrative is, the west / NATO leaves Putin no choice, other than this devastating endgame situation.

Under normal circumstances this might be a logical conclusion. But we are not living in a world of normal circumstances. We are living in a dystopian world, with dystopian people, who in their dystopian-think far prefer war to peace. Not only for the multi-billion-dollar war profits, but also – and maybe foremost – for the macho-type muscle flexing vis-à-vis Russia and all those no-good bandido-nations, who are still supporting Putin and Russia.

Are these pundits truly thinking of the full picture? One may wonder about the potential consequences of a WWIII-scenario of such an attack, nuclear or non-nuclear; but, maybe more importantly, what is Ukraine for Russia?

During the past at least 300-plus years, Ukraine has been an integral part of Russia, of the Russian Empire, of the Soviet Union. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, independent Ukraine was still a close ally to the new Russia – until the “f*ck Europe” (Victoria Nuland) February 2014 US-EU-NATO inspired Maidan Coup. That was an unnatural game changer.

Please allow me to ask – President Putin, arguably one of the few – if not the only clear-thinking world leaders left, would he eradicate a historic and cultural part of Greater Russia? Which in the end would only benefit the western profit-drunken war-machine? – And of course, the WEF’s promoted and orchestrated by invisible financial giants Great Reset with its parallel ultra-deceptive UN Agenda 2030? – Would he?

Don’t think so.

Mr. Putin is a man of ethics and of traditional values, including family values. Almost every Ukrainian citizen has somewhere family or other close-relation links with people in Russia.

Mr. Putin, a man who has not forgotten Ukraine’s role in the successes of the Soviet Union, of Russia, in manufacturing, technology development; Ukraine, a source of a multitude of minerals and other raw materials, and not least – the breadbasket, not only for Russia but for the world – Mr. Putin, a man of that caliber would not annihilate an essential part of the Body of Russia – and this for reasons way beyond the present western fangs around Ukraine.

President Putin doesn’t want a WWIII, though many say, we are already in a “new” form of a WWIII. Perhaps. But not nuclear; and not (yet) all-destructive.

Think about it.

There are other ways.

Why not just capture Zelenskyy and his corrupt inner-circle elite Nazi-gang, replace them with a “real” democratically elected leadership, with a western-funded revival and reconstruction program and get going without delay – sort of a Maidan-Coup in reverse. Within short, Russian efficiency would rebuild Ukrainian infrastructure, reinstate the flow of energy, electricity, heat, food, a relative comfort for a devastated society. – Imagine, how happy Ukrainians would be if Russia would take over?!?

“Western-funded”, means, rebuilding Ukraine physically and morally with revenues from sales of Russian gas and other hydrocarbons to desperate Europe – which Europe bitterly needs – unless she risks within a couple of years a large-scale deindustrialization, slide into abject poverty, if not back into the Stone Ages.

Europe has already realized this, as their gas storage tanks are full to the brim throughout the EU, clandestinely filled with Russian gas over the past few months, while the official narrative was “sanctioning Russia – no Russian energy ever” – see this.

Given Mr. Putin’s solid background in intelligence and his savvy as a strategist, “taking out” President Zelenskyy and his criminal inner-clan and putting them before a Russian war-crimes tribunal, might not be that difficult. This could probably be done without destroying a single building.

In fact, you might not be surprised, a vast, a very vast majority of Ukrainians would be grateful to Mr. Putin and might even ask the Kremlin for integration into Russia. That might not happen. At least not immediately. But Ukraine could indeed become again an ally and close partner of Russia – the status she had before the 2014 US-NATO planned and Ukrainian neo-Nazi “Right Sector”, executed Maidan Coup.

Would the West just look on and do nothing?

Probably not.

But would they risk a nuclear war over Ukraine? – We don’t know. Of course, there are high risks of false flags, pointing to Russia having done terrible things to the Ukrainian people and to the west, propagated as we know it by western lie-propaganda media – that would require terrible retributions. All that is possible, and Russia might be prepared for it.

That may be the reason for the fully armed and war-ready military build-up along the northern Ukrainian frontiers.

In the end, western powers, or those who think they represent these powers, have largely achieved their goal, namely the war as a deviation maneuver of public attention from a larger agenda: The fast-advancing Great Reset, alias, UN Agenda 2030 – and the 4^th Industrial Revolution, the digitization of everything. The tyrannic assault on humanity for total control. According to their plan, there are about eight years left to achieve their criminal objectives.

As we fall for the multi-deviations of War, New Covid Variants, new plandemic threats, Inflation, Climate Change, Energy Crisis, Food Shortages, – and-so-on – THEY are advancing with giant steps towards their Reset objectives, including Yuval Noah Harari’s dream, of a world without “useless eaters” and robotized, chip-implanted transhumanized survivors. Harari, a depopulation advocate, is Klaus Schwab’s buddy and close associate.

*

We, The People, are on Our Own

We must never forget, that we are on our own. In all these atrocities, plandemics, deadly vaxx-coercions, famine, false energy crises, manufactured inflation and fabricated “climate change”, alias geoengineering, controlling the weather, weaponizing the weather worldwide (see this), and perhaps worst of all, imposing fully digitized central bank currencies (DCBC) to enslave us and rob us of our last shred of liberty – plus, the daily drill of lies, after lies, after lies from our governments, health authorities, weather institutes – yes, let’s never forget, We, the People, are on our own.

We cannot rely on or trust any authorities, as we know them. All those illusions, of democracy and “in our government we trust” are lies, always were. We have to prepare to be on our own, to start on our own a new society, a new way of life.

Do not think, that the “old way” – the old society – could be reformed and rebooted. Reform doesn’t exist. Never think Reform. Think NEW. New in the sense of local, family, like-minded people, community-based, gradually building up a peaceful equitable society, outside of the current corrupt dystopian mainstream. Forget the mainstream. Let it rot by itself.

If we manage to physically and intellectually and spiritually detach from the old corrupted ways, and build up New Ways by the People for the People – local production for local consumption, with local means of exchange, becoming gradually self-sufficient, joining with other communities, building networks of new-thinking and new-acting people – we are halfway there.

Our conviction and unfaltering perseverance plus unpredictable dynamics will take over, take us further towards a new conscience. With positive-thinking mindsets we will be moving into a New Sunrise.

*

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.

“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.

***

As the war in Ukraine has dragged on for nine months and a cold winter is setting in, people all over the world are calling for a Christmas truce, harkening back to the inspirational Christmas Truce of 1914. In the midst of World War I, warring soldiers put down their guns and celebrated the holiday together in the no-man’s land between their trenches.This spontaneous reconciliation and fraternization has been, over the years, a symbol of hope and courage.

Here are eight reasons why this holiday season too offers the potential for peace and a chance to move the conflict in Ukraine from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

1. The first, and most urgent reason, is the incredible, daily death and suffering in Ukraine, and the chance to save millions more Ukrainians from being forced to leave their homes, their belongings and the conscripted menfolk they may never see again.

With Russia’s bombing of key infrastructure, millions of people in Ukraine currently have no heat, electricity or water as temperatures drop below freezing. The CEO of Ukraine’s largest electric corporation has urged millions more Ukrainians to leave the country, ostensibly for just a few months, to reduce demand on the war-damaged power network.

The war has wiped out at least 35% of the country’s economy, according to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal. The only way to halt the meltdown of the economy and the suffering of the Ukrainian people is to end the war.

2. Neither side can achieve a decisive military victory, and with its recent military gains, Ukraine is in a good negotiating position.

It has become clear that U.S. and NATO military leaders do not believe, and possibly have never believed, that their publicly stated goal of helping Ukraine to recover Crimea and all of Donbas by force is militarily achievable.

In fact, Ukraine’s military chief of staff warned President Zelenskyy in April 2021 that such a goal would not be achievable without “unacceptable” levels of civilian and military casualties, leading him to call off plans for an escalation of the civil war at that time.

Biden’s top military advisor, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, told the Economic Club of New York on November 9, “There has to be a mutual recognition that military victory is probably, in the true sense of the word, not achievable through military means…”

French and German military reviews of Ukraine’s position are reportedly more pessimistic than U.S. ones, assessing that the current appearance of military parity between the two sides will be short-lived. This adds weight to Milley’s assessment, and suggests that this could well be the best chance Ukraine will get to negotiate from a position of relative strength.

3. U.S. government officials, especially in the Republican Party, are starting to balk at the prospect of continuing this enormous level of military and economic support. Having taken control of the House, Republicans are promising more scrutiny of Ukraine aid. Congressman Kevin McCarthy, who will become Speaker of the House, warned that Republicans would not write a “blank check” for Ukraine. This reflects the growing opposition at the base of the Republican Party, with a Wall Street Journal November poll showing that 48% of Republicans say the U.S. is doing too much to help Ukraine, up from 6% in March.

4. The war is causing upheavals in Europe. Sanctions on Russian energy have sent inflation in Europe skyrocketing and caused a devastating squeeze on energy supplies that is crippling the manufacturing sector. Europeans are increasingly feeling what German media call Kriegsmudigkeit.

