Global Research

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

This past week a video game company in trouble, Gamestop, became the center of media attention.  Day traders had driven up the company’s stock price by thousands of percent in just one day. The mainstream media narrative was the ‘small guy’ investor challenged the big boys of finance who had bet Gamestop stock price would contract, not rise sharply.  The little investor, so the story goes, initially won big but Gamestop’s stock price escalation was stopped in its tracks by coordinated forces of Wall St., as trading was abruptly halted later in the day in the midst of the run-up. But that narrative, that media spin, has it wrong.  The real meaning of what has happened is quite different.

The Facts

Earlier in the week stock day traders gathered on the platform called Reddit in what’s called a  crowdsourcing event. They communicated among themselves in a forum called ‘WallStBets’ and as a group began betting up the stock price of Gamestop, using the no cost stock trading platform called ‘Robinhood’. Similar moves were made against the movie theater chain, AMC, also in big financial trouble, with little revenue coming in but loaded up with mountains of junk debt. A couple other companies in similar condition were targeted by the day traders as well.  Stock prices of these companies—all losers or about to be losers—were in a matter of hours driven to record heights in some cases—as if these companies were raking in profits like a Tesla or Google. But there were no fundamental reasons for the price acceleration; in fact just the opposite.  Betting so, hedge funds and other financial market speculators were short selling their stock, betting their price would fall; and by ‘short selling’ they were actually manipulating the stock to force a price decline.

Short selling has a time limit on the bet. If the stock price doesn’t fall by a certain time, then all the money ‘bet’ by the short selling hedge fund is lost. As Gamestop’s price kept rising, some of them found themselves short of ‘liquidity’ (money) to cover their short sale bets. They had to sell other assets to pay for them. Or they have had to borrow money from other speculators and lenders (and pay interest) to cover their failed bets.

This had never happened before! That’s not how the system is supposed to run, the hedgies cried! The day traders weren’t playing by the rules of the game, they shouted!  But of course they were. It was the hedge funds very own rules. It was all quite capitalist legal.

It was kind of like a poker hand at a Casino.  If you bet your opponent isn’t holding a winning hand, you can raise the stakes and hope he drops out. You win the pot. But if some other player puts money on the table and raises you back, i.e. in this case raising the price of the stock like the day traders did with Gamestop, then they in effect call the hedge funds bluff; the hedge funds lose!  The hedgies didn’t like that, of course.  They are used to short selling without interference and then taking home the entire pot. But this time they didn’t. The day traders were winning the bet—at least the first hand played for the hedge funds got the Casino manager to change the house rules at the last minute to minimize their losses by halting further trading.

So the hedge funds, the big finance capitalist price speculators—as opposed to the crowdsourcing small day trader speculators—immediately changed the rules of the game, i.e. their rules, in order to teach the upstarts a lesson.

Robin Hood of Capitalist Finance

The small speculator capitalists used a trading system called Robin Hood in order to place their disruptive bets to drive up Gamestop’s stock price.  What’s Robin Hood? It’s a finance trading competitor to the Schwabs, Interactive Brokers, and other low cost stock trading platforms. In recent years there’s been a ‘race to the bottom’ in charges for stock trades across the trading industry. Who can charge the least per trade can steal trading market share from the others. Robin Hood broke into the sector by introducing ‘no fee’ trades. It appealed to the ‘day trader’ by peddling the message that Robin Hood was about enabling the small trader to compete with the big boys. Robin Hood promised to enable the small speculator day trader to make more money at the expense of the big boys like the hedgies.

Except Robin Hood kept it a secret from its day trader clientele that it was funded in large part by the same big hedge funds. In fact, one of its biggest, Citadel Securities, which reportedly had a $2.7B stake in Robin Hood.

So Robin Hood halted the day traders’ speculation in Gamestop…and almost certainly at the behest of Citadel and other Wall St. finance capitalists. By stopping the day traders driving up the price of Gamestop stock, it saved the hedge funds and other short sellers billions of dollars of potential additional losses. They next day, January 28, Gamestop and other targets’ stock prices began to retreat once again. While Robin Hood has since indicated day trading of Gamestop could resume, it would have certain limits on trading and Robin Hood made it clear it would halt trading again if necessary.

The CEO of Robin Hood was interviewed on CNN shortly after these events by host, Chris Cuomo, who asked outright: “How do you make sure Robin Hood isn’t rigging it for the Sheriff of Nottingham?”—the Sheriff of course being Citadel, other hedge funds, and other short selling institutional speculators.  Robin Hood’s CEO hemmed and hawed during the interview and hid behind the claim that it wasn’t Citadel or other  that made him halt the buying of Gamestop stock and its price escalation. No, Robin Hood was just following regulatory requirements by the SEC and other government regulatory bodies, its CEO argued.

Left unanswered, however, was why did Robin Hood stop the buying of Gamestop stock when the SEC and other real regulatory bodies did not intervene themselves to stop the trading in the stock?  When asked what regulatory agency asked Robin Hood to do so, the CEO had no answer to Cuomo. And why did Robin Hood halt only the buying of the stock that was driving up the price, but not the selling of the stock? Why did Robin Hood act as regulator, when the regulators saw no need to intervene? After all, the buying of Gamestop stock was no less legal than the short selling of Gamestop stock, according to capitalist regulatory rules. Government regulators didn’t tell Robin Hood it had to shut down Gamestop trades.  A smoking gun anyone?

A Finance Speculator Food Fight

What happened with Gamestop, Robin Hood, Citadel and who knows what other big boys behind the scene, is best understood as a feud between two wings of Finance Capital. This isn’t about the small mom and pop day trader David vs. the Hedge Fund Goliath! It isn’t about Goliath telling David to put down his sling because it’s not allowed to fight that way.

Both the hedge funds and the day traders are financial asset market speculators. What’s a speculator? It’s someone who ‘invests’ (aka bets) that the price of some stock or bond or derivative or currency will rise (or fall). The speculator then bets on the rise or fall by buying or short selling the stock. The objective is to then ‘flip’ the stock purchased in a relatively short time and thereby make a quick capital gain. It isn’t investing in a normal sense. It’s just the mere buying or selling of a piece of paper (or now mere electronic entry) claiming temporary ownership of the paper.  An actual investment is buying and holding a stock longer term in expectation of the company realizing future profits that will eventually drive up its stock value—in a company that actually makes things or provides an actual service, that requires hiring workers who in turn earn wages or revenue that would benefit the real economy.

In contrast, financial speculators are interested only in boosting demand for a stock in order to artificially drive up its price, then to flip it, and realize a financial profit—i.e. a capital gain.  Speculative investing is about making a purchase and then a quick sale to realize a capital gain. That may also take the form of a short sale—i.e. a contract to buy a stock after its price had fallen and sell it at its higher price at the time of the contract.  In both cases, its about selling after a price appreciation.

Make no mistake: the day traders driving up the price of Gamestop stock price weren’t doing it for the pleasure of tweaking the nose of short selling hedge funds. They were doing it to accelerate the stock price in order to later quickly sell it—just as the hedge funds were ‘short’ selling it for an expected profit as well. Only the method of the selling is different.

So both sides were planning on ‘selling’ Gamestop stock—just in different ways. The day traders by driving up the price by buying it first; the hedgies by reserving the right to sell the stock at yesterday’s price, after they ‘buy’ it when the price collapses tomorrow.

In other words, they’re both financial stock speculators. They’re both committing money capital that could—and should—be invested in the real economy not in paper claims of temporary ownership. Real investment is about longer term money capital commitment in order to make real things or services that required hiring and paying wages.

Both forms of stock price speculators are thus vultures preying on the real economy and undermining its recovery! They divert much needed money capital from the real economy into the financial sector that produces no actual economic growth, no jobs, no wage incomes, no consumption. The day traders aren’t the ‘poor little guy’ being exploited by big Wall St. hedge funds. They’re part of the problem.

Day Trading Is Also Casino Capitalism

Crowdsourcing day trading stock speculation is just the latest form of Casino capitalism, clashing with traditional financial speculators dominated by hedge funds, private equity companies, investment banks, and the other forms of shadow bank institutions that have risen in recent decades to prominence and power in 21^st century capitalism. The newcomers are just fighting for a piece of the finance asset speculation pie, previously eaten whole by the hedge funds and the other shadow banks and professional investors.

It’s therefore absolute nonsense to make the latest specie of financial speculators—the crowdsourcing day traders—appear as if they are the ‘little guy’ being crushed by big guy Wall St. players. This isn’t about small financial speculator good, large financial speculator bad. This is a family food fight between sectors of capitalist finance.

The real question is what has given rise to the family food fight? What has enabled it in the first place? And how does it reflect a deeper social crisis in the country?

Technology the Great System Destabilizer

Technology in general, and social media in particular, has contributed significantly to the growing political instability in America. It has enabled conspiracy theories and lies to displace debate over facts. Without technology and social media there would have been no Trump, Trumpism, Breitbart, Parler, Proud Boys-Oath Takers, political institutional collapse, and now accelerating decline of Democracy in America. Technology may not be the fundamental cause of the above, but it certainly has been a major enabler of the deepening of the more fundamental causes.

Think of Reddit, the day trader’s WallStBets app, Robin Hood, etc. as the financial markets analog to the Breitbarts, Parlers, etc. in the sphere of political markets! Technology is disrupting 21^st century capitalism in myriad ways. The Moloch has begun to devour itself!

Technology has enabled the day trader speculator gang to challenge the hedge funds and other shadow banks’ ability to manipulate the capitalist speculator show as they will.  It has enabled the ‘small’ investor to aggregate his bets into a big enough play to compete with the traditional finance capitalists; it has enabled the ‘small’ investor to inter-communicate and coordinate those bets; and it has enable the concentration of financial bets to move a stock or even perhaps a market—contrary to the bets of the hedgies and other traditional speculators.  And that’s what has really pissed off the latter.

So the old speculators quickly struck back! And their political allies will now hold meetings and deliver yet another slap on the wrist of the newcomers. Congress has already called committee hearings to figure out how to deal with it should it happen again.

The Real Origins of the Conflict

The ‘small guy’ crowdsourcing financial speculators aren’t really so ‘small’. Virtually all the stock trading by day traders is done by players who are easily within the wealthiest 5% of households in the US, and probably even fewer.  So where have they gotten their money capital to make such bets sufficient to challenge the established rules of the game? The same place that the hedge funds and others ultimately get their money capital.

Since at least the past quarter century the central bank of the US, the Federal Reserve, has pumped tens of trillions of dollars into the banking system. The big commercial banks affiliated with the Fed—i.e. Chases, Wells, Citi, Bank of America—in turn have loaned the tens of trillions of dollars to the shadow banks—i.e. investment banks, private equity, VCs, hedge funds, etc. They in turn redirect much of it into financial asset markets—stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc. They reap record financial profits for themselves and their owners and members, who then redirect it back into the same markets as well.

At the same time, the US tax system has been turned on its head:  More than $15 trillion in tax cuts has flowed to the investor class since 2001. That too gets largely redirected into financial markets.