This translates as “war-weariness,” but that is not an entirely accurate characterization of the growing popular sentiment in Europe. “War-wisdom” may describe it better.

People have had many months to consider the arguments for a long, escalating war with no clear endgame—a war that is sinking their economies into a recession—and more of them than ever now tell pollsters they would support renewed efforts to find a diplomatic solution. That includes 55% in Germany, 49% in Italy, 70% in Romania and 92% in Hungary.

5. Most of the world is calling for negotiations. We heard this at the 2022 UN General Assembly, where one after another, 66 world leaders, representing a majority of the world’s population, eloquently spoke out for peace talks. Philip Pierre, Prime Minister of Saint Lucia, was one of them, pleading with Russia, Ukraine and the Western powers “to immediately end the conflict in Ukraine, by undertaking immediate negotiations to permanently settle all disputes in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.”

As the Amir of Qatar told the Assembly, “We are fully aware of the complexities of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the international and global dimension to this crisis. However, we still call for an immediate ceasefire and a peaceful settlement, because this is ultimately what will happen regardless of how long this conflict will go on for. Perpetuating the crisis will not change this result. It will only increase the number of casualties, and it will increase the disastrous repercussions on Europe, Russia and the global economy.”

6. The war in Ukraine, like all wars, is catastrophic for the environment. Attacks and explosions are reducing all kinds of infrastructure–railways, electrical grids, apartment buildings, oil depots–to charred rubble, filling the air with pollutants and blanketing cities with toxic waste that contaminates rivers and groundwater.

The sabotage of Russia’s underwater Nord Stream pipelines supplying Russian gas to Germany led to what may have been the largest release of methane gas emissions ever recorded, amounting to the annual emissions of a million cars. The shelling of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, including Zaporizhzhia, the largest in Europe, has raised legitimate fears of deadly radiation spreading throughout Ukraine and beyond.

Meanwhile, US and Western sanctions on Russian energy have triggered a bonanza for the fossil fuel industry, giving them a new justification to increase their dirty energy exploration and production and keep the world firmly on course for climate catastrophe.

7. The war has a devastating economic impact on countries across the world. The leaders of the world’s largest economies, the Group of 20, said in a declaration at the end of their November summit in Bali that the Ukraine war “is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy — constraining growth, increasing inflation, disrupting supply chains, heightening energy and food insecurity and elevating financial stability risks.”

Our long-standing failure to invest the relatively small proportion of our resources required to eradicate poverty and hunger on our otherwise rich and abundant planet already condemns millions of our brothers and sisters to squalor, misery and early deaths.

Now this is compounded by the climate crisis, as entire communities are washed away by flood waters, burned out by wildfires or starved by multi-year droughts and famines. International cooperation has never been more urgently needed to confront problems that no country can solve on its own. Yet wealthy nations still prefer to put their money into weapons and war instead of adequately addressing the climate crisis, poverty or hunger.

8. The last reason, which dramatically reinforces all the other reasons, is the danger of nuclear war. Even if our leaders had rational reasons to favor an open-ended, ever-escalating war over a negotiated peace in Ukraine – and there are certainly powerful interests in the weapons and fossil fuel industries that would profit from that – the existential danger of what this could lead to absolutely must tip the balance in favor of peace.

We recently saw how close we are to a much wider war when a single stray Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile landed in Poland and killed two people. President Zelenskyy refused to believe it was not a Russian missile. If Poland had taken the same position, it could have invoked NATO’s mutual defense agreement and triggered a full-scale war between NATO and Russia.

If another predictable incident like that leads NATO to attack Russia, it can only be a matter of time before Russia sees the use of nuclear weapons as its only option in the face of overwhelming military force.

*

For these reasons and more, we join the faith-based leaders around the world who are calling for a Christmas Truce, declaring that the holiday season presents “a much-needed opportunity to recognize our compassion for one another. Together, we are convinced that the cycle of destruction, suffering and death can be overcome.”

*

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.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, available from OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: British and German soldiers playing soccer in No-Man’s Land during the Christmas Truce in 1914. Photo Credit: Universal History Archive

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.

***

How big can a mind be?

If we’re lucky, we have threescore and ten years — in a very big wide world, full of history — to experience as much as we can take in.

Threescore-ten is not nearly enough, but some extraordinary people manage to encompass and give order to a lot of it.

And some even more extraordinary people manage to rise above their own lives to interpret creation and the fabric of the universe as having consistent meaning across cultures and throughout the ages.

David Ray Griffin was Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, from 1973-2004.  With his senior, Dr. John Cobb Jr., he co-founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973.

Griffin has stated that “the task of a theologian is to look at the world from what we would imagine the divine perspective, one that would care about the good of the whole and would love all the parts.”

Not only was David an outstanding theologian and one of the two best-known living scholars of Alfred North Whitehead’s process theology (the other being John Cobb):  His books also spanned the related fields of postmodernism, theodicy (defence of God against evil), primordial truth, panentheism, scientific naturalism, parapsychology, Buddhist thought, and the mind-body interaction.

About the time that he retired in 2004, he was approached by some people who admired his candor, and pointed to evidence that the 9/11 event was highly suspicious.

At first David thought that 9/11 was simply blowback from the way America had treated the Middle East — but upon researching it more deeply he realized that there was indeed a very serious likelihood that the US had contrived 9/11 as a false flag operation to manufacture consent to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq for their oil.

This injustice fired his energy to research in depth, then write a dozen scholarly books on 9/11 — books that were not acknowledged in the media but which engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with the purveyors of the official 9/11 narrative, who continually adapted their story to cover up the weaknesses that David tracked and revealed as their tattered narrative evolved.

The first and most famous of these books was The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, published by his much-appreciated Interlink press in March 2004.

That best-seller was followed in 2005 by a devastating takedown of the Bush Administration’s whitewash Commission titled The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which exposed 115 problems in “the 571-page lie”.

Following these early 9/11 works, David was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2008 and 2009, and was named among “The 50 People Who Matter Today” by the New Statesman, on September 24, 2009.

In November, 2008, David’s seventh book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbour Revisited, was one of only 51 books awarded as “pick of the week” that year by Publishers Weekly.

What followed was extraordinary.

As the foremost book reviewing tool in the English language, Publishers Weekly’s spotlight should have led to reviews in the New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement, Library Journal, and many other top reviewing sources — but the word was out in the narrative-controlled media to give it a pass.

In 2011, David and I founded an organization called the 9/11 Consensus Panel, comprised of more than 20 professionals expert in various aspects of the 9/11 attacks. In 2018, the 51 consensus points that were developed during this unique evidence-based reviewing project were published under the title 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation (2018).

During that seven-year project, David addressed the existential crisis of climate change, penning his encyclopaedic 2015 reference, Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? (I took that book to the COP21 Paris climate summit in 2015, and presented it there, following up with a YouTube documentary on that enormous gathering of humanity – the largest meeting since World War II.)

David then turned his attention to US imperialism – writing Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World in 2016, and producing the incredible work of scholarship, The American Trajectory:  Divine or Demonic, in 2018.

David was at last able, in 2019, to turn to his long-planned The Christian Gospel for Americans: A Systematic Theology.  It is a magnum opus of enormous breadth and depth.

In it, for example, he confronts the science vs religion issue, showing that some scientists – former atheists – have been overwhelmed by the extent of exceedingly precise ratios between the chemical elements of earth that are required for life, to now saying that the universe was “fine-tuned for life,” thus reflecting a “fine-tuner” (or divine creator).

In 2022, as he approached the end of his life, and following a long struggle with prostate cancer, David wrote the beautiful and crowning reflections of his maturing theology, James and Whitehead on Life after Death.

In the spirit of James and Whitehead, he explains that the universe is not separate from, but is within God, and is itself the very nature of God. This evolving world view requires a new understanding of the divine reality – panentheism, meaning “all in God”.

The causal principles of the universe exist naturally, being inherent in the nature of things, because they exist in the very nature of God.

This chapter on the infinitely fine-tuned nature of the universe to support life is a transporting gift.

But he was not done yet!

Forthcoming in March, 2023, from the publisher Clarity Press, is David’s America on the Brink: How the US Trajectory Led Fatefully to the Russia-Ukraine War – which was completed during the last days of his life.

In total David Ray Griffin has written 50 books and more than 200 essays. (He was once asked if he had ever had an unpublished thought!)

In all of his books – and most notably those on American imperialism – he read and cited recent scholarly investigations from top university presses, effectively overriding the propaganda that has passed down through many years.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote: “David has served truth to the hilt. He is a hero of our time.”

There is no question that his body of work will go down in history as providing some of the most elegant thinking our century has witnessed.

And at some point, his chronicling of historically suppressed truths must emerge into full daylight, to allow reality-based civilization to advance.

Let us keep his work alive, so that earth’s future peoples will inherit the great spectrum of wisdom he has left them:  from a hopeful common-sense theology, to the exposés of imperialist propaganda and false flag operations, to the full extent of the climate crisis, to our evolving perception of the nature of the divine, to the evidence that our spirits will survive after death.

David Griffin stands with the greats – yet was quiet, humorous, down to earth, and unassuming.

Consult David Griffin’s archive on Global Research.

David Griffin has passed away. His Legacy Will Live

*

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.

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. 

Elizabeth Woodworth is a regular contributor to Global Research

Celebrity COVID Vaxx Injuries

By Ben Bartee, December 01, 2022

There is no shortage of examples of the celebrity COVID vaxx injury phenomenon, particularly among those who virtue-signaled their vaccinations. Actor Bob Odenkirk, an otherwise seemingly healthy 58-year-old Hollywood star, promoted the shot in March 2021 in a choreographed publicity stunt, probably at the behest of the show’s producers, while shooting the last season of Better Call Saul.

Video: Trudeau Did Not Have Authority to Invoke the Emergencies Act. Canadian Constitution Foundation’s Closing Argument

By Canadian Constitution Foundation, December 01, 2022

The video below is the Canadian Constitution Foundation’s closing argument made in the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) on November 25, 2022.

Pentagon Cannot Account for $20 Billion Worth of Weapons in Ukraine While Another $19 Billion for Taiwan Is Missing

By Drago Bosnic, December 01, 2022

As if ongoing corruption scandals, including the FTX-Kiev regime-DNC connection, weren’t enough, the troubled Biden administration is now faced with another one. According to the latest reports, the US government is unable to account for the approximately $20 billion worth of weapons it sent to the Kiev regime.

We Will be Sacrificed for Global Standardization of Systems

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, December 01, 2022

Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century) is the inventory and control plan for all land, water, minerals, plants, animals, construction, means of production, food, energy, information, education and all human beings in the world.

High Fuel Prices Likely to Kill More Europeans Than Fighting in Ukraine. The Economist

By Marc Vandepitte, November 30, 2022

That the economic sanctions resulting from the invasion of Ukraine affect Europe more than Russia is an annoying fact. But now a recent study by The Economist suggests that because of high fuel prices, the additional death toll in Europe in the coming winter could exceed the number of soldiers killed in combat in Ukraine so far. Food for thought.

The West Seeks War, Not Peace

By Mark Taliano, November 30, 2022

“The collective West” does not want peace for Ukraine.  Instead it wants war in an unsuccessful bid to “bleed Russia”. The West was not seeking Peace when it orchestrated the bloody, unconstitutional Maidan coup, ousting elected President Yanukovych, who was forced to flee the country.

Thanksgiving in a Victim World. Resuming Our National Holidays After a Mass Violation

By Dr. Naomi Wolf, November 30, 2022

I recently traveled to Florida, to do research for a new book. I stayed in a hotel for almost a week, in a modest, touristy town, a few miles from the beach. Every day, from the moment I opened my eyes til the moment I settled into my cool hotel sheets, my heart exulted with an indescribable happiness.

British Medical Journal: “COVID-19 Vaccines and Drugs Were Developed at “Warp Speed””

By Maryanne Demasi, November 30, 2022

On 25 September 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received a complaint by Brook Jackson who had been working for Ventavia Research Group, a Texas based company hired to run clinical trials for Pfizer’s covid-19 mRNA vaccine.

Dutch Government to Close Down 3000 Farms

By Free West Media, November 30, 2022

Many farms are to be closed down in the Netherlands because of EU requirements and Brussels’ “Green Deal”. In the Netherlands there have been several protests by farmers in the summer, as reported by FWM.

Israelis Are Not Welcome in Qatar During the 2022 World Cup

By Steven Sahiounie, November 30, 2022

sraeli citizens and journalists are allowed in Qatar in a FIFA agreement during the 2022 World Cup now underway in Doha. Being allowed to enter a country to watch football, or to cover an event as a journalist or media crew, is far different than being welcome.

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.

***

There is no shortage of examples of the celebrity COVID vaxx injury phenomenon, particularly among those who virtue-signaled their vaccinations.

Actor Bob Odenkirk, an otherwise seemingly healthy 58-year-old Hollywood star, promoted the shot in March 2021 in a choreographed publicity stunt, probably at the behest of the show’s producers, while shooting the last season of Better Call Saul.

Shortly thereafter, in July, he suffered a heart attack on set.

Pop icon Katy Perry recently experienced a haunting eye malfunction live on stage that looked a lot like Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) or similar neurological conditions known to result from the jabs.

Canadian actress Jennifer Gibson got her face totally wrecked by the vaxx

Canadian actress Jennifer Gibson. pic.twitter.com/4FsC5ndfAp

— D. Scott @eclipsethis2003 (@eclipsethis2003) September 29, 2022

Fully vaxxed author Julie Powell

I would argue that COVID does kill some of the right people. The anti-vaxxers/maskers are dying in legions.

But yes. It’s a real shame about Kavanaugh.

— Julie Powell (@licjulie) October 1, 2021

A year later, she died of cardiac arrest.

Even when presented with proof-positive irrefutable evidence that the vaxx messed them up, they still encourage their fans to get shot up.

Oh we have another coincidence pic.twitter.com/YxLB3VWCaz

— Luke Rudkowski (@Lukewearechange) November 20, 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 Daily Bell.

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

Featured image is from The Daily Bell

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

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

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

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

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

***

The video below is the Canadian Constitution Foundation’s closing argument made in the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) on November 25, 2022.

The argument was made by Sujit Choudhry, council of the CCF, under the premise that Trudeau did not have the authority to invoke the Emergencies Act.

*

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 a screenshot from the video

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.

***

As if ongoing corruption scandals, including the FTX-Kiev regime-DNC connection, weren’t enough, the troubled Biden administration is now faced with another one. According to the latest reports, the US government is unable to account for the approximately $20 billion worth of weapons it sent to the Kiev regime. The US Congress has become a place of heated debates as Republicans warn there will be “impending audits” after they take full control of the House of Representatives in January. Major news media, such as Fox News, claim that the US government under Biden inspected only 10% of approximately 22,000 weapons it sent to the Kiev regime from late February to November.

The GOP wants audits to determine what is going on with the massive amounts of weapons the US is sending and how much of it is ending up “where it’s supposed to be.” Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has vowed to “hold our government accountable” for spending US taxpayers’ dollars for the sake of the corrupt Kiev regime. Other members of the US Congress have been asking for audits for months, while Senator Rand Paul asked on Twitter:

“Didn’t someone try to legislatively mandate a special inspector general to scrutinize Ukrainian spending?  Oh, that’s right, it was my amendment and most Democrats AND Republicans opposed any semblance of oversight.”

Back in May, the Biden administration promised it would pledge more than $54 billion in the military, financial and humanitarian “aid” to the Kiev regime. Various estimates of the full amount of funds the political West sent (and is still sending) put the actual number much higher (more than $65 billion back in May). Since Russia launched its counteroffensive on February 24, the US provided the bulk of those funds, way more than all of its vassals and satellite states combined, according to data cited by Summit News. On multiple occasions, the US government and the Pentagon indirectly admitted they weren’t able to track Ukraine-bound funds and resources after they reached the Polish-Ukrainian border.

On the other hand, representatives of some of the US vassals and satellite states in Europe have expressed frustration with the GOP’s requests for accountability of where the funds earmarked for the Kiev regime are ending up. These European officials “hope that such measures would not lead to cutting off funding to Ukraine and ultimately to victory for Russia.” Others, such as the United Kingdom Parliament member Tobias Ellwood, have been more direct and accused the Republicans that “they are playing into Putin’s hands” by asking for audits and imposition of stricter control, oversight and accountability regarding the funds for the Kiev regime.

Yet, weapons deliveries to the Kiev regime are hardly the only issue the US is faced with at present. Weapons the Biden administration promised to deliver to China’s breakaway island province of Taiwan have been considerably delayed and slowed as a result of the US commitment to arming the Neo-Nazi junta. It is estimated that Washington DC approved approximately $20 billion in arms sales to the government in Taipei since 2017. In late August, a Defense News report claimed there was a $14 billion backlog in weapons sales to Taiwan. However, the latest data indicates that the number has now drastically increased to nearly $19 billion in delayed deliveries, according to a new estimate by The Wall Street Journal.

“US government and congressional officials fear the conflict in Ukraine is exacerbating a nearly $19 billion backlog of weapons bound for Taiwan, further delaying efforts to arm the island as tensions with China escalate,” the WSJ report begins. “The US has pumped billions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February, taxing the capacity of the government and defense industry to keep up with a sudden demand to arm Kiev in a conflict that isn’t expected to end soon,” the authors added in an admission rarely seen in mainstream media.

The information indicates that the US might not be able to respond effectively to a potential escalation of tensions in Taiwan.

“The flow of weapons to Ukraine is now running up against the longer-term demands of a US strategy to arm Taiwan to help it defend itself against a possible invasion by China, according to congressional and government officials familiar with the matter,” WSJ report states.

Somewhat ironically, many Washington DC and Taipei officials have consistently used the Ukraine crisis as a reference point to reinforce the narrative that the US “must urgently equip the island with everything it needs.” However, very few of them have admitted that the US Military Industrial Complex doesn’t have the production capacity necessary to concurrently arm the Kiev regime and the government in Taipei. This is especially true given the aforementioned issues with tracking weapons and other funds earmarked for the Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev.