Then there’s the corporate conduit itself. US corporations have redistributed more than a $ trillion dollars a year on average, every year, since 2010 to their shareholders in the form of stock buybacks and dividend payouts. Under Trump, the average for 2017-19 was $1.3 trillion a year. The deep tax cuts on capital gains since 2001 means the shareholders then get to keep more of the buybacks and dividend payouts, and that in turn means even more funneled into financial asset markets.

So the Fed’s monetary policy, the US government’s tax policy, and corporations’ buybacks-dividend practices have all converged the past two decades to keep the US and global stock markets ever rising.  But the hedge funds haven’t been the only investors grown fat on the redirecting of massive money capital to investors. Nearly all within the top 5% of the income scale—and that means the day trader crowd—have benefited as well.

The crowdsourcing ‘small guy’ has had excess money capital with which to risk in speculative trades like Gamestop no less than the hedge funds—thanks to the Fed, government, and corporate America.  Add the new technologies to the dry powder of excess speculative capital and the mix is explosive. It’s a witches brew of financial speculation!

The Realization Behind the Appearance

What appeals in this story of Gamestop is the appearance of ‘small guys’ getting screwed by the big guys even after they figure out how to ‘win one’.  The Gamestop affair is just another confirmation for John Q. Public that the system is rigged. Gamestop is an example of how those with wealth and power are able to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game to ensure they will always come out on top! And they not only do it to ‘us’. They do it to each other. The big fish always eat the smaller, even the smaller of their own species.

But one should be less concerned about day traders getting burned, and more about the tens of millions of Americans families going hungry, jobless, being evicted from their rents, and dying in the hundreds of thousands due to a failed health care system and gross government mismanagement. The day trading stock speculators will survive. Many who have no idea what a stock trade is may not.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Jack Rasmus writes on his blog site, Jack Rasmus, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Democratic Party and its corporate media have already white-washed Biden, and nothing will be demanded of him except that he not be Trump.

The bad orange man is now back in Florida. Donald Trump, known as “45” by people who refused to speak his name, is history. His accidental presidency is now a bad memory and the sight of him taking his last flight onboard Air Force One was a moment of relief at the very least. Unfortunately, there is too much joy and not enough analysis about his departure and the new Biden administration.

Inauguration day was of course full of pomp and ceremony but this year there was more propaganda than usual. Some of it appeared to be trivial, such as the news that former first ladies wore purple to signify unity between red and blue states. But the pro-Biden narrative is strong, so much so that a New York Times editor deviated from the rules of journalistic ethics and declared, “I have chills,” upon watching his arrival in Washington.

It was especially sad to see black people being entirely too enthusiastic about the occasion. There was excitement at the sight of the Obamas, and Michelle’s lovely outfit and a young black poet reciting her work at the event. Kamala Harris was sworn in as vice president and added a fist bump with Barack Obama to put icing on the cake.

“A New York Times editor declared, ‘I have chills.’”

Anyone who dared bring a skunk to the party and point out that the promised $2,000 stimulus was reduced to $1,400 and that no one will see this tiny amount until April, was deemed a sneering killjoy who wanted to rain on others’ parades. The lament ran along the lines of, “Can’t we be happy for one day?” Of course, individuals can be as happy as they would like but that is no reason for anyone else to censor themselves.

Joe Biden is in a position to be a very dangerous president precisely because he follows Trump. The sighs of relief give him an opportunity to get away with just about anything he wants. We have already seen the rehabilitation of George W. Bush, election thief and killer of up to 1 million Iraqis, all because he seemed nicer than Trump. Barack Obama could destroy Libya, bail out banks and claim a right to kill anyone he wanted but he had a formidable marketing team, solid support from corporate media, and the gift of knowing how to play to the crowd.

The Democratic Party and its corporate media have already white-washed Biden, a right wing senator, mediocre vice presidential sidekick, and architect of mass incarceration. They protected him as soon as it was clear the Democratic Party establishment had chosen him to be their nominee. They covered up when it was clear he was not in good health and invented a story of a stutter that no one had ever heard in his 48 years in public life. Twitter banned anyone from sharing the story of his son Hunter Biden’s lost laptop and evidence that he met with Ukrainians who were paying $50,000 a month for a no-show position at an energy company. Joe Biden has more than the secret service giving him protection.

“The sighs of relief give Biden an opportunity to get away with just about anything he wants.”

We are told that Joe is a devout Catholic who loves his wife and is a good and decent man and a loving dad. He is honorable, patriotic and even mentioned white supremacy in his inaugural speech. Of course, the United States is foundationally white supremacist but raising that point consigns one to killjoy status.

No one wants to be thought of as the party pooper but no one should want to be a chump either. The man who was supposed to save us from Trump’s COVID-19 ineptitude  now says that the disease trajectory is such that he can’t do anything about the death toll which he estimates will rise to 600,000 victims.

The for-profit health care system can’t produce enough hospital beds for the already sick or enough vaccine to prevent further harm. The 50 states have 50 different rules for inoculations. Some have run out of the vaccines while others are throwing away a supply that can no longer be used. Of course, Trump will be blamed forever and the miracle that was supposed to come with a new president is nothing but cheap talk.

Of course foreign policy hasn’t changed either. Biden will keep the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, and continue to recognize Trump’s hand picked fake Venezuelan president Juan Guaido. His nominee for secretary of state spits out the usual attacks on China with phony charges of genocide. While the Syrian government demanded that the United States stop stealing its oil , the U.S. announced that it would increase its deployment levels  in that country which wants it to go away.

Biden will be like his old boss Obama, not a lesser evil, but a more effective one. His level of effectiveness is directly tied to the support he receives from the donor class and the corporate media. The stimulus is too little too late and so is any COVID response. That is not how the story will be told, however. The Trump specter will be pulled out of the closet and cheap identity politics along with it. “Do you prefer Trump?” “Can’t you give Biden a chance?” “A black woman is the vice president!”

Let those who want to be happy at this state of affairs enjoy the moment. Although no one else should silence themselves or stop paying attention. Many crises are coming to a head, and Kamala Harris and her wardrobe choices won’t save anyone.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at patreon.com/margaretkimberley and she regularly posts on Twitter @freedomrideblog. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Featured image is from Black Agenda Report

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

With the global technocrats taking the world through the “Going Direct” Reset into the abyss of the End of Currency and the ultimate transhuman slave state, things could not be more dire.

But, as Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com tells us, there are options on the table for taking things in a completely different direction and unlocking the incredible abundance of the planet.

The choice is ours, but for how long? Don’t miss this important, solutions-focused discussion on The State of Our Currencies.

VIDEO

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“YPG is a sub-affiliate of the Kurdistan’s Working Party (PKK), which is designated by the United States government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization”, according to the US justice department. 

Federal law enforcement agents arrested Daniel Baker of Tallahassee, Florida. He had specifically called for others to join him in encircling any protestors and confining them at the Florida Capitol complex on January 15 using firearms. Baker, a former US Army Airborne infantryman received an other-than-honorable discharge in 2007 after he went AWOL before his unit was to deploy to Iraq. In 2017, he joined the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a Kurdish group fighting in Syria against ISIS and the Turkish government. He claimed on social media that he was a trained sniper for the YPG, who is a sub-affiliate of the Kurdistan’s Working Party (PKK), which is designated by the US as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Surprisingly, the US army has had good relations with the YPG in North-East Syria. The US provided the militia with air support and training, it has also armed and funded them since 2014. The Pentagon issued a $550-million-dollar budget in 2019, and a $200-million-dollar budget to the YPG in 2020.

The question is: how will the Biden administration explain continuing support of a Foreign Terrorist Organization, even though it was inherited from the Trump administration.

On January 18, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia will not “chase” the US military out from Syria or engage in hostilities, but it does engage in a dialogue with Washington, trying to ensure compliance with certain rules, while he noted that Russia is adamant about the unacceptability “of the use of force against the objects that belong to the Syrian state.”

UN Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted unanimously, demands to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of the Syrian Arab Republic. “What the US does in Syria is, of course, a blatant violation of this resolution,” the minister said, referring to the plundering of the nation’s oil resources.

“Washington’s line on blocking shipments of humanitarian aid to the Syrian Arab Republic via all possible means of blackmail and ultimatums, is a violation of this resolution, as well,” the Foreign minister noted.

While forbidding everyone from sending humanitarian aid to Syria, the US itself has “occupied significant territories on the east bank of Euphrates, and exploit mercilessly the Syrian hydrocarbons, Syrian national wealth, the rob it, sell it, and using the money gained, they fund their viceroys, including the Kurdish separatists, persuading the Kurds not to engage in a dialogue with Damascus, and promoting separatist ideas.” Lavrov further reminded all that nobody invited the Americans into Syria.

On January 18, the latest negotiations between the Kurds of North East Syria and Damascus have reached an impasse. Sponsored by Russia, the negotiations were initiated in response to the military operation launched by the Turkish-backed terrorists in December to control Ain Issa, the de facto political capital of the Kurds.

The central government of Damascus and its forces represent an option for the Kurds in the event of any Turkish threat. During the “Peace Spring” military operation, launched by Turkey in October 2019, the Kurds resorted to Russian and Syrian forces to protect them, and repel the invasion.

The Kurds attempt to hold their political capital at Ain Issa. They have an option to coordinate with Russian forces to take control of Ain Issa, which would lead to the return of the city to Damascus control, and Turkey would accept that, as long as the SDF, YPG, and all the Kurdish separatist institutions were removed.

Syrian permanent representative to the United Nations Bashar al-Jaafari sent the first message to the Biden administration, newly in office. During a virtual session of the UN Security Council, Jaafari called for an immediate change in Washington’s foreign policy in Syria.

“The American occupation forces continue to plunder Syria’s wealth of oil, gas, and agricultural crops, burning and destroying what it cannot steal,” Jaafari said.

“The new US administration must stop acts of aggression and occupation, plundering the wealth of my country, withdraw its occupying forces from it, and stop supporting separatist militias, illegal entities, and attempts to threaten Syria’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity,” Jaafari said.

The American troops have been tasked with maintaining control over oil and gas sites, where the Trump administration sought to bring in US energy companies. The US and partnered SDF, and YPG militias, operate without permission from the Syrian government, which is backed by Russia and Iran.

Russian efforts to reconcile between the Kurdish militias and the central government in Damascus have repeatedly collapsed despite their common desire to end the war and expel a Turkish invasion headed by Radical Islamic terrorists.

 “Companies like Exxon and Chevron don’t do this kind of thing,” said James Cain, one of the three founders of the US oil company, Delta Crescent Energy. “It’s too pioneering; too adventuresome; some might say too risky,” said James Cain, the former US ambassador to Denmark. His US company wants to explore, refine and export oil from North-East Syria.

The Kurds are willing to do business with the American company, which has a rare US sanctions waiver allowing it to engage in the Syrian oil trade, obtained under the Trump administration.

The region remains at risk of attack from either Turkey or IS, and is under occupation by 900 US soldiers. The oilfields are Syrian owned resources, and the Kurds, SDF, and YPG do not have legal title to the oil, which has current output estimated at just 30,000 barrels a day.

The Kurds do not allow either the Russians or the Damascus administration direct access to the fields.