*

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.

***

China reactivated its investments and trade with Latin America, something which could be key in the trade dispute with the US as the Asian Giant anticipates trade volumes to massively increase in the coming years. It is not lost that Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel was the first foreign leader to visit China following the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in October; Beijing is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with El Salvador and Uruguay; and, Argentina has expressed its interest in becoming a BRICS member. This is all with the aim of diminishing US influence in Latin America.

The Latin American region is having increased geopolitical importance for China. Beijing is particularly focussing on lines of investment and trade, especially on agreements already made but were diminished by the pandemic and China’s own economic problems. None-the-less, Latin America is the second largest destination for foreign investment from China, with more than 2,700 Chinese-funded companies operating in the region.

What makes China’s drive into Latin America all the more audacious is that it is traditionally considered the “Backyard of the United States.” By China making inroads in a US-dominated region, it signals a change in the international order – one towards multilateralism.

Despite this demonstration of multipolarity in action, Latin America still has not moved on from its logic of only being an exporter of raw materials which imports industrialised goods from China. China has focused on acquiring raw materials and investing in infrastructure to get products out of the region at the lowest possible cost.

There is also a hope in China to lessen its trade relations with the US by engaging more deeply with Latin America.

In November 2022, China removed the last phytosanitary barriers with Brazil so that it can import Brazilian corn. The removal of the barriers will result in greater flows of Brazilian corn and lessen China’s dependency on corn from the US, the Asian Giant’s top supplier.

In another example, China lessened its reliance on American soybeans after buying 3.6 to 4.2 million tons of Argentinian soybeans since the new soybean dollar agreement was announced, a special exchange rate provided by the Argentine Central Bank for soybean exporters.

None-the-less, China’s geopolitical value on Latin America is almost exclusively in raw materials, as is now seen in the market for lithium, a metal fundamental in the development of many technologies. Of the nine mining projects in Argentina that are financed by China, six are lithium. In 2021, 98.2% of total mining exports of lithium carbonate was to the East Asian country.

Contrary to the strengthening of trade relations, trade with China and the rest of Asia is unlikely to have a positive effect for domestic consumers in Latin American countries, especially those suffering from rising inflation. Although agricultural and energy production records are being broken every year across Latin America, the alleviation of poverty and hunger has not advanced. Without a proposal that allows directing the benefits and income of the energy and agriculture sectors towards a productive transformation that generates employment, it is difficult to foresee changes in the local economies to benefit the majority and not just local elites and China.

However, it is not only China that is increasingly playing a central role in the economic development of Latin America and consolidating itself as a strategic destination for its exports. Trade relations between Asia and Latin America will continue growing due to, among other factors, the prospects for economic and demographic growth of the other giant in the region: India. India for now does not compete with China in Latin America but has found some niches, such as agricultural manufacturing, but this will likely change as the South Asian country continues to develop.

South Korea, for their part, has been negotiating an FTA with Mercosur – a trade bloc that includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay – since 2018. In recent years it has had permanent contacts with the governments of those countries to try to speed up the process. Japan also seeks to be influential in Latin America and maintain strong ties, especially with Chile and Brazil. However, just like South Korea, they continue to have heavy tariffs on agricultural imports, something that diminishes the full potential of relations.

None-the-less, with China’s influence growing in Latin America, and with India, Japan and South Korea wanting to expand trade relations and influence, the region is no longer the “US’ backyard”, as it was perceived to be since the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

*

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

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie die Schaltfläche Website übersetzen unterhalb des Namens des Autors aktivieren.

Um den täglichen Newsletter von Global Research (ausgewählte Artikel) zu erhalten, klicken Sie hier.

Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.

***

Die Welt ist in einem Zustand, der wenig Hoffnung aufkommen lässt. Während für weltweite Kriege und Waffen, die die Menschen jenseits der Grenzen erschlagen, unerschöpfliche finanzielle Mittel bereitgestellt werden, sind mehrere Millionen Kinder und Jugendliche in einem der wohlhabendsten Länder der Welt armutsgefährdet. Deshalb müssen die Menschen aufgeklärt werden; man muss ihnen die Wahrheit sagen.

Doch Aufklärung allein wird die Gesellschaft nicht umgestalten. Auch soll der Zustand der Welt nicht nur beschrieben, sondern vor allem verändert werden. Doch wie und mit wem soll das geschehen? Die Forschungsergebnisse der Tiefenpsychologie verweisen auf die Erziehung des jungen Menschen. Sie sei wichtiger als Aufklärung. Aber der Standpunkt der humanistischen Psychologie ist relativ neu, noch nicht gründlich erarbeitet, schwer vermittelbar und vor allem nicht im Interesse der Herrschenden, des Staates und der Kirche.

Ungeachtet dessen ist es für eine friedliche und humane Zukunft von großer Bedeutung, den Menschen durch Erziehung und Aufklärung das psychologische Wissen über sich selbst und die Mitmenschen zu vermitteln, damit sie sowohl ihre persönlichen Probleme lösen als auch damit beginnen können, die Welt in friedliche Bahnen zu lenken.

Der Jugend als Vorposten einer neuen Gesellschaft, des Fortschritts und einer humaneren Welt soll dabei unsere besondere Aufmerksamkeit zuteilwerden.

Zur Bedeutung der Aufklärung

Da die Politik in den Köpfen und Herzen der Menschen vorbereitet wird, handeln die Menschen morgen so, wie sie heute denken. Deshalb kann die Bedeutung der Aufklärung nicht hoch genug eingeschätzt werden. Der Sinn aufklärerischer Bemühungen ist die Reinigung des menschlichen Bewusstseins von individuellen und kollektiven Vorurteilen.

Die Zerstörung von Vorurteilen bedeutet mehr als ein bloßes intellektuelles Unterfangen; der „aufgeklärte Verstand“ ist fähig, gesunde Lebensziele ins Auge zu fassen. Die Zukunft unserer Kultur wird wesentlich davon abhängen, ob es genug „Aufklärer“ geben wird, die imstande sein werden, den breiten Volksmassen jene Vorurteile zu nehmen, die der ideologische Hintergrund der Menschheitskatastrophen sind. Intellektuelle haben dabei eine große Verantwortung, denn ihre Pflicht wäre es, für die anderen Menschen zu denken und mit der Freiheit des Denkens die Freiheit überhaupt zu proklamieren.

In einer Zeit, in der die Bedrohung durch die Atombombe die Selbstvernichtung der Menschheit als möglich erscheinen lässt, bedürfen wir mehr denn je der „freien Geister“, die uns lehren, was Wahrheit und was Lüge ist.

Der französische Aufklärer Baron Paul-Henri Thiry d’Holbach schrieb dazu bereits vor 250 Jahren in der Einleitung seines Buches „Der gesunde Menschenverstand des Pfarrers Meslier“:

„Es ist vergebene Mühe, die Menschen von ihren Lastern heilen zu wollen, wenn man nicht mit der Heilung ihrer Vorurtheile beginnt. Man muss ihnen die Wahrheit sagen, damit sie ihre theuersten Interessen kennen lernen, und die wahren Motive, welche sie der Tugend und ihrem wahren Glück zuführen.

Die Volkslehrer haben lange genug ihre Augen zu dem Himmel erhoben; möchten sie endlich sie der Erde zuwenden! (…). Sagen wir den Menschen, dass sie gerecht sein wollen, wohltätig, mässig und gesellig, nicht weil es ihre Götter verlangen, sondern weil man seinen Nebenmenschen zu gefallen suchen muss; (…).

Die Wahrheit ist einfach, der Irrtum ist compliziert, unsicher in seinem Gange und von Abwegen umgeben. Die Stimme der Natur ist verständlich; die der Lüge ist zweideutig, räthselhaft, mysteriös. Der Weg der Wahrheit ist gerade, jener des Betrugs ist krumm und finster. Diese Wahrheit ist allen Menschen nothwendig, und wird von allen Gerechten gefühlt. Die Lehren der Vernunft sind für alle Jene, die redlichen Gemütes sind. Die Menschen sind unglücklich, weil sie unwissend sind; sie sind unwissend, weil sich alles gegen ihre Aufklärung verschwört, und bloss darum schlecht, weil ihre Denkkräfte nicht hinreichend entwickelt.“ (1)

Eine Wahrheit der Gegenwart ist zum Beispiel, dass die Ungleichheit unter den Menschen in Deutschland – einem der weltweit wohlhabendsten Staaten – stärker wächst als während der Pandemie, dass mehr als zehn Millionen Menschen, darunter mehrere Millionen Kinder und Jugendliche armutsgefährdet sind und dass immer mehr Menschen unter die Armutsgrenze fallen, was laut Warnung des Wirtschaftsexperten und DIW-Chefs Marcel Fratzscher „fatale Folgen für die Gesellschaft“ (das heißt, für die Grundfesten des demokratischen Miteinanders) haben würde (2).

Doch Aufklärung allein reicht nicht aus, die gegenwärtige Gesellschaft umzugestalten. Auch soll der Zustand der heutigen Welt nicht nur beschrieben, sondern vor allem verändert werden.