Former US President Donald Trump threatened twice to pull American soldiers out of the north-east, but reversed his decision after a backlash in Washington and has previously said troops are still there “only for the oil”, which is currently processed in thousands of hazardous makeshift refineries. Sold cut-price on the black market, it earned up to $3m a day in revenues for the SDF before the 2020s oil price crash.

President Joe Biden, and his Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, will have to ponder a new strategy on Syria.  Biden has portrayed himself as morally superior to Donald Trump.  Will Biden order the US troops to stop plundering the oil in Syria, and to disengage with a militia that has ties to the PKK, who are responsible for over 30,000 deaths from terrorist acts in Turkey spanning decades?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Senate confirmation hearings for Biden’s cabinet appointees — which began the week of Jan. 18 — should serve as a sharp warning of the continuation of dangerous U.S. war policies.

The corporate media has focused on Biden’s promise to overturn many of former-President Trump’s policies. But Biden pledged throughout his campaign to make “no substantial change” — and his foreign policy appointments show he meant that. Despite the media talk of justice, new policy and diversity, behind the scenes the same old U.S. militarist policies are being reinforced through Biden’s cabinet choices and their direct ties to industry-funded think tanks and military contractors.

Biden’s cabinet nominations follow the failed imperialist policies of the Trump, Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton and Bush Sr. administrations of the past three decades. These choices are ominous for working people in the U.S. and for people around the world suffocating under the knee of U.S. imperialism.

The appointment and testimony of war hawk Anthony Blinken, nominated to serve as secretary of state, is one of many searing examples of Biden’s militarist stance.

Blinken, in his Jan. 19 confirmation testimony, was clear that he supports expanding imperialist war in Syria, saying: “The U.S. is not doing enough.” He is for “unrelenting pressure on North Korea [the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea]” to “cut off all resources.” He is for expanded deployment of missiles to surround and pressure China. He is for new demands and continued sanctions on Iran. He supports continued efforts to overthrow the elected government of Venezuela. (Blinken’s full testimony is available at tinyurl.com/yyr7k58w.)

Blinken also testified: “Our commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct, and this is something that the president–elect feels very strongly.” He repeatedly praised Trump policy on normalizing relations between apartheid Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, emphasizing: “There are a number of things from where I sat that the Trump administration did beyond our borders that I would applaud.” Right-wing racist South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham called Blinken an “outstanding choice.”  (Washington Post, Jan. 19)

Military-industrial insiders

Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state under Obama, is well–known for trading on his past government positions to get lucrative consulting jobs with military contractors. Blinken co-founded WestExec Advisors, a secretive consulting firm for military industries like Boeing and for major banks and investment firms such as Bank of America and Blackstone.

WestExec has actually been called a shadow “government-in-waiting” for former Obama administration officials tied to U.S. military policy. (politico.com, Nov. 23, 2020)  It boasts on its website that its name “is derived from ‘West Executive Avenue,’ the closed street that runs between the West Wing of the White House and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. It is, quite literally, the road to the Situation Room.”

WestExec partners are former government officials, military officers and diplomats. By defining themselves as “strategic consultants,” they can avoid becoming registered lobbyists or foreign agents and can thus (re)enter government service without the one-year wait required of paid lobbyists. The clients who consult with WestExec are kept secret.

Recently confirmed Biden cabinet nominee General Lloyd Austin has been affiliated with WestExec Advisors, as well as sitting on the board of the one of the largest U.S. weapons manufacturers, Raytheon. Austin formerly served as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and special forces in Syria. His appointment required a special waiver since by U.S. law; the secretary of defense must be a civilian.

Avril Haines, recently confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, has also been affiliated with WestExec. As the former deputy director of the CIA, Haines headed its drone program and helped create the legal justification for targeted killings as a normalized action within U.S. foreign policy. Along with assassination by drone strikes, she supported U.S. economic sanctions that attack the nutrition and health of civilian populations of entire countries.

According to Politico News, WestExec is loaded with other former top Democratic national security and foreign policy officials who raised money for the Biden campaign, have joined his transition team or have served as unofficial advisers. Many other consultants are expected to receive Biden appointments.  (tinyurl.com/y2hydkdm)

Think-tank war hawks

There are a variety of other think-tank and strategic consulting firms that provide extremely well-funded positions for government officials — both Republicans and Democrats — between government appointments. The role of these think tanks is to develop a well-vetted and experienced staff who are on-call to serve corporate power both inside government and out.

A 2020 report from the Center for International Policy found that defense contractors, as well as U.S. government national security and defense agencies, contributed more than $1 billion to 50 of the most influential U.S. think tanks over the last five years.

Other recent think-tank appointees by Biden include Kathleen Hicks as deputy secretary of defense. She served as senior vice president of CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), the most hawkish think tank in Washington. CSIS  is funded by and acts as an “influence center” for giant military industries such as BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Hicks opposes the drawdown of U.S. troops from South Korea, Afghanistan and Syria.

Kurt Campbell — chairman of The Asia Group, a “strategy and capital advisory” think tank — has been appointed to the newly created position of National Security Council Indo-Pacific coordinator. Campbell, as the former deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, was considered the architect of Obama’s “Pivot to Asia.” This was a provocative policy of repositioning missile batteries, troops and aircraft carriers to encircle China and threaten the DPRK. His new role as Biden’s “Asia Czar” is to integrate anti-China strategy and strengthen U.S. alliances in the region.

The naming of Victoria Nuland as under secretary of state is especially revealing of Biden’s militarist policy. Nuland has served as the CEO of CNAS (Center for New American Security), another well-funded military think tank. She has also been with the Albright Stonebridge Group, a think tank set up by former-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Nuland served in both the Bush-Cheney administration and the Obama-Biden administration.

Under the latter administration, as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, Nuland bragged that she helped engineer the 2014 fascist coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, using $5 billion in funding from National Endowment for Democracy.

All these appointees promoted U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya;  starvation sanctions on Venezuela, Korea and Iran; and U.S. plans to reinforce NATO against Russia, surround the DPRK and especially threaten China militarily and economically.

These appointments contradict those liberal and social democratic forces who argued that Biden could be pushed into progressive policies by left pressure.

Wars abroad — and wars at home

Within 24 hours of Biden’s inauguration, a large convoy of U.S. military supported by helicopter gunships headed into Syria from Iraq, according to the SANA, the Syrian state news agency. The convoy of 40 trucks, loaded with weapons and logistical materials, reinforced illegal bases in the area.Tons of U.S. heavy equipment were observed travelling toward U.S. positions at the Conoco oil and gas field. This aggression continues the direct imperialist theft of Syria’s oil resources and is intended to disrupt Syria’s efforts to rebuild and provide for its war-torn population. (tinyurl.com/y3tor8fq)

This convoy movement showed the Biden administration’s rush to affirm its absolute commitment to ruthlessly enforce U.S. imperialist interests, within a “two-party system” unified in serving U.S. capitalism.

U.S. wars provided guaranteed profits and lucrative military contracts stretching back through decades to banks and military industries. The trillions for endless war leaves working people in the U.S. holding empty promises, while they struggle and die in the surge of the COVID-19 virus, in the grip of racist police and under the collapsing infrastructure of an economy in crisis.

The trillions spent on war for profit could easily alleviate all these crises and give health, housing and hope to the millions of U.S. working and oppressed people.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Workers World.

Featured image: Jan. 25, 2020, Philadelphia. (Joe Piette via Workers World)

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for the many justifies the sacrifices for the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The rights of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interests of others.” – Arthur Caplan, Bioethicist, 1992

This quote from bioethicist Caplan is a fine statement for his times, but, 3 decades later, well-informed, (non-corporate-based) scientists and other ethical experts would agree that, today, in 2020, the quote should be amended thusly:

“Today the ‘experimenters’ in 2020, should be identified as the powerful, influential, wealthy, profit-seeking corporate entities that are seeking profits from the sacrifices of those that are uninterested, uninformed, thoroughly propagandized or otherwise ‘enslaved.’”

–Dr. Gary G. Kohls, February 1, 2021

*

Frequently Asked Questions About Informed Consent

by National Vaccine Information Centre (NVIC)

Informed consent has been the central ethical principle of the practice of modern medicine since the Nuremberg Code was issued by the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II. Although the Nuremberg Code specifically addressed the human right for human beings to give their voluntary informed consent to participate in scientific experiments, the First Principle of the Nuremberg Code has become an ethical standard for allowing patients to give their voluntary consent to engage in medical interventions that carry a risk of harm.

The first principle of the Nuremberg Code includes the following language:

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent, should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision…..”

This informed consent principle has been embraced by enlightened physicians, hospitals, HMO’s and medical researchers to protect the right of patients and their guardians to voluntarily accept or decline medical interventions, including testing, use of prescription drugs and surgery that involve a risk of injury or death.

Vaccination is a medical intervention that carries a risk of injury or death, which is greater for some than others. Therefore, the right to voluntary, informed consent to vaccination can be considered a human right.

As your child’s legal guardian, you are responsible for your child’s health and well being. You have the responsibility to become fully informed about vaccines and you should have the right make voluntary choices about whether or not to risk your life or your child’s life with a vaccine or any other procedure a medical doctor recommends.

If you, as a parent, are concerned that continuing vaccination would harm your child and a doctor is insisting more vaccines be given without your voluntary consent, you should contact another trusted health care professional for a second opinion. If your child has experienced health deterioration after previous vaccinations, it is important listen to your parental instincts and be totally comfortable with a vaccination decision for your child before proceeding with more vaccination.

The more educated you become about vaccines, the more empowered you will become and the better able you will be to stand up for your right to informed consent to medical risk taking. To learn more about informed consent, click here.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

It’s been a busy first week for the 46th President of the United States, there are the 20,000 troops occupying the capital city to organise, as well as the totally unprecedented show-trial of his immediate predecessor.

You know, usual democracy type stuff.

On top of that, Biden has now signed at least 37 executive orders in his first week. The record for any President, and more than the previous four presidents combined.

What do these orders, or any of his other moves, tell us about the future plans of the recently “elected” administration? Nothing good, unfortunately.

1. VACCINATION PASSPORTS

I still remember people claiming the introduction of vaccination passports (or immunity passes or the like) was just a “conspiracy theory”, the paranoid fantasy of fringe “covidiots”. All the way back in December, when they were getting fact-checked by tabloid journalists who can’t do basic maths.

These days they are rebranded as “freedom certificates” which are “divisive, politically tricky and probably inevitable”.

Many countries are already preparing to roll it out, including Iceland the UK and South Africa. Biden’s “Executive Order on Promoting COVID-19 Safety in Domestic and International Travel” adds the US to this list:

International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (including through the Administrator of the TSA), in coordination with any relevant international organizations, shall assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) and producing electronic versions of ICVPs.

2. CABINET APPOINTMENTS

Biden’s cabinet is praised as the “most diverse” in history, but will hiring a few non-white people really change the decades-old policies of US Imperialism? It certainly doesn’t look like it.

His pick for Under Secretary of State is Victoria Nuland, a neocon warmonger and one of the masterminds of the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014. She is married to Robert Kagan, another neocon warmonger, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and one of the masterminds behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is also an inveterate US Imperialist, arguing for every US military intervention since the 1990s, and criticised Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria.

Biden’s pick for Defence Secretary is the first African-American ever appointed to this role, but former General Lloyd Austin is hardly going be some kind of “progressive” voice int his cabinet. He’s a career soldier who retired from the military in 2016 to join the board of Raytheon Technologies, an arms manufacturer and military contractor.

As “diverse” as this cabinet may be in skin colour or gender…there is most certainly no “diversity” of opinion or policy. There are very few new faces and no new thoughts.

So, it looks like we can expect more of the same in terms of foreign policy. A fact that’s already been displayed in…

3. IRAQ…

Despite heavy resistance from the military and Deep State, Donald Trump wanted to end the war in Iraq and pledged to pull American troops out of the country. This was one of Trump’s more popular policies, and during the campaign Biden made no mention of intending to reverse that decision.

Then, on the very day of Biden’s inauguration, ISIS conducted their deadliest suicide bombing for over three years, and suddenly the situation was too unstable for the US to leave, and Biden is being forced to “review” Trump’s planned withdrawal.

The Iraqi parliament has made it clear it wants the US to take its military off their soil, so any American forces on Iraqi land are technically there illegally in contravention of international law. But that never bothered them before.

4. …AFGHANISTAN…

Turns out the US can’t withdraw from Afghanistan either. Last February Trump signed a deal with the Taliban that all US personnel would leave Afghanistan by May 2021.

Joe Biden has already committed to “reviewing” this deal. Sec. Blinken was quoted as saying that Biden’s admin wanted:

to end this so-called forever war [but also] retain some capacity to deal with any resurgence of terrorism, which is what brought us there in the first place”.

As a great man once said, nothing someone says before the word “but” really counts. The US will not be withdrawing from Afghanistan, and if there is any public pressure to do so, the government will simply claim the Taliban broke their side of the deal first, or stage a few terrorist attacks.

5. …AND SYRIA

Far from simply continuing the on-going wars, there are already signs Biden’s “diverse” team will look to escalate, or even start, other conflicts.

Syria was another theatre of war from which Donald Trump wanted to extricate the United States, unilaterally ordering all US troops from the country in late 2019.

We now know the Pentagon ignored those orders. They lied to the President, telling Trump they had followed his orders…but not withdrawing a single man. This organized mutiny against the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces was played for a joke in the media when it was finally revealed.

There will be no need for any such duplicity now Biden is in the Oval Office, he was a vocal critic of the decision to withdraw, claiming it gave ISIS a “new lease of life”. Indeed, within two days of his being sworn in a column of American military vehicles was seen entering Syria from Iraq.

6. DOMESTIC TERRORISM

We called this before the inauguration. They made it just too obvious. Before the dirty footprints had been cleaned from Nancy Pelosi’s desk it was clear where it was all going.

Within 24 hours of being sworn in as president, Biden had ordered a “review of the threat posed by domestic terrorism”.

As usual, the press are laying down the covering fire for this. Talking heads have been busily comparing MAGA voters to al Qaida in television interviews. The Washington Post and New Yorker Journal have cut-and-paste pieces about this supposed threat. Politico published an article titled “Biden vowed to defeat domestic terrorism. The how is the hard part”, which outlines what Biden could do:

Direct the Justice Department, FBI and National Security Council to execute a top-down approach prioritizing domestic terrorism; pass new domestic terrorism legislation; or do a bit of both as Democrats propose a crack down on social media giants like Facebook for algorithms that promote conspiracy laden posts.

That last part is key. The “crack down on social media” part, because the anti-Domestic Terrorism legislation will likely be very focused on communication and so-called “misinformation”.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has publicly called for a congressional panel to “rein in” the media:

We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation,”

And who will be the target of these crack downs and new legislations? Well, according John Brennan (ex-head of the CIA and accomplished war criminal), practically anybody:

.@JohnBrennan: Biden intel community “are moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about” the pro-Trump “insurgency” that harbors “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians” pic.twitter.com/SjVXWhPhR8

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 20, 2021

They’re casting a wide net. Expect “extremist”, “bigot” and “racist” to be just a few of the words which have their meanings totally revised in the next few months. “Conspiracy theorist” will be used a lot, too.

Further, they are moving closer and closer toward the “anyone who disagrees with us is literally insane” model. With many articles actually talking about “de-programming” Trump voters. The Atlantic suggests “mental hygiene” would cure the MAGA problem.

Again AOC is on point here, clearly auditioning for the role of High Inquisitor, claiming that the new Biden government needs to fund programs that “de-radicalise” “conspiracy theorists” who are on the “spectrum of radicalisation”.

*

As I said at the beginning, it’s been a busy week for Joe Biden, but you can sum up his biggest policy plans in one short sentence: More violence overseas, less tolerance of dissent and strict clampdowns on “misinformation”.

How progressive.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In its latest report, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) kept its Doomsday Clock at its closest level ever to armageddon at 100 to midnight.

“(W)e are now at the two-minute warning due to the man-made threats of climate change and nuclear war,” said BAS director Rachel Bronson, adding:

Most disturbing is the “undermining of science and law-based approaches to solving major world problems and discarding of international agreements by influenti al leaders.”

Bronson erroneously stressed an invented, not a real, “coronavirus pandemic threat” since last year.

The threat (seasonal flu-renamed covid) occurs annually from around October to May.

Earlier it was without state-sponsored/media proliferated fear-mongering mass hysteria, lockdowns, quarantines, mask-wearing, and social distancing that caused infinitely more harm than what happens each year like clockwork.

The real threat is from manufactured economic collapse and erosion of freedoms — heading for eliminating them altogether.

Other major issues — that include US war on humanity at home and abroad — make today the most perilous time in world history.

If the ominous trend continues, free and open societies will be replaced by ruler/serf ones unfit to live in for most people.

That’s where things are heading with no signs of abating.

Founded by Albert Einstein and University of Chicago scientists in 1945, the annually set Doomsday Clock highlights “threats to humanity and the planet.”

It’s “a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and disruptive technologies in other domains.”

Things today are much more dire than a year ago by design of dark forces in the US and West, including a greater risk of nuclear war.

According to the BAS, “the potential” of what’s unthinkable increased last year.

What the BAS and I call a new abnormal “tightened its grip…in the past year, increasing the likelihood of catastrophe.”

The BAS largely addressed the threats of nuclear war and environmental disaster.

In my judgment, the greatest near-term threat is growing totalitarian rule in the US and West on a fast track toward full-blown tyranny, what the BAS left unaddressed and establishment media suppress.

The BAS stressed that “the existential threats of nuclear weapons and climate change) (that) have intensified in recent years because of a threat multiplier: the continuing corruption of the information ecosphere…”

It denounced the “wanton disregard for science…”

It failed to condemn virtual abolition of the rule of law in the West, along with exploitation of ordinary people by the US and other Western countries to benefit privileged ones.

The BAS called brazen US 2020 Election fraud a “conspiracy theory.”

Nor did it explain that unelected Joe Biden is too cognitively impaired to handle duties of the office handed him by US dark forces.

Dubious “positive” steps by the Biden/Harris regime haven’t “yielded substantive progress” toward a safer world. They haven’t “move(d) the Clock away from midnight,” the BAS admitted.

It failed to explain that the new regime continues dirty business as usual like its predecessors.

Its hostility toward Russia, China, Iran, and other invented enemies risks unthinkable war against one or more of the above.

It’s because of US rage for dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations.

Based on cited reasons, BAS Science and Security Board Members kept “the Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to civilization-ending apocalypse…”

Left unexplained is that Russia, China, Iran and other nations are forced to upgrade their military capabilities because of US threats to their security.

Failing to act defensively would be irresponsible. Worse still, perceived weakness incentivizes US aggression to gain other imperial trophies.

The US bears full responsibility for the growing “potential to stumble into nuclear war…”

The BAS falsely accused Iran of “enhanc(ing) its nuclear capabilities”— implying the threat of developing nuclear weapons its ruling authorities earlier banned and want eliminated everywhere.

Calling its lawful actions under JCPOA Articles 26 and 36 “another serious concern” ignored Iran’s legitimate nuclear program with no military component and no evidence of an intention to seek one.

The BAS falsely praised what it called Biden’s “desire to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal.”

At this time, as publicly stated and likely to remain hard-wired US policy, rejoining the landmark agreement depends on Iran’s willingness to accept unacceptable US demands — ones it rejects.

The BAS falsely accused Iran of “reducing (its) amount of time…to put together a nuclear weapon from one year to several months.”

Ignored was Tehran’s sworn opposition to these weapons.

There’s no evidence refuting the above, plenty supporting it.

The BAS also falsely claimed that “Iran’s willingness to remain in the agreement is not a given.”

Its ruling authorities very much want the JCPOA preserved. At the same time, if the US and E3 countries remain in noncompliance, the agreement will dissolve.

It cannot endure unless all its signatories comply with its provisions, especially the US. That’s very much not the case now.

The BAS also failed to explain that Iran prioritizes peace, stability, cooperative relations with other nations, and adherence to the rule of law.

It’s in stark contrast to US wars on humanity at home and abroad — together with its imperial partners.

If nuclear war occurs ahead, it’ll be made-in-the-USA against one or more nations on its target list for regime change.

The US bears full responsibility for advancing the Doomsday Clock to and maintaining it 100 seconds to midnight — together with its belligerent imperial partners.

Falsely saying seasonal flu-renamed covid caused “the worst pandemic in a century” by the BAS ignores that global outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths are similar to what occurred in most earlier years.

No evidence indicates that the Biden/Harris regime will “show leadership by reducing US reliance on nuclear (and other) weapons via limits on their roles, missions, and platforms, and by decreasing budgets accordingly.”

Polar opposite is virtually certain.

The same is true about possible US first strike use of nuclear weapons.

Bush/Cheney’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) asserted the US right to preemptively and unilaterally declare and wage future wars using first strike nuclear weapons.

Obama/Biden’s 2010 and 2015 National Security Strategies pledged US first-strike use of these weapons against any adversary, nuclear armed or not.

Trump vowed and implemented a policy of “greatly strengthen(ing) and expand(ing) the US nuclear capabilities.”

It’s virtually certain that Biden/Harris will continue this policy along with US war on humanity.

They escalated it straightaway at home by pushing harmful to health mass-vaxxing.

It’s likely to be followed by requiring vaccine passports for access to public places.

Both right wings of the US war party pose an unparalleled threat to most everyone everywhere.

Looking ahead, things are far more likely to worsen than improve.

The dystopian Great Reset new world order US dark forces and their co-conspirators seek is catastrophic to the rights and welfare of ordinary people everywhere.

With the Spanish civil war as its backdrop, Hemingway wrote “For Whom the Bell Tolls.”

In times of forever wars by hot and other means by the US at home and abroad, it tolls for thee.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

“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
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
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 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Cuban Revolution has given an extraordinary impetus to the desire for integration of Latin America and the Caribbean expressed throughout its history, from the emergence of the Independences to the remotest memory of Abya Yala. The evidence of this common destiny consisted in the intimate conviction that so many past and present sacrifices could not have been made in vain. The joint struggles for independence, Latin American integration and the horizon of human development as an alternative to the capitalist system offer multiple lessons and a lesson that cannot be put off for the peoples of the world.