Wichtiger noch als Aufklärung ist denn auch das Problem der Erziehung. Die Forschungsergebnisse der Psychologie – speziell der Tiefenpsychologie – haben die Erziehung in ihrer ungeheuren Tragweite deutlich gemacht.

Die Psychologie in der Tradition des Humanismus

Das humanistische Denken, das die Menschheitsgeschichte seit ihren Anfängen durchzieht, gewann seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters und dem Anbruch der Frühen Neuzeit im europäischen Geistesleben immer mehr an Bedeutung. Gemeint ist jenes Denken, das sich allmählich befreit von mystischen Spekulationen, von Obskurantismus sowie von Autoritätsgläubigkeit und das sich zur Aufgabe macht, vorurteilslos, realistisch und tolerant die Dinge der Welt zu erforschen. Unter „Obskurantismus“ wird das Bestreben verstanden, die Menschen bewusst in Unwissenheit zu halten, ihr selbständiges Denken zu verhindern und sie an Übernatürliches glauben zu lassen.

Das Aufkommen des wissenschaftlichen Denkens der Frühen Neuzeit hatte auch eine realistische Betrachtung des Menschen zur Folge: die menschliche Individualität, die Lern- und Entwicklungsfähigkeit sowie die Güte des Menschen und die Bedeutung der Erziehung wurden zu zentralen Themen der Philosophie.

Der historisch bedeutungsvolle Kampf gegen jegliche Bevormundung, für die Freiheit des Geistes und die Toleranz unter den Menschen begann. Die Aufklärung brachte zudem den Gedanken der Freiheit, Gleichheit und Mitmenschlichkeit als Grundvoraussetzung eines würdigen menschlichen Lebens ein.

Doch noch heute leben wir in einer Welt, in der sich der Mensch nicht erkannt hat. Alles hat er erkannt und erforscht; aber sich selbst, seine Natur, seine seelische Verfassung, seine Reaktionsweisen hat er nicht erkannt.

Vor dem Zeitalter er Psychologie herrschte im Gegensatz zur auf Kausalität beruhenden Wissenschaft die magische Weltanschauung des Mittelalters und der Religion, die die Menschen fest im Griff hatte. Man war der Meinung, dass die Seele des Menschen hier auf dieser Welt nur eine Prüfung durchmacht und dass der Mensch in den Himmel gehört; dort sei das ewige Leben.

Tatsache ist, dass wir in gewissem Sinne noch immer im Mittelalter leben. Wir haben das mittelalterliche Denken und Fühlen nicht hinter uns gelassen. Die Mehrheit der Menschen lebt noch in diesem Zustand.

Zwar haben die Erfolge in den Naturwissenschaften das Problem etwas erhellt, aber die Menschen denken noch wie im Mittelalter, beten zu Göttern, zum Teufel und zu Engeln. Ohne Psychologie wird die Menschheit nicht weiterkommen: Dass wir Kriege führen, das ist zurückzuführen auf den Mangel an psychologischer Erkenntnis. Auch die Tatsache, dass die Menschen unglücklich sind, dass sie Schwierigkeiten haben im Leben, dass unsere Gesellschaftsordnung nicht richtig funktioniert, ist zurückzuführen auf die Unkenntnis der Psychologie.

Von allen Institutionen werden die Menschen programmiert – angefangen von der Erziehung zuhause bis hinauf zur Rekrutenschule und das „Feld der Ehre“. Das ist Programm, das ist bewusst. Und in dieser Stimmung werden die Menschen ein Leben lang gehalten.

Die Psychologie ist eine Wissenschaft über den Menschen, über die menschliche Natur: wie er wird, wie er heranwächst und wie er sich in seinem Leben zurechtfindet.

Aufgrund seiner Erfahrungen, die ihm vor allem die Eltern und Lehrer vermitteln, ist er dann das Produkt seiner Erlebnisse, seiner Eindrücke in der Kindheit. Bereits in den ersten fünf bis sechs Lebensjahren – wenn das Kind in den Kindergarten kommt – hat es schon seinen Kompass. Es weiß dann schon, wie es sich verhalten soll und hat eine Meinung über das andere Kind, über Vater, Mutter, Geschwister. Es hat schon seinen Weg, seine Charaktereigenschaften, seine Stellung in der Welt.

Tiefenpsychologische Menschenkenntnis und die Lehren des Individualpsychologen Alfred Adler als ein Grundpfeiler der Tiefenpsychologie

Die Forschungsergebnisse der Tiefenpsychologie, die den unbewussten seelischen Vorgängen einen hohen Stellenwert für die Erklärung menschlichen Verhaltens und Erlebens beimessen (Freund, Jung, Adler), können dazu verhelfen, dass psychisch irritierte Menschen in die Lage kommen, ihre Probleme in der Ehe, mit den Kindern und im gesellschaftlichen und staatlichen Leben zu lösen. Die Jugend kann das psychologische Rüstzeug bekommen, die Welt einmal in eine andere Bahn zu lenken.

Grundlegende Annahmen der Tiefenpsychologie sind vor allem die Annahme eines dynamischen Unbewussten als wesentlicher und hochwirksamer Teil unseres psychischen Lebens sowie der psychische Mechanismus der Verdrängung, der Übertragung und der Gegenübertragung und die Bedeutung der frühen Kindheit für die spätere Persönlichkeit.

Die Lehre Alfred Adlers ist zu einem Grundpfeiler der Tiefenpsychologie geworden und aus der psychologischen Forschung nicht mehr wegzudenken. Die Entwicklung der Tiefenpsychologie hat Adler in vielen Punkten Recht gegeben. Zu nennen ist zum Beispiel die Erkenntnis, dass der Mensch nicht einfach durch Triebe bestimmt wird, dass der Charakter des Menschen sich nicht aufgrund eines Vererbungsprozesses entwickelt und dass die Gemeinschaft im Leben des Menschen von zentraler Bedeutung ist.

Für Adler ist der Charakter ein schöpferisches Produkt des Kindes, entstanden aus der Auseinandersetzung mit den frühkindlichen Lebensumständen, insbesondere den Erziehungseinflüssen, die für die Charakterbildung am maßgeblichsten sind.

Auch die Medizin ist nach anfänglichem Widerstand der Kirche nur weitergekommen, indem sie die Funktion des Körpers erkannt hat. Ebenso will die Tiefenpsychologie das geistige und seelische Leben des Menschen erforschen. Dann können wir auch die Frage beantworten, wer Krieg führt, wer ihn jeweils heraufbeschwört. Sind das Menschen wie wir oder sind das andere Menschen? 

Die Tiefenpsychologie – ein Kind der Naturwissenschaft

Einige reife Menschen, die einen gedeckten Tisch und die Gelegenheit gehabt haben, sich zu bilden und zu forschen, haben erahnt, dass das gesellschaftliche System, wie es ist, nicht richtig ist. Drei von ihnen seien kurz erwähnt: Feuerbach, Marx und Kropotkin.

Der Erkenntnisstandpunkt des deutschen Philosophen, Anthropologen und Religionskritikers Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) ist für die modernen Humanwissenschaften wie Psychologie und Ethnologie grundlegend geworden. Er forderte, dass der Mensch endlich damit aufhören müsse, ein Spielball der menschenfeindlichen Mächte zu sein, die sich der Religion zur Unterdrückung bedienen:

„Wir sehen den Menschen gebeugt unter der Last von Geschöpfen, welche nur Erzeugnisse ihres eigenen unfreien und furchtsamen Gemütes, unwissenden und ungebildeten Verstandes sind. Setzen wir an die Stelle der Gottesliebe die Menschenliebe, an die Stelle des Gottesglaubens den Glauben des Menschen an sich, an seine Kraft, werden wir aus Gläubigen zu Denkern, aus Betern zu Arbeitern, aus Kandidaten des Jenseits zu Studenten des Diesseits, und wir werden endlich ganze Menschen werden können.“ (3)

Der deutsche Philosoph, Ökonom, Gesellschaftstheoretiker, Historiker, Protagonist der Arbeiterbewegung sowie Kritiker des Kapitalismus und der Religion Karl Marx (1818-1883)

hat sich auf Feuerbach abgestützt. Marx und andere – zum Beispiel die Anarchisten – haben angefangen, den Menschen richtig zu sehen. Wenn der Kampf gegen diese Gedanken nicht geführt worden wäre, wäre die Menschheit viel weiter, könnten sich die Menschen heute das Leben in jeder Beziehung besser einrichten.

Marx hat die übernatürliche Tendenz abgelehnt und den Menschen als Wesen der Natur gesehen, dessen Haltung geändert werden kann. Er meinte, dass die Verhältnisse den Menschen ändern. Wenn der Mensch die Sicherheit seines Lebens hat, denkt er anders; er hat andere Gedanken, andere Gefühle, eine andere Beziehung zum Mitmenschen. Marx vertrat die Auffassung, dass das Bewusstsein des Menschen durch die Verhältnisse geprägt wird. Seine Größe bestand darin, dass er den Menschen zurückgeholt hat auf die Erde. Er glaubte, dass der Mensch sich ändern kann. Und die Tiefenpsychologie bestätigt das. Wenn man den Menschen die Freiheit gibt, dann werden sie gesund.