After Cuba’s independence in 1898, the United States maintained a protectorate over the island. The condition for the withdrawal of its occupation troops in 1902 was the signing two years later of the Platt Amendment, which was an amendment to the Cuban Constitution, granting the US a “right of intervention when it deems it expedient to restore public peace and constitutional order”. The main US objective was reflected in Article VII of the amendment: “That in order to place the United States in a position to maintain the independence of Cuba and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Government of Cuba shall sell or lease to the United States the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.  In exchange for its withdrawal in December 1903, the US occupied the Guantánamo naval base. Despite the abolition of the Platt Amendment in 1933 as a result of the shift from the “Big Stick” doctrine to Franklyn Delano Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” doctrine, the US never gave up its occupation of the Guantánamo military base, an act that is completely illegal under international law.

The role of the United States was also decisive in the separation of Colombia and the department of Panama on November 3, 1903, which, according to Argentine historian Horacio Alberto López, was part of a “dynamic of self-nomination of commercial capital”. Based on the proposal of US Navy Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, the US contemplated the secession of Panama with the aim of controlling maritime trade through the creation of a transatlantic canal. In 1846, the Colombian government signed the Mallarino-Bidlak Treaty with the US, under which Colombia was to ensure free transit in the region, where the US planned to create an inter-oceanic canal. Colombian historian Renán Vega Cantor recalls that prior to the creation of Panama in 1903, there had already been 14 aggressions against the territory of the Colombian state of Panama, invasions based on the legal basis of the treaty signed in 1846. In 1856, a US occupation of Colombian Panama had left 15 US troops dead in an incident. In 1850, the US signed a similar treaty with England, which had established a protectorate in the coastal Mosquito Coast region since 1661, allying itself with the Mosquito Indians against the Spanish. The agreement between the two powers envisaged that they would share control of the coast and the transit of the future canal. In 1860, however, Nicaragua signed a pact with Britain formally renouncing the protectorate. In its place was created the Kingdom of Mosquitia, with a constitution based on English law. In 1904, Mosquitia was finally incorporated into Nicaragua.

On December 6, 1904, during the US Congress, President Theodor Roosevelt proclaimed the “Big Stick” doctrine, also known as the “Roosevelt Corollary”. This foreign policy was reflected in the period between 1898 and 1934, when the United States occupied several Latin American countries to protect its commercial interests in what became known as the Banana Wars. William Howard Taft, who had been appointed Secretary of War in the Roosevelt administration, did not hesitate to resort to force in several countries. Significantly, it was Taft who was commissioned to oversee the construction of the Panama Canal, which finally opened in 1914. It should be recalled that the initial project for the construction of the Panama Canal had been awarded by Colombia to France through the signing of the Salgar-Wyse agreement. The works, directed by Fernando Lesseps, the engineer responsible for the Suez Canal in Egypt, began in 1878 and lasted ten years before being abandoned in 1888. The abandonment of the project by the French prompted the United States to take up the Canal idea again and commissioned a US Congressional study by the Walker Commission.

Nicaragua was eventually chosen and a construction treaty was signed. But Nicaragua opposed the US concession of a planned route, and was considering granting it to Germany. In retaliation, in August 1912 the US sent its troops into Nicaragua, which would only leave after 21 years of occupation, turning the country into a protectorate. The invasion was aimed at preventing another country from building a canal in the area. In 1916, the newly re-elected government of Adolfo Díaz, with the approval of the US Marines, signed the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty with the US, giving the US the concession for the canal and a naval base.

Both the military occupation of the Panama Canal Zone – which lasted until December 31, 1999 – and that of the Guantánamo naval base (which is still in force and whose closure was one of President Obama’s promises) are two examples of how the US implemented maximum control in areas considered strategic for its economic interests.

Decades later, the Sandinista National Liberation Front, paying homage to all Nicaraguans who had fallen under the Somoza dictatorship, would follow in the footsteps of its brothers in the armed struggle in Cuba to give back to the children the future with the ability to dream that had been so denied them. It would also give the torturers the sobering punishment of their own children being able to access education thanks to their former victims, as Comandante Tomás Borge would put it. Among others, the writer Julio Cortázar understood that this event of political and social transformation also gave artistic creation and culture their rightful place, since until then Nicaraguan poets had had to fall under the bullets at an early age.

Because integral human development gave a blow to the alienation of peoples, there were many who acted decisively in international solidarity with the Cuban and then the Sandinista Revolution. The crusade for the literacy of the Nicaraguan people would thus emulate the heroic literacy campaign of the Cuban volunteer teachers, whose deed was elevated to the rank of highest honor by Comandante Fidel Castro. It was an army advancing the tomorrows of hope and rolling back the yesterdays of abuse and humiliation, whose only weapons were a pencil and a notebook. A feat that the Cuban people would develop not only in the field of education in their own country, but also in the field of health with their thousands of medical brigades internationally, whose most recent action during the pandemic has earned them consideration for a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The review of the profound historical events in the region are the very demonstration of why there is such international outrage against the Cuban, Venezuelan and Nicaraguan realities, whose governments today face the challenge of surviving under an arsenal of misnamed “sanctions” and blockade measures by an international coalition of real pirates disguised as democrats. But united in ALBA-TCP, the peoples of Our America have embarked on an irreversible march for independence and dignity.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Alex Anfruns is a Researcher, teacher and journalist in several alternative media, he founded and was editor-in-chief of the Journal Notre Amérique. Anti-war militant and activist in solidarity with the just causes of the world, co-author of the documentary Palestine, the truth under siege. Member of the Network in Defense of Humanity.

Featured image: Guantanamo Naval Base and torture camp. Photo: Bill Hackwell

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As dozens of countries across the globe focus on reducing emissions and improving environmental practices, recent studies show that abandoned oil and gas wells could be having a severely detrimental impact on the environment.  Across the USA and Canada, methane is leaking out of 4 million abandoned oil and gas wells, contributing significantly to climate change. This January, researchers from McGill University announced that these leaks are causing considerably more environmental damages than originally estimated by national governments.

According to a study from Environmental Science and Technology, figures suggest Canada has underestimated its methane emissions from abandoned wells by 150 percent, and the USA by around 20 percent.

While methane emissions from abandoned wells were reported to the United Nations as part of the U.S. and Canada’s greenhouse gas inventories, experts worry that there could be as many as 500,000 undocumented wells in the USA and 60,000 in Canada contributing to these emissions.

In 2018, in the USA alone, 3.2 million abandoned oil and gas wells emitted 281 kilotons of methane, equivalent in terms of climate change to consuming 16 million barrels of crude oil.

And it’s not just in the USA and Canada that we’re seeing this problem. Extensive exploration projects by thousands of companies and governments means there are millions of abandoned wells in various states across the globe.

In the Gulf of Mexico, tens of thousands of wells are leaking methane gas into the ocean. Although all these wells are supposed to be plugged to prevent leaks, few of these plugs are monitored to ensure their effectiveness. On top of methane leaks, some of these wells are also releasing other gasses into the surrounding environment such as benzene, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide.

In addition, recent studies in Europe suggest that decommissioned wells could be the dominant source of methane in the North Sea. According to Geomar, there are thousands of tonnes of methane are leaking onto the North Sea floor annually.

As well as damaging the environmental, leaks from abandoned wells pose a great threat to public health. For example, there have been several instances where unmaintained wells have been linked to groundwater contamination.

Yet, beyond independent studies, there is little data available to present the whole picture on a global scale. Energy companies are understandably unenthusiastic about exploring this issue further, leaving governments and environmental organizations to slowly understand the gravity of the situation.

However, if oil majors were willing to monitor and maintain decommissioned wells more closely, they could prevent these methane leaks and their impact on the environment. In fact, better management of these wells might even buy energy companies time to introduce long-term green policies by improving the current situation without curbing fossil fuel production.

Having been overlooked for decades, abandoned wells present a substantial challenge on a global scale. Methane gasses leaking into the atmosphere could exacerbate climate change. Further, as companies justify the need to continue to produce cheap fossil fuels to provide affordable energy, while regulators and governments are putting pressure on them to reduce emissions, leaking wells present a major challenge with no reward.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Felicity Bradstock is a freelance writer specialising in Energy and Finance. She has a Master’s in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In a stunning interview to the Beirut-based al Mayadeen network, Hezbollah’s secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah has outlined how Maj Gen Qassem Soleimani – assassinated by an American drone strike at Baghdad airport a litle over a year ago – was instrumental in convincing Russia to help Syria militarily in its war against Salafi-jihadis.    

Here’s the video transcript.

Nasrallah sets the stage for the crucial visit by Maj Gen Soleimani to Moscow in 2015, when he had a two-hour face-to-face meeting with President Putin:    

(In this meeting) he (Soleimani) presented a (comprehensive) strategic report to (Putin) on the situation in Syria and the region, (and explained) the proposed idea and the expected results. Of course, (in the meeting) he used a scientific, objective, military and battlefield language, (and based his statements) on maps, land areas, numbers and statistics. At this meeting, President Putin said to Hajj (Qassem): “I am convinced”, and the decision (for a Russian military effort in Syria) was made. This is what I heard from Hajj Soleimani.   

Nasrallah also makes an important precision: the whole process was already in motion, at Syria’s request:   

Look, I am somewhat objective and rational. I do not like to create myths. It is not accurate to say that Hajj Qassem Soleimani (alone) is the one who convinced Putin to intervene (in Syria). I prefer to say that through his strategic reading (of events), argumentation, compelling logic, and charismatic personality, Hajj Qassem Soleimani was able to provide an outstanding addition to all the previous efforts that led Russia to take the decision to come to Syria. Great efforts were made (before) and many discussions were held, yet President Putin reportedly remained hesitant.  

Nasrallah adds that Soleimani, “was skilled in (the art of) persuasion and had (impeccable) logic . He did not shame Russia into (joining the war), nor did he use (empty) rhetoric. Not at all. He used a scientific language, as he explained the (possible) military and battlefield outcomes, as well as the political outcomes for the (Russian) intervention (in Syria).”  

It’s all about ground intel    

Now let’s put this all in context. Putin is a master geopolitical chess player. Nasrallah observes there were “a number of relevant military, security and political officials” at the meeting. This implies Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and most of all top strategist Nikolai Patrushev.   

All of them were vey much aware by 2015 that the ultimate target of having ISIS/Daesh fester in Syria – in tandem with the notorious “Assad must go” campaign – was to create the conditions for a fake Caliphate to reach power, spread to the Caucasus, and destabilize Russia. That was encapsulated in the Russian formula “it’s only 900 km from Aleppo to Grozny”.     

Soleimani’s merit was to produce the definitive sales pitch. Based on his vast on the ground experience, he knew that a resistance front alone would not be enough to protect Damascus. The “secret” of this two-hour Moscow meeting is that Soleimani must have made crystal  clear that the next stage for the fake Caliphate would be directed against Russia’s soft underbelly, and not Iran.      

Moscow’s decision caught the Pentagon and NATO proverbially sleeping: Atlanticists were not expecting a tight Russian air force contingent and a squad of top military advisers to be deployed in a flash to Syria.   