Solange im Diesseits nicht jeder menschenwürdig und ohne Furcht leben könne, meinte Marx, werde es den Glauben an ein besseres Jenseits, an eine ausgleichende Gerechtigkeit geben:

„Die Religion ist das Streben nach illusorischem Glück des Volkes, das einem Zustand der Gesellschaft entspringt, welcher der Illusion bedarf.“ (4)

Der russische Anarchist, Sozialist, Historiker, Geograph, Wissenschaftler sowie Philosoph und Schriftsteller Fürst Pjotr Alexejewitsch Kropotkin (1842-1921) kämpfte für eine gewalt- und herrschaftsfreie Gesellschaft und gilt als einer der einflussreichsten Theoretiker des kommunistischen Anarchismus. Sein wissenschaftliches Werk lautete: „Gegenseitige Hilfe in der Tier- und Menschenwelt“.

Kropotkin vollbrachte eine große Leistung, indem er die Natur beobachtete sowie die Naturwesen und seine Beobachtungen auf den Menschen bezog. Die heutige Meinung über den Menschen, die durch die wissenschaftliche Tiefenpsychologie bestätigt wird, hat Peter Kropotkin vorausgeahnt. Mit ihm fing die Neuzeit an. In der Neuzeit hat man damit begonnen, den Menschen richtig zu erkennen. Hierzu ein bewegendes, zutiefst psychologisches Zitat Kropotkins:

„Der Mensch dem die Fähigkeit sich mit seiner Umgebung zu identifizieren anerzogen ist, ein Mensch der sich der Macht seines Herzens, seines Willens bewusst ist, stellt seine Fähigkeiten frei in den Dienst der Anderen, ohne in dieser oder in einer anderen Welt dafür eine Belohnung zu erwarten. Vor allem besitzt er die Fähigkeit die Gefühle anderer zu begreifen, sie mitzuerleben. Dies genügt. Er teilt mit den anderen Freud und Leid. Er hilft ihnen, die schweren Zeiten ihres Lebens zu ertragen. Er fühlt seine Kräfte und verbraucht großmütig seine Fähigkeiten, andere zu lieben, andere zu begeistern, in ihnen den Glauben an eine bessere Zukunft zu wecken und sie zum Kampf für diese Zukunft hinzureißen. Welches Schicksal ihn auch erreicht, er nimmt es nicht als Leid, sondern als Erfüllung seines Lebens, das er nicht gegen ein pflichtloses Vegetieren eintauschen möchte, er zieht eventuell Gefahren einem kampf- und inhaltslosen Leben vor.“ (5)

Zusammen mit der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung und indem er den Faktor der gegenseitigen Hilfe für die Evolution forderte, hat Kropotkin entscheidende Einsichten der Tiefenpsychologie vorausgeahnt.

Die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung war ein enormer Einbruch in die Gefühlswelt des Menschen: der Glaube an Götter und übernatürliche Wesen hörte auf. Davor war der Mensch noch im Mittelalter in seinem Denken. Erst durch die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung hat der Mensch angefangen, sich mit sich selbst zu befassen, sich selbst zu erkennen, zu deuten und sich zu erklären, warum er sich so verhält.

Vor der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung hat die Meinung vorgeherrscht, dass die Seele des Menschen hier auf dieser Welt bloß eine Prüfung durchmacht und das ewige Leben erst im Himmel beginnt.

Zur Bedeutung der Erziehung

Wie im Abschnitt „Zur Bedeutung der Aufklärung“ bereits angedeutet, ist das Problem der Erziehung wichtiger noch als die Aufklärung, Die Ergebnisse der tiefenpsychologischen Forschung haben die Erziehung in ihrer ungeheuren Tragweite deutlich gemacht.

Die Erziehungsmethoden der Vergangenheit schufen den Menschentypus, der die Tragödie der Geschichte verursachen konnte; das autoritäre Prinzip, jahrhundertelang als fraglos-gültige Grundlage des erzieherischen Verhaltens angesehen, drosselte bereits in den Kindheitsjahren das Gemeinschaftsgefühl der Menschen und stattete sie mit jener Aggressionsbereitschaft aus, durch die eine gewalttätige Welt im Zustande der Gewalttätigkeit verharren konnte.

Heute weiß man, dass der Mensch in einem derartigen Maße das Produkt seiner Erziehung ist, dass man die Hoffnung hegen darf, durch bessere, das heißt, psychologische Erziehungsmethoden Menschen heranbilden zu können, die gegen die Verstrickungen des Machtwahns gefeit sein werden.

Indem die Pädagogik in Elternhaus und Schule auf ausschließliche Autorität und auf Gewaltanwendung verzichtet und sich mit wahrem Verständnis dem kindlichen Seelenleben anpasst, wird sie einen Menschentypus hervorbringen, der keine „Untertanen-Mentalität“ besitzt und darum für die Machthaber in unserer Welt kein gefügiges Werkzeug mehr sein wird.

Die Demokratisierung der Erziehung, aufgefasst als Achtung vor der kindlichen Persönlichkeit und als freundschaftliche Zuwendung des Erziehers zu seinem Zögling auf der Basis konsequenter Antiautorität ist dazu berufen, einen der wertvollsten Beiträge zum Aufbau einer humanen Gesellschaftsordnung zu leisten.

Eine aufgeklärte, vernunftbegabte und mitmenschlich eingestellte Jugend kann die Welt einmal in eine andere Bahn lenken

Bereits vor der Pandemie-Welle und lange vor dem weltweiten Kriegs-Geschrei berichteten Jugendliche aus einem wohlhabenden europäischen Land:

„Die Dichter frohlocken: ‚Schön ist die Jugend‘. Doch wie sieht es tatsächlich aus?  Bei genauerer Betrachtung zeichnet sich eine andere Realität ab. Die seelische Not ist groß; in allen Lebensbereichen sind wir entweder sehr gefordert oder überfordert. Was wir über die Welt und den Menschen erfahren, ist geprägt von Unwissenheit und Unaufgeklärtheit. Unsere Eltern sind trotz größter Bemühungen nicht in der Lage, uns eine realistische Einführung ins Leben zu geben. In unseren Kinderstuben herrscht das Prinzip von Religion und Mystik, von Verwöhnung und Strenge. Die Anerkennung ist immer an Bedingungen geknüpft; nur die Leistung zählt.

Ganz irritiert kommen wir in die Schule, wo die vorgefassten Meinungen bestärkt und zementiert werden: dumm und gescheit, arm und reich. Was zählt, ist die gute Note und nicht die gegenseitige Hilfe. Die Lehrkräfte haben nicht das Einfühlungsvermögen, unsere seelische Not zu empfinden und zu beheben.

So stehen wir da: ohne Aufklärung über den Menschen und die Welt, orientierungslos sowie unfähig, uns das eigene Leben und eine schöne Liebe einzurichten. Nachdem wir diese Erziehung durchlaufen haben, sind wir Karikaturen dessen, was wir sein könnten. Auf diesem Boden der mystischen Erziehung, konfrontiert mit Schulversagen und Liebesproblemen, ist jeder junge Mensch vorbereitet für die Drogen. Junge Menschen, die die Zukunft sein sollten, gehen zu Tausenden unter unsäglichen Qualen am Rauschgift zugrunde.“

Seit Anfang Jahr 2020 dürfte sich die allgemeine Situation weiter verschärft haben.

Warum der Jugend nicht die Erkenntnisse der Psychologie, eine psychologische Bildung vermitteln? Damit könnte man ihr ein Werkzeug in die Hand geben, womit sie ihre Lebens- und Liebesprobleme lösen und sich mit den Eltern versöhnen kann und womit sie Persönlichkeiten werden können.

Warum der Jugend nicht sagen, dass sie nicht in den Krieg ziehen soll? Mütter, Väter, Philosophen und Psychologen, Professoren und Persönlichkeiten aus allen Fakultäten.

Wenn das möglich ist und wenn es gelingt, dass sich die Jugendlichen einig sind – einig im Zusammenleben und Zusammenwirken –, dann werden sie ein Loch in diese Welt schlagen können. Sie sind doch die Vorposten einer neuen Gesellschaft, des Fortschritts. Vor allem die Jugendlichen können eine Umwälzung, eine Umgestaltung der Gesellschaft bewirken; eine schönere und humanere Welt schaffen.

Ich glaube an die Jugend, an ihre Lernfähigkeit, ihre Kreativität, ihre Einfühlsamkeit, ihr Verantwortungsgefühl, ihre Einsichtsfähigkeit und Bereitschaft zur Veränderung. Meistens fehlt jungen Menschen nur etwas Besonnenheit und Ausdauer, damit sie in kleinen Schritten ihre Kompetenzen entwickeln können.

*

Hinweis an die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie auf die obigen Schaltflächen zum Teilen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research erneut zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen.

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Lehrer (Rektor), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Dipl.-Psych.). Viele Jahrzehnte unterrichtete er und bildete Fachkräfte fort. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und zum Frieden. Er schreibt regelmäßig für Global Research.