But arguably the political decision had already been made. Such a complex military operation needs exhaustive planning – and that took place before Soleimani’s visit. Moreover, Russian intel knew all the details about the state of war on the ground and the glaring overextension of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA. 

What Soleimani brought to the table was absolutely priceless coordination: Hezbollah commanders, IRGC advisers, assorted Iranian-led militias, in conjunction with the Syrian Tigers, as the leading shock troops, seconded by Russian elite Special Forces, intervening either in the desert or in saturated urban areas – all able to pinpoint to surgical Russian air strikes against ISIS/Daesh and those reconverted al-Qaeda “moderate rebels”.     

Soleimani knew that to win this war he needed air power – and he finally managed to pull it off, as he coordinated to perfection the on the ground/intel work of several armies and the top echelons of the Russian General Staff.      

Starting on this fateful 2015 meeting, the alliance between Soleimani and the Russian military evolved to ironclad proportions. Later on, the Pentagon and NATO were very much aware how Soleimani, always the supreme battlefield commander, was closely working with both Baghdad and Damascus to definitively expel US boots from Iraq. That was the main not so secret reason for his assassination.    

All of the above explains why US neocons and powerful Deep State factions will never “forgive” Iran and Russia for what happened in Syria – irrespective of further actions by the handlers of the new hologram administration in Washington.   

Signs, so far, point to proverbial, non-stop demonization of Russia; Trump administration’s illegal sanctions against Iranian energy exports remaining in place; and no prospect of admitting that Russia, Iran and Hezbollah prevailed in Syria.   

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Information Clearing House

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Some call it the New World Order, others call it ‘the liberal international order’ or Globalism.

Whatever they call it, the idea is real and it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a plan that has been pushed by the establishment to rule the world for quite some time.

Several politicians including former US President George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger to banking moguls such as David Rockefeller to the mainstream-media all have said at one time or another that the New World Order is inevitable.  Last November,The New York Times published an opinion piece ‘The New World Order That President Biden Will Inherit’ concluded that the idea of a new world order will return to the White House with Biden at the helm,

“President-elect Biden has signaled that he intends to lead America back into the international arena, and whatever their qualms or doubts, America’s friends and allies should not wait to join forces in tackling the business of the day — a global pandemic and the future of the planet, to name just two items on the agenda.”

In 2017, as vice-president under then-President Obama, Biden gave his last speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on the accomplishments of the New World Order led by the US and its European allies, “For the past seven decades, the choices we have made—particularly the United States and our Allies in Europe—have steered our world down a clear path” he said.  Biden claimed that the world actually “enjoyed” what he termed the “liberal international order”,

“Our careful attention to building and sustaining a liberal international order—with the United States and Europe at its core—was the bedrock of the success the world enjoyed in the second half of the 20th Century.” He said that it was the US together with Europe who has pushed the world into a “just direction”,

“After World War II, we drew a line under centuries of conflict and took steps to bend the arc of history in a more just direction.”  However, since 1945, the US has bombed numerous countries including Korea (1950-53),Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (1955-75), Yugoslavia–Serbia (1999), Iraq (1997-present), Afghanistan (2001-present), Libya (2011) and Syria (2014-present) and many other nations since the end of World War II including US-backed coups, imposing harsh economic sanctions and assassinating political leaders. Yet, Biden said the world is much more safer than ever before with the US and its European allies in charge of the order,

“If you look at the long sweep of history, or even just the trend lines in wars and other incidents of large-scale violence over the past 50, 60, 70 years—as a practical matter, we are probably safer than ever, But it doesn’t feel that way” he says.

Yes, it does not feel that way because the US and its allies have created chaos and destruction with their regime change policies and interventions around the world since the end of WWII. “Daily images of violence and unrest from all over the world are shared directly on our televisions and smart phones—images we rarely would have seen in a pre-digital age.”  Here is where his hypocrisy shines “It’s fostered a feeling of perpetual chaos—of being overrun by outside forces.” The “outside forces” he claimed that was responsible for creating “perpetual chaos” was mostly conducted by his own CIA and the Military-Industrial Complex.

In 1992, The Wall Street Journal tapped then Senator Joseph Biden to write an article ‘How I Learned to Love the New World Order’ where he said that “Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism.”

Biden was referring to Patrick Buchanan, a long-time anti-globalist who worked as a senior advisor to three presidents and was a two-time presidential nominee for the Republican Party and a presidential nominee for the reform party in 2000.  He is a journalist and has authored numerous books including ‘A Republic, Not an Empire:. Reclaiming America’s Destiny‘  An interesting article from 2013 on Buchanan’s website www.buchanan.org ‘ titled ‘Why Neo-Isolationism Is Soaring’ quotes what Buchanan thought about globalism or the New World Order, “Neo-isolationism is the direct product of foolish globalism. … Compared to people who thought they could run the universe, or at least the globe, I am neo-isolationist and proud of it.”  Buchanan is clearly adamant about ending the US empire:

The roots of the new isolationism are not difficult to discern. There is, first, the end of the Cold War, the liberation of the captive nations of Europe, the dissolution of our great adversary, the Soviet Empire, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Cold War, our war, was over. Time to come home.  The Bushes and Bill Clinton said no.  So we let the New World Order crowd have its run in the yard. We invaded Panama, intervened in Haiti and Mogadishu, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, bombed Serbia for 78 days to force it to surrender its cradle province of Kosovo.

Came then the blowback of 9/11, following which we had the Afghan war to overthrow the Taliban and create a new democracy in the Hindu Kush, the invasion and occupation of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have, and the air war on Libya.  Others may celebrate the fruits of these wars but consider the costs:

A decade of bleeding with 8,000 U.S. dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion sunk, Iraq and Libya disintegrating in tribal, civil and sectarian war, Afghanistan on the precipice, and al-Qaida no longer confined to Tora Bora but active in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria

Biden was basically mocking Buchanan’s ideas of being an isolationist at the time.  Many people in Washington, D.C. did not agree with Buchanan’s assessment of ending the US empire around the world.  Biden is the complete opposite, he wrote “Believing that the Pentagon’s new strategy-America as globo-cop-could render the United States a hollow superpower.”  He continued “all agree we need the military to defend our vital interests-by ourselves when need be,  The question is grand strategy. With the journal’s endorsement, the pentagon has called for a Pax-Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.”   As Biden continued his argument for a US-led world order, he rejected Buchanan’s “America First” isolationist policy:

Pat Buchanan’s “America First” preaches martyrdom: We’ve been suckered into fighting “other” people’s battles and defending “other” people’s interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.

But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats — the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration — require global solutions

Biden said that being a “globocop” comes with the ability to use its economic influence as a diplomatic tool and by using NATO’s containment policy as a strategy.  Biden asked the question, “What about America as globocop?” he continued ” First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao’s axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.”  Biden also called for an aggressive foreign policy against those who are considered rogue states or simply put, those who don’t follow the rules:

Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let’s prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of “containment” — based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.

The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail’s pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan — even while pledging otherwise

Biden’s conclusion on how the U.S. and its allies can succeed in establishing a world order through a revised United Nations charter:

Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action — but with a U.S. veto.

Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.

If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security

During the George W. Bush administration, then Senator Joe Biden was the chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations supported the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002that granted President Bush the authority to invade Iraq.  The war in Iraq has killed more than a million Iraqis with millions more injured including those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the horrors of war.  There are over 4,800 US military deaths and 10s of thousands more seriously injured.  Many US soldiers also suffer from PTSD who eventually end up committing suicide.  Biden also supported the wars against Serbia in 1999 followed by his support for the wars in Libya and then Syria.

In his Wall Street Journal piece, President Biden said that the liberal international order establishment faces many obstacles including security threats such as the proliferation of high-tech weaponry, the environment, overpopulation, immigration issues on south of the US border and drug trafficking, all “require global solutions.” One of his main issues he spoke about was overpopulation.

CNN recently reported with enthusiasm ‘Biden signs memorandum reversing Trump abortion access restrictions’ said that “President Joe Biden signed a presidential memorandum on Thursday to reverse restrictions on abortion access domestically and abroad imposed and expanded by the Trump administration.”

According to the report

“The memorandum will “reverse my predecessor’s attack on women’s health access” and that it “relates to protecting women’s health at home and abroad, and it reinstates the changes that were made to Title X and other things making it harder for women to have access to affordable health care as it relates to their reproductive rights.”

The memorandum reverses the Mexico City Policy which is “a ban on US government funding for foreign nonprofits that perform or promote abortions.”  Obviously, abortions reduce population growth and that’s a goal of the establishment because with less people on the planet, it is much easier to control the remaining population. A dream come true for the establishment.

Who knows how long Biden has in office since his mental capabilities are in decline, but it is certain that he will introduce many aspects of his liberal international order while he’s still in office.  Rest assured, Biden, Kamala Harris or whoever takes his position will continue to implement policies that will complement the establishment who seeks to rule the world by coercion or even by force, if needed.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In what is becoming almost a daily report of massive nursing home deaths following injections of experimental mRNA COVID shots, a nursing home in the U.K. is reporting over one third of their residents have died after receiving the mRNA experimental COVID injections.

We are now seeing a very predictable pattern as we are reporting all over the world where the elderly are dying at a very alarming rate following mass vaccinations of the experimental mRNA injections.

And in all of these cases, the local media is quoting local officials as saying that the “vaccines” have nothing to do with the deaths. They are also stating that deaths following the experimental mRNA injections are “expected.”

How can people keep believing this is true? This is now happening all over the world, in many locations, and we are just supposed to accept by faith that COVID outbreaks happened simultaneously with the mass vaccinations, but that there is no connection to the injections?

Here is what the Daily Echo is reporting about the nursing home deaths in Basingstoke in the UK:

At least twenty-two people have died at a Hampshire care home (Daily Mail is reporting 24 deaths) in one of the worst known outbreaks of the coronavirus pandemic to date.

The deaths occurred at Pemberley House Care Home in Basingstoke, operated by private firm Avery Healthcare.

The outbreak was first declared on Tuesday, January 5, with 60 per cent of its residents testing positive for the disease, according to sources.

Within three weeks, 22 people had died – over one-third of the home’s residents.

It is understood the outbreak started as residents began to have their first coronavirus vaccines. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulation Agency (MHRA) said there was no suggestion the vaccine was responsible for the deaths.

Government advice states that one “can not catch Covid-19 from the vaccine but it is possible to have caught Covid-19 and not realise you have the symptoms until after your vaccination appointment”, adding that it may take “a week or two” after the first dose to build up protection.

A spokesperson for the MHRA said they were saddened by the deaths but said they were not linked to the vaccine patients might have received, saying: “We are saddened to hear about any deaths which have occurred since receiving COVID-19 vaccination. However, our surveillance does not suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines have contributed to any deaths.

It is not unexpected that some of these people may naturally fall ill due to their age or underlying conditions shortly after being vaccinated, without the vaccine playing any role in that.” Full Article.

However, many healthcare workers who work in these assisted living centers are now challenging this narrative, that these deaths are due to “natural illnesses” among the elderly that have nothing to do with the shots, including a whistleblower who is a Certified Nursing Assistant and went public with what he was seeing in his nursing home. He reported that:

after being injected with the mRNA shot, residents who used to walk on their own can no longer walk. Residents who used to carry on an intelligent conversation with him could no longer talk.