Noten

(1) D’Holbach, P.-H. T. (1976). Der gesunde Menschenverstand des Pfarrers Meslier. Kritische Gedanken über die Religion und ihre Auswirkung auf die kulturelle Entwicklung. Zürich, S. 4ff.

(2) https://de.rt.com/inland/155345-experten-warnen-soziale-schere-klafft/

(3) De.wikipedia.org. Stichwort „Ludwig Feuerbach“

(4) De.wikipedia.org. Stichwort „Die deutsche Ideologie“

(5) Aus: Grasenack, Moritz (Hrsg.). Die libertäre Psychotherapie von Friedrich Liebling. Lich / Hessen, S. 45

Copyright für das Bild: Christopher Futcher

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.

***

Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century) is the inventory and control plan for all land, water, minerals, plants, animals, construction, means of production, food, energy, information, education and all human beings in the world

This roadmap for global totalitarianism was agreed to by 179 nations, including the U.S., at the 1992 Sustainable Development conference in Brazil

We’ve seen various facets of Agenda 21 being implemented throughout the last three years, under the cover of biosecurity and the global COVID-19 pandemic. The Green New Deal (Green Agenda), “Build Back Better,” the Fourth Industrial Revolution (the transhumanist movement) and The Great Reset all further and facilitate the implementation of Agenda 21

Agenda 21 is based on the ideology of “communitarianism,” which argues that “an individual’s rights should be balanced against rights of the community.” Community, however, in the mind of the globalists, is made up of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), corporations and government, which are to dictate what happens around the world. The people are not really part of the equation

“Sustainable development” is NOT about recycling or making sure there’s enough food and resources for everyone. It’s about moving populations from rural and suburban areas into concentrated city centers where they and their use of resources can be monitored and controlled

*

Click here to watch the video.

The video above features the late Rosa Koire, former executive director of the Post Sustainability Institute and Democrats Against UN Agenda 21,¹ and author of “Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21.” She spent the decade before her untimely death researching and educating people about public policies intended to strip us of our individual rights.

Before taking up that fight, she was a district branch chief at the California Department of Transportation for nearly three decades. Koire passed away from a pulmonary embolism and metastatic lung cancer at the end of May 2021.

In the video above, Koire exposes the real agenda of the United Nations Agenda 21, which was laid out during a Sustainable Development conference in June 1992.

Documentation^2,3 from this conference can be downloaded in multiple languages from the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals page⁴ and the UN’s digital library.⁵ Koire’s many interviews and lectures on this topic can be found on DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com.⁶

Agenda 21 Is Globalization on Steroids

Koire was adamant that Agenda 21 (aka Agenda for the 21st Century) was the most crucial topic of our time, as it is:

“The inventory and control plan for all land, water, minerals, plants, animals, construction, means of production, food, energy, information — and all human beings in the world.”

This roadmap for global control and domination — global totalitarianism — was agreed to by 179 nations at the 1992 Sustainable Development conference in Brazil. Were Koire alive today, at the end of 2022, there’s no doubt she would have warned us all that Agenda 21 was now in the final implementation stages.

We’ve seen various facets of Agenda 21 being implemented throughout the last three years, under the cover of biosecurity and the global COVID-19 pandemic. The Green New Deal (Green Agenda), “Build Back Better,” the Fourth Industrial Revolution⁷ (the transhumanist movement) and The Great Reset, officially introduced by World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab and then-Prince Charles in June 2020⁸ — these all exist to further and facilitate the implementation of Agenda 21.

What Is ‘Sustainable Development’ Really?

As noted by Koire, most people are under the illusion that “sustainable development” is about things like recycling and making sure there’s enough food and resources for an ever-expanding population. But no, that’s NOT what it’s actually about. “It’s about moving populations into concentrated city centers and clearing them out of rural areas,” Koire says.

It’s also a plan for robbing the lower and middle classes of their wealth and turning the global population into slaves under a digital dictatorship where all resources are controlled from the top. It’s globalization on steroids, and the greater the globalization, the fewer individual rights can exist.

October 24, 2022, former Prime Minister of England, Margaret Thatcher, tweeted the following warning:⁹ “When the state does everything for you, it will soon take everything from you — you will then have no basis for personal freedom, political freedom, or economic freedom.”

‘Community’ Is Not What You Think It Is

As explained by Koire, Agenda 21 is based on the ideology of “communitarianism,” which argues that “an individual’s rights should be balanced against rights of the community.”

We may agree with this, at least in part, because we think of “community” as something that we’re part of and have a responsibility to. However, “community” in the mind of the globalists is a construct made up of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), corporations and government, which are to dictate what happens around the world.

“We, as individuals, have literally no influence, unless we are in agreement with it,” Koire says. “If you dissent against ‘the community’ [i.e., NGOs, corporations and government], against communitarian law or communitarian social tactics, you are rejected and basically made an outcast.”

So, to be clear, Agenda 21 and The Great Reset are based on an ideology that says individual rights must be balanced against the rights of NGOs, private corporations and governments. The word “balanced” is misleading, however, because “the community” is the decision-maker. Your only option is to submit to their rule or be expunged from society.

Attempt at Preventing Local Agenda 21 Implementation Failed

In 2013, Koire’s organization, the Post Sustainability Institute, sued to stop the Agenda 21 takeover of San Francisco, California. As reported by Off the Grid News at the time:¹⁰

“In the United States, more than 500 major- and moderate-sized cities are members of an international sustainability organization that reportedly supports the implementation of Agenda 21. A group known as the Post Sustainability Institute recently filed a lawsuit to stop a project, Plan Bay Area, which is a San Francisco-area long-range transportation and land-use/housing strategy that has a finish target of 2040.

According to the Plan Bay Area website, the goal is to ‘accommodate future population growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.’ That is done by building neighborhoods that are ‘within walking distance of frequent transit service’ and that offer ‘a wide variety of housing options’ and feature grocery stores, community centers, and restaurants.”

In the video, Koire explains what the Bay Area Plan is really trying to achieve. According to that plan, any future development in the San Francisco Bay area will be restricted to just 4% of the available land. All 101 cities and counties will be joined together, and all land use decisions will be made by an unelected board.

The ramifications this will have on land use, property values, businesses and the forced movement of people is “unfathomable,” Koire says. She likens it to a “concentration camp of the future,” where water and energy usage is monitored and restricted, and where access to nature and the land outside the city is denied. Sadly, after three years, they lost the case and the Bay Area Agenda 21 plan is still on track.¹¹

The Importance of Taking Back Control Locally

Stopping the local adoption and implementation of Agenda 21 is a crucial tactic because, as she explains, “regionalization is the stepping stone to globalization, and globalization is the standardization of global systems.”

And again, the global systems we’re talking about include the use of land, water, minerals, plants, animals and humans. It includes all types of construction, means of production, food, energy, information systems and education. ALL systems of the world are to be “harmonized” and brought under the control of a central entity.

Unless systems are synchronized to work together, they cannot be centrally controlled. This is also what The Great Reset is all about — the harmonization and synchronization of systems, globally, to allow for central control of the whole world. The Great Reset is Agenda 21 under a different name.

As noted by Koire, “The goal of Agenda 21 is one world government and total control from a central unit,” and the plan is being rolled out under the false premise that we have to implement all these changes in order to stop climate change.

Agenda 21 Goals Summarized

In summary, the goals of Agenda 21 and The Great Reset are to:

The Three Pillars of Agenda 21

As explained by Koire, the three pillars of Agenda 21 are the three “E’s”:

1. Economy
2. Ecology
3. Equity (social equity)

As with the term “community,” most imagine they understand what the word “equity” means. They think it means there will be fair distribution of food, water, energy and so on. They think it’s about lessening the disparities between the rich and the poor. But again, they’re wrong.

Social equity involves “impoverishing huge portions of the population and bringing down developed nations,” Koire explains, adding, “Social equity is code for this movement [of people and goods] and reduction of the population.”

The three pillars, viewed as interconnected circles, are presented as the three areas that need to be balanced. But the “balance” spoken of is a communitarian balance. It’s not balance for the well-being of the people. The balanced center point is the area of centralized control, so that corporations and governments can exploit and control the people at will.

How to Fight Back

While we are moving toward a centralized totalitarian one world government, we are not there yet. We still have the ability to push back, by:

• Refusing to cooperate with the rollout and implementation of Agenda 21 items, tyrannical overreaches and surveillance/control tools such as digital identity and programmable central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)
• Widely exposing and discussing the totalitarian plan
• Working together to defund these plans, especially local Agenda 21 plans
• Helping your children understand that they’re being indoctrinated, from kindergarten through graduate school, to embrace and support their own demise
• Standing up for personal rights and freedoms

Leadership Are Following a Script

Have you wondered why no one — with very few exceptions — in government, either locally or on the state or federal level, has apologized for any of their pandemic “mistakes”? Time and again, their assertions and promises have been proven wrong, yet no apologies have been forthcoming.^12,13

Most are simply continuing as if none of their false statements and poor judgments ever happened. The reason they won’t admit that anything that happened during the pandemic was a mistake is because they knew it was all a lie from the start.