And now they are dying. “They’re dropping like flies.” (Full article with video.)

The basic premise being used to justify saying that none of these deaths are linked to the experimental COVID injections is that “one can not catch Covid-19 from the vaccine,” which is the position of the FDA as well.

From the Daily Echo:

Government advice states that one “can not catch Covid-19 from the vaccine but it is possible to have caught Covid-19 and not realise you have the symptoms until after your vaccination appointment”, adding that it may take “a week or two” after the first dose to build up protection.

From the FDA:

WILL THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE GIVE ME COVID-19?
No. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine does not contain SARS-CoV-2 and cannot give you COVID-19.

Therefore, the reasoning continues, if these residents who died are all tested as positive for COVID-19, then, according to “Government sources,” they could not have died from the vaccines.

Do you see how this whole argument falls apart if the premise that the “vaccine” cannot give someone COVID-19 turns out to actually be false?

And the evidence so far points to the fact that this belief about a new product that has only been in the market for a few weeks and was fast-tracked to get it into the market, and supposedly cannot give someone COVID-19, is not true.

The largest mass injection campaign that has happened so far has occurred in Israel, and their data shows that over 12,000 people became infected with COVID-19 AFTER the injections. See: 12,400 People in Israel Tested Positive for Coronavirus AFTER Being Injected with the Experimental Pfizer COVID Shot

The correlations between the roll outs of these experimental mRNA injections and nursing home deaths is very clear.

The Daily Mail, while reporting on the tragedy at the Pemberley House Care Home in Basingstoke, also reported that similar rates of deaths are being seen throughout the UK in “care homes,” which they are blaming on the COVID virus. They produced this chart:

The UK’s national statistics body found 1,705 care home residents died from the virus in the week ending January 22, up from 661 a fortnight ago. Source.

And while the government keeps blaming these deaths on the virus, what else happened in December when numbers of deaths were actually on the decline, until rapidly spiking upwards in January?

The roll out of the Pfizer, and later Moderna, experimental mRNA COVID injections began in December.

It is time to challenge the “official” position that because these injections do not contain a COVID19 virus, they cannot give someone the virus, because something is clearly causing these people who are dying “from COVID” to test positive.

Perhaps we should have a better understanding of just how these mRNA injections work.

Dr. Lee Merritt, MD, recently was interviewed by Alex Newman of The New America.

Dr. Lee Merritt began her medical career at the age of four, carrying her  father’s “black bag” on housecalls, along the back roads of Iowa.  In 1980 she graduated from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York, where she was elected to life membership in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society.

Dr. Merritt completed an Orthopaedic Surgery Residency in the United States Navy and served 9 years as a Navy physician and surgeon where she also studied bioweapons before returning to Rochester, where she was the only woman to be appointed as the Louis A. Goldstein Fellow of Spinal Surgery.

Dr. Merritt has been in the private practice of Orthopaedic and Spinal Surgery since 1995, has served on the Board of the Arizona Medical Association, and is past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. (Source.)

We have copied the section of her interview with Alex Newman where she discusses the mRNA “vaccines.” This is from our Bitchute Channel (it is also available on Rumble):

Click here to watch the video.

A partial transcript:

Well I have lots of concerns. Not the least of which is for the integrity and the moral turpitude of the medical profession.

If you look at the history of these vaccines, just real quickly, these are experimental biologics. I don’t even like to call them “vaccines,” because classically how a vaccine works is this: You grow a bunch of the pathogens, so let’s say its measles. You grow the measles in a vat or in eggs, and then you take a portion of that, and you make it less strong.

You attenuate it. You make it weaker, and there are different ways of doing that, and then you inject it into people, and their own immune system sees that weakened pathogen. And then they react to it just enough that it puts it in their immulogic memory.

And then when they’re exposed to it the next time, they memorize it and theoretically they can better respond.

That’s what your real body does when it gets sick. Without all this vaccination stuff, you get sick with a virus, you get perfect life-long immunity, for the most part, and its over.

So how is this (mRNA injections) different?

Well, they’re not giving you a pathogen, or a piece of a pathogen, or a small piece with an adjuvant.

What they’re doing is programming mRNA. And mRNA has a little piece of, it’s like DNA, but its the messenger RNA.

It’s what makes proteins in the body. It’s kind of  like a computer chip that you put into a 3D printer and then you tell it what you want it to make, and it prints it out.

We have that in engineering, and this is the biological equivalent. I make some mRNA, and it tells your body to do certain things.

Well, in this case what they’ve done, they’ve made a piece of this mRNA to create in every cell in your body that spike protein. Or at least part of it.

And that spike protein, you’re actually creating the pathogen in your body.

This is where it gets a little wishy about how much of that spike protein is actually being created, and I don’t know how to find that out, I can’t find that, but I’m sure somebody knows.

What happens is, and this is the problem. I’ll tell you what happened in the animal studies. There’s been four different vaccines and three different animal studies that I know about.

They started after SARS, and they did cats. And then after that MERS, which were all coronavirus pathogens that are more deadly (then COVID-19), and after MERS they tried it in ferrets.

So what happened was all animals died.

Let me just point out. We have never made it through an animal study successfully for this type of virus.

We have never done this in humans before. At least we haven’t. Maybe the Chinese have.

We don’t really have a track record of success. This vaccine was rolled out to distribution centers before they even made a show of caring about the FDA approving it. Do you realize that?

I’ve never seen that happen before.

And the longest they’ve really followed people after the vaccine is two months.

That’s not enough time to know we won’t have that antibody enhancement problem.

On potential for military use:

I will make this military point. This is a perfect binary weapon.

There’s no way I know exactly what that mRNA is programmed to do, and neither do you and neither do most doctors.

The doctors can’t get at that data. The guys at the very top of this project, they know. But we don’t know.

So, do you still trust your government saying that these mRNA injections cannot cause someone to get COVID?

Or do the facts speak for themselves?

Because the data, the REAL facts, show that seniors are dying very suddenly just after the mRNA vaccination programs are started in these assisted living centers.

Who are the “guys at the top” of “this project” that truly know what these mRNA injections are programmed to do whom Dr. Merritt referred to?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

According to a new report by Oxfam, ‘The Inequality Virus’, the wealth of the world’s billionaires increased by $3.9tn (trillion) between 18 March and 31 December 2020. Their total wealth now stands at $11.95tn. The world’s 10 richest billionaires have collectively seen their wealth increase by $540bn over this period. In September 2020, Jeff Bezos could have paid all 876,000 Amazon employees a $105,000 bonus and still be as wealthy as he was before COVID.

At the same time, hundreds of millions of people will lose (have lost) their jobs and face destitution and hunger. It is estimated that the total number of people living in poverty could have increased by between 200 million and 500 million in 2020. The number of people living in poverty might not return even to its pre-crisis level for over a decade.

Mukesh Ambani, India’s richest man and head of Reliance Industries, which specialises in petrol, retail and telecommunications, doubled his wealth between March and October 2020. He now has $78.3bn. The average increase in Ambani’s wealth in just over four days represented more than the combined annual wages of all of Reliance Industries’ 195,000 employees.

The Oxfam report states that lockdown in India resulted in the country’s billionaires increasing their wealth by around 35 per cent. At the same time, 84 per cent of households suffered varying degrees of income loss. Some 170,000 people lost their jobs every hour in April 2020 alone.

The authors also noted that income increases for India’s top 100 billionaires since March 2020 was enough to give each of the 138 million poorest people a cheque for 94,045 rupees.

The report went on to state:

“… it would take an unskilled worker 10,000 years to make what Ambani made in an hour during the pandemic… and three years to make what Ambani made in a second.”

During lockdown and after, hundreds of thousands of migrant workers in the cities (who had no option but to escape the country’s avoidable but deepening agrarian crisis) were left without jobs, money, food or shelter.

It is clear that COVID has been used as cover for consolidating the power of the unimaginably rich. But plans for boosting their power and wealth will not stop there. One of the most lucrative sectors for these people is agrifood.

More than 60 per cent of India’s almost 1.4 billion population rely (directly or indirectly) on agriculture for their livelihood. Aside from foreign interests, Mukesh Ambani and fellow billionaire Gautam Adani (India’s second richest person with major agribusiness interests) are set to benefit most from the recently passed farm bills that will lead to the wholesale corporatisation of the agrifood sector.

Corporate consolidation

A recent article on the grain.org website, ‘Digital control: how big tech moves into food and farming (and what it means)’, describes how Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others are closing in on the global agrifood sector while the likes of Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and Cargill are cementing their stranglehold.

The tech giants entry into the sector will increasingly lead to a mutually beneficial integration between the companies that supply products to farmers (pesticides, seeds, fertilisers, tractors, drones, etc) and those that control the flow of data and have access to digital (cloud) infrastructure and food consumers. This system is based on corporate centralisation and concentration (monopolisation).

Grain notes that in India global corporations are also colonising the retail space through e-commerce. Walmart entered into India in 2016 by a US$3.3 billion take-over of the online retail start-up Jet.com which, in 2018, was followed by a US$16 billion take-over of India’s largest online retail platform Flipkart. Today, Walmart and Amazon now control almost two thirds of India’s digital retail sector.

Amazon and Walmart are using predatory pricing, deep discounts and other unfair business practices to lure customers towards their online platforms. According to Grain, when the two companies generated sales of over US$3 billion in just six days during a Diwali festival sales blitz, India’s small retailers called out in desperation for a boycott of online shopping.

In 2020, Facebook and the US-based private equity concern KKR committed over US$7 billion to Reliance Jio, the digital store of one of India’s biggest retail chains. Customers will soon be able to shop at Reliance Jio through Facebook’s chat application, WhatsApp.

The plan for retail is clear: the eradication of millions of small traders and retailers and neighbourhood mom and pop shops. It is similar in agriculture.

The aim is to buy up rural land, amalgamate it and rollout a system of chemically-drenched farmerless farms owned or controlled by financial speculators, the high-tech giants and traditional agribusiness concerns. The end-game is a system of contract farming that serves the interests of big tech, big agribusiness and big retail. Smallholder peasant agriculture is regarded as an impediment to be replaced by large industrial-scale farms.

This model will be based on driverless tractors, drones, genetically engineered/lab-produced food and all data pertaining to land, water, weather, seeds and soils patented and often pirated from peasant farmers.

Farmers possess centuries of accumulated knowledge that once gone will never be got back. Corporatisation of the sector has already destroyed or undermined functioning agrarian ecosystems that draw on centuries of traditional knowledge and are increasingly recognised as valid approaches to secure food security.

And what of the hundreds of millions to be displaced in order to fill the pockets of the billionaire owners of these corporations? Driven to cities to face a future of joblessness: mere ‘collateral damage’ resulting from a short-sighted system of dispossessive predatory capitalism that destroys the link between humans, ecology and nature to boost the bottom line of the immensely rich.

Imperial intent

India’s agrifood sector has been on the radar of global corporations for decades. With deep market penetration and near saturation having been achieved by agribusiness in the US and elsewhere, India represents an opportunity for expansion and maintaining business viability and all-important profit growth. And by teaming up with the high-tech players in Silicon Valley, multi-billion dollar data management markets are being created. From data and knowledge to land, weather and seeds, capitalism is compelled to eventually commodify (patent and own) all aspects of life and nature.

Foreign agricapital is applying enormous pressure on India to scrap its meagre (in comparison to the richer nations) agricultural subsidies. The public distribution system and publicly held buffer stocks constitute an obstacle to the profit-driven requirements of global agribusiness interests.

Such interests require India to become dependent on imports (alleviating the overproduction problem of Western agricapital – the vast stocks of grains that it already dumps on the Global South) and to restructure its own agriculture for growing crops (fruit, vegetables) that consumers in the richer countries demand. Instead of holding physical buffer stocks for its own use, India would hold foreign exchange reserves and purchase food stocks from global traders.

Successive administrations have made the country dependent on volatile flows of foreign capital via foreign direct investment (and loans). The fear of capital flight is ever present. Policies are often governed by the drive to attract and retain these inflows. This financialisation of agriculture serves to undermine the nation’s food security, placing it at the mercy of unforeseen global events (conflict, oil prices, public health crises) international commodity speculators and unstable foreign investment.

Current agricultural ‘reforms’ are part of a broader process of imperialism’s increasing capture of the Indian economy, which has led to its recolonization by foreign corporations as a result of neoliberalisation which began in 1991. By reducing public sector buffer stocks and introducing corporate-dictated contract farming and full-scale neoliberal marketisation for the sale and procurement of produce, India will be sacrificing its farmers and its own food security for the benefit of a handful of unscrupulous billionaires.

As independent cultivators are bankrupted, the aim is that land will eventually be amalgamated to facilitate large-scale industrial cultivation. Indeed, a recent piece on the Research Unit for Political Economy site, ‘The Kisans Are Right: Their Land Is At Stake‘, describes how the Indian government is ascertaining which land is owned by whom with the ultimate aim of making it easier to eventually sell it off (to foreign investors and agribusiness). Other developments are also part of the plan (such as the Karnataka Land Reform Act), which will make it easier for business to purchase agricultural land.

India could eventually see institutional investors with no connection to farming (pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowment funds and investments from governments, banks, insurance companies and high net worth individuals) purchasing land. This is an increasing trend globally and, again, India represents a huge potential market. The funds have no connection to farming, have no interest in food security and are involved just to make profit from land.

The recent farm bills – if not repealed – will impose the neoliberal shock therapy of dispossession and dependency, finally clearing the way to restructure the agri-food sector. The massive inequalities and injustices that have resulted from the COVID-related lockdowns are a mere taste of what is to come.

The hundreds of thousands of farmers who have been on the streets protesting against these bills are at the vanguard of the pushback – they cannot afford to fail. There is too much at stake.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Material World and the Formation of Human Society

The foundation of social reality is the material constitution of the world.

The basic structure of social life is grounded on the economic factor whose parameters are within the range of what we consider as material, i.e., concrete in the general context of what the senses can grasp and thus universally experienceable.

With this notion, we affirm a vital fundamental activity to keep society alive and functional and that is economic productivity. In other words, the material world is the principal platform of the economy of a society which in this light makes the economy the foundation of such a society.

The economy of a society conditions, regulates and controls practically all aspects of what we call social life. In fact, there can be no society without the economy that is supposed to make it close-knit, functional and vibrant. The economy is, therefore, the substructure of every institution that arises in society. Nothing is non-deductible from the economic substructure.

Until this point, we have seen how the economy creates–not destroys–society and it is the material reality that makes the economy practicable and realistic.

There is, therefore, no economy without a material grounding. As a matter of ideological configuration, the material upon which the economy stands as the begin-all and end-all of social interaction constitutes the philosophy of materialism.

The Emergence of Philosophical Materialism from the Incontrovertible Reality of the Material Environment

Philosophical materialism assumes that human consciousness is consciousness of the material environment.

What is immediately given in human reality is the material environment that we as human beings automatically confront right at the dawn of consciousness.

Consciousness is consciousness of something and that something as far as human experience is concerned is the incontrovertible reality of the material environment. It is a fact that only human beings are capable of being conscious of their consciousness but this comes much later, i.e., some periods after we have affirmed the irrefutable existence of the material environment. What therefore constitutes the most basic principle of human reality is its connection to the material environment. This is materialism taken philosophically.

Philosophical materialism isn’t metaphysically formulated because it is grounded on humanity’s direct experience of the material environment, not on certain fabricated nebulous metaphysical notion that is disconnected from material reality.

This I would venture to call, “epistemological materialism” because any statement about any aspect of this reality is empirically verifiable and justifiable and any inference concerning events occurring in this reality may be rendered valid and sound through logical analysis.

From the condition of this reality, myriad ideas rise, develop and flourish in the human mind. Simply put, material reality is the fundamental focal point of human perception and conception so that thoughts, ideas, and concepts are all impossible without it. Consciousness is possible only when there is an object of consciousness and objects of consciousness are basically located in material reality.

Materialism as the Foundation of Society through Economic Pursuit

Materialism taken in its philosophical sense cannot be a destructive antagonist of human society; it is the foundation of human society. Without realizing the fact that the economy plays the most important role in society, we won’t be able to see the most significant value of material reality and the radical import of philosophical materialism.

From the inception of humanity, it is the material reality that steered the course of social development through the economic trajectory from the most primitive stage of survival to the most complex development of social institutions whose realization has been determined by humanity’s economic pursuit. To put it logically, there is no society without economic aspiration and there is no economic aspiration without the material environment or reality, the latter being the most rudimentary condition that possibilizes all productive and meaningful undertakings of humanity in the world. This is the essence of philosophical materialism.

The Dark Side of Materialism

However, apart from its philosophical sense, materialism may take the form of a sinister configuration as a prevalent human attitude. This type of materialism is more associated with the insatiable tendency of some individual people and nations to acquire more and more material possessions at the expense of depriving others of the same. The most common term we use for this kind of materialism is greed and in most instances, it likewise operates in the economic sphere of social circumstances. This variety of materialism is characterized by manipulation, exploitation, and oppression. We have seen how it is mirrored in world history as tyrannical powers subjugate, repress, abuse and enslave weak nations to divest them of their rights and material wealth.

As a case in point, we have witnessed how a powerful North American nation utilizes its mighty military machinery to invade oil-rich countries and take over their flourishing petroleum production industries.

Israel, a strong ally of this powerful nation, has likewise operated the same pattern of oppression as it has subjugated the original inhabitants of a small piece of land called Palestine and has strategically positioned itself at the core of the Middle Eastern region to have a dominant vantage point and facilitate its North American partner in overseeing a grand economic endeavor through the formation of what is known as the Greater Israel Project. In conjunction with the consummation and realization of this project, we have also seen how the unholy alliance of this North American power and Israel has wreaked havoc, shattered, demolished, and ruined countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria among others.

In light of this global materialist scheme, powerful nations hegemonizing weak ones to take control of the latter’s rich resources are not only destroying societies but the world in general. This is destructive materialism.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia Pacific Research. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

On 25^th January, during the first session of the virtual World Economic Forum (WEF), President Xi Jinping, in his address stated clearly that China’s agenda was to move forward in the World of Great Change, with their renewed policy of multilateralism, aiming for a multi-polar world, where nations would be treated as equals.

China will continue to vouch for strong macroeconomic growth – and pledge assistance for those that are suffering the most during this pandemic-induced crisis – in view of a balanced development of all countries.

There is no place in this world for large countries dominating smaller ones, or for economic threatening and sanctions, nor for economic isolation. China is pursuing a global free trade economy. BUT – and this is important – when one talks of “globalism” – respect for political and fiscal sovereignty of nations, must be maintained.

At the same time, promoting cultural and research exchange, joint industrial and transport ventures between countries will bring people together, fostering cooperation and collaboration among nations.

This is the main purpose of President Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), or One Belt One Road (OBOR) – and also called the New Silk Road.

Currently more than 130 countries and more than 30 international organizations are part of BRI, including 34 countries in Europe and Central Asia, of which 18 countries of the European Union (EU). OBOR offers the world participation – no coercion. The attraction is the philosophy behind the New Silk Road – which is shared benefits – the concept of win-win.

The same win-win concept is part of the recently signed (11 November 2020 in Vietnam) free trade agreement with 14 countries – the ten ASEAN, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, altogether 15 countries, including China. The so-called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, was in negotiations during eight years – and achieved to pull together some 2.2 billion people, commanding some 30% of the world’s GDP. This is a never before reached agreement in size, value and tenor.

In addition, China and Russia have a longstanding strategic partnership, containing bilateral agreements that also enter into this new trade fold – plus the countries of the Central Asia Economic Union (CAEU), consisting mostly of former Soviet Republics, are also integrated into the eastern trade block.

The conglomerate of agreements and sub-agreements between Asian-Pacific countries that will cooperate with RCEP, is bound together by, for the west a little-understood Asian Pact, called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The SCO’s purpose is to ensure security and maintain stability across the vast Eurasian region, join forces to counteract emerging challenges and threats, and enhance trade, as well as cultural and humanitarian cooperation.

In the hard times emerging from the covid crisis, many countries may need grant assistance to be able to recover as quickly as possible their huge socioeconomic losses. In this sense, it is likely that the new Silk Road / OBOR may forge a special “Health Road” across the Asian Continent. President Xi says China is committed to assisting in lifting the world out of this gigantic macroeconomic crisis.

*

The RCEP may, over time, open a window of opportunity for integrating the huge Continent of Eurasia that spans all the way from western Europe to Asia and covering the Middle East as well as North Africa, of about 5.4 billion people, stretching across some 55 million square kilometers.

The RCEP agreement’s trade deals will be carried out in local currencies and in yuan – no US dollars. The RCEP is, therefore, also a convenient instrument for dedollarizing, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region, and gradually moving across the globe.

China’s new digital Renminbi (RMB) or yuan may soon be rolled out internationally as legal tender for international payments and transfers. This will further drastically reduce the use of the dollar. The new digital RMB will become attractive for many countries which are fed up with being subjected to US sanctions, because using the US-dollar, they automatically become vulnerable to being punished with dollar blockages, confiscations of resources, whenever their international “behavior” doesn’t conform with the mandates of Washington’s.

The yuan is already increasingly used as a reserve currency and may within the next three to five years dethrone the dollar as chief reserve currency. The RMB / yuan is based on a solid economy, whereas the US-dollar and its European offspring, the euro, are fiat moneys, backed by nothing.

*

Entering this new “Time of Great Change”, China may envision leading a reform of the west-biased WTO – to give the Global South, alias developing countries, a greater say in international trade policies, to bring the world onto a more balanced development for all countries.

China may also strive at shifting the IMF’s fiscal policies, to better allow emerging countries to develop their own capacities and use their natural resources independently, according to their needs, and if necessary, with international technical assistance that does not enslave them – which under current IMF / World Bank rules and conditions is not the case.

In this sense, China may take a leading role in helping better coordinating countries’ macro-economic policies, through the G20 mechanism.

*

Thanks to China’s endless creation and peaceful advancements, she has gained experience in resistance and resilience