They were given a script and they followed that script. End of story. The script never made sense because it was a made-up narrative. Nothing was based on actual fact or real-world events. The script was created to give the illusion that the measures were necessary. In reality, the pandemic measures were a cover to push us into Agenda 21 and The Great Reset.

As the global systems are now falling apart due to those measures, the same villains are rolling out another narrative, another script, that says they’ll fix it. They’ll “build back better” and make everything equitable and green in the process. COVID was always about ushering in global totalitarianism.

The fly in the ointment was the fact that COVID was never as fatal as they tried to make it out to be and, over time, reality overtook the false narrative. Massive pushback against vaccine passports also hampered the takeover process, and now, Pfizer officials have driven the final nail into the coffin by admitting the COVID shots were never tested to see if they actually stopped infection and transmission, which was the sole basis for the passports.

Without the biosecurity justification, they’re back to pushing for digital identity, which was the next step in the digital enslavement process, but now large swaths of the population have caught on and know what they’re up to.

For example, well before the new Prime Minister of England, Rishi Sunak, took office, The National Pulse was reporting on his direct connections to a World Economic Forum partner company that pushes digital IDs and social credit scores.¹⁴ These kinks were perhaps divine intervention to prevent the whole world from falling into the trap.

The Administrative State Is a Major Part of the Problem

While many have hitched their hopes to a political change of guard, what most forget, or fail to understand, is that elected officials have nowhere near the power we expect them to have. As explained by The Epoch Times, the real power actually lies with the unelected administrators. That’s where the real cleanout needs to occur:¹⁵

“It’s rather obvious now that we’re dealing with a beast that includes media, technology, nonprofits, and multinational and international government agencies and all the groups they represent.

That said, let’s deal here with the most obvious problem: the administrative state … [E]lected politicians are outnumbered and outwitted on all sides, only pretending to be in charge when, in fact, the actual affairs of state are managed by experienced professionals with permanent positions …

[J]ust as the stakes are high, so, too, the problem of implementing a solution — representative democracy as a means to reobtain liberty itself — is also exceedingly difficult … Indeed, the entire system seems rigged against change.

It starts with the permanent staff on Capitol Hill. It’s a tribe. They move from office to office. They all know each other and also the permanent staff of the bureaucracies who serve Congress, and they, in turn, have close relations with the permanent staff of the executive bureaucracies, who, in turn, have close relationships with the media and the corporate executives lobbying the member of Congress.

The naive people, no matter how well intended, are quickly surrounded. This is essentially what happened to Donald Trump. He figured that as president, he would be like a CEO, not just of all of government, but the whole country. Within months, he was shown otherwise …

This is precisely why there needs to be a focus as never before on the problem of the administrative state. It has to be penetrated and taken apart piece by piece.

That will involve not only constant investigations, but also courageous bills that seek not cuts but full-on defunding of whole agencies, one after another. That’s what it will require to make genuine change …

In the end, what’s more powerful than political changes and even election upheavals, which too often fail through subversion, are dramatic shifts in public opinion.

Every institution ultimately bends to that, which is why research, education, great journalism, and competent media outlets, plus friendship networks and community organizing, might actually be more foundational than elections. All of this has begun and it’s growing. Therein lies the real hope.”

Realize Where Your True Power Lies

Regardless of which party holds the power, please realize that your power as an individual lies in your own personal day-to-day decisions. Politicians say what is necessary to get elected, based on the polling of talking points. A politician’s public talking points constantly “evolve” and are rarely consistent with their actions that benefit their corporate sponsors.

Also realize that creating divisiveness among people is part of a carefully orchestrated plan that works in the oligarchy’s favor, so we really need to get smarter about how we engage in the political process and avoid falling for their carefully constructed and sophisticated strategies that limit us from achieving the changes we want and desperately need.

As long as we’re at each other’s throats, it distracts us from analyzing and addressing the underlying system that is creating the problems in the first place. So, let people have their opinion. Ultimately, controlling interests are writing the laws and paying the politicians to pass them. But knowledge is power, so use your knowledge to take control where it actually matters the most — locally.

The power of the individual is alive and well even in this deeply flawed system. It becomes yours by stepping OUTSIDE of the system with every decision and purchase you make. With every action you take, you also set the example for others to follow, thereby making you a change-agent within your own small circle of family, friends and acquaintances.

In the end, our collective actions will create the changes that are so desperately needed, and thinking locally will eventually have a global effect.

Remember, the industries that are currently buying our politicians and writing their own laws cannot maintain power without your ongoing financial support. While we may not have a significant choice in how our tax contributions are distributed to these industries through subsidies and contracts, we do have a very powerful influence by making responsible purchases each and every day.

Withdraw that support and you automatically redistribute financial power to a benevolent business aligned with your core principles. A perfect example of this is when you buy locally-grown foods from an organic farmer.

You’re empowering that farmer to continue growing foods for the community that support environmental regeneration and human health, and you’re disempowering the big junk food manufacturers that wield undue influence over agricultural policy. This is where your true power lies.

Food Independence Is the Key to Other Forms of Independence

It’s time to dissent, to step out of the globalist and federalist systems, starting with your food. If you cannot grow your own, then get to know the farmer that can. Keep your money in your community; the closer the better. Kissinger said it best:¹⁶

“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

If you don’t like the state of the nation (or the world), stop eating processed and ultraprocessed junk foods. Some may initially think this decision would have nothing to do with anything that is wrong in the world, but if you really give it some thought, you’ll realize that the more independence you gain with your food, the more independence you will create in other areas as well.

Because food is such a potent form of control, breaking that control mechanism will have a ripple effect that extends outward into many other industries and fields of activity, including the political arena.

As we move into 2023 and beyond, local food security will be more important than ever, as worldwide food shortages and famine are at our doorstep. So, prepare. If you don’t, many of your options will be eliminated, as you’ll be forced to accept the globalists standardization of the food system or starve.

*

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, 6 Democrats Against UN Agenda 21

² UN Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janerio, Brazil, June 3-14, 1992, Agenda 21 (PDF)

³ Report UN Conference on Environment and Development Volume 1, Resolutions Adopted June 1992 (PDF)

⁴ UN Sustainable Development Goals

⁵ UN Digital Library Report UN Conference on Environment and Development, Volume 2, Proceedings of the Conference

⁷ We Forum January 14, 2016

⁸ We Forum June 4, 2020

⁹ Twitter Margaret Thatcher October 24, 2022

¹⁰ Off the Grid News

¹¹ Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 Appeal Update

¹² Twitter Polimath October 23, 2022

¹³ Brownstone Institute October 23, 2022

¹⁴ The National Pulse July 16, 2022

¹⁵ Epoch Times October 23, 2022 (Archived)

¹⁶ Investmentwatchblog.com June 20, 2012

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 collective West” does not want peace for Ukraine.  Instead it wants war in an unsuccessful bid to “bleed Russia”.

The West was not seeking Peace when it orchestrated the bloody, unconstitutional Maidan coup, ousting elected President Yanukovych, who was forced to flee the country. (1)

Neither were the West and its agencies seeking Peace as they empowered nazism since the end of the Second World War where about 27 million Soviets perished in their fight against nazism. (2)

Nor was the West seeking Peace when France and Germany failed to enforce the Minsk Agreements, instead using them as a delay tactic to militarize and arm Ukraine and its nazis. Angela Merkel (3) and former Ukraine President Pyotr Poroshenk (4) both recently admitted that they used Minsk Accords to “buy time” and to militarize Ukraine to NATO standards.

It is telling too that writer and activist Yves Engler’s queries to Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland about Canada’s refusal to support negotiations with Russia were met with silence and a forceful ejection from the Rebuild Ukraine venue.

Instead it seems clear that the West seeks to prolong this war “to the last Ukrainian”, to the detriment of Ukraine, but also to the detriment of Europe itself, as it languishes beneath the yoke of US imperialism, at the cost of its own economies and its own independence.

Russia did not choose this war, but it did choose independence and sovereignty from willful Western aggression and unipolar trajectories.

*

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. “Washington’s Ukraine Coup”, marktaliano.net, (Washington’s Ukraine Coup/ By Prof. Chossudovsky )   Accessed 29 November, 2022.
2. Douglas Valentine, “Video: ‘The CIA has been developing Fascists in Ukraine for 70 years.’ ” Global Research, 28 November, 2022 (Video: “The CIA has been developing Fascists in Ukraine for 70 years.” Douglas Valentine – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization) Accessed 29 November, 2022.
3. News 18, “Ukraine War: Merkel Says Minsk Talks Helped Kyiv Buy Time, Prepare Better.” 25 November, 2022 ( Ukraine War: Merkel Says Minsk Talks Helped Kyiv Buy Time, Prepare Better (news18.com) ) Accessed 29 November, 2022.
4. RT-EN,  “Minsk Agreement II served to buy time.” 17 June, 2022. (Minsk Agreement II served to buy time — RT EN Former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has admitted that the 2015 ceasefire in Donbass, which he negotiated as Ukraine’s president with Russia, France and Germany, was merely a red herring to give Kyiv time to rebuild its military. (detv.us)) Accessed 29 November, 2022.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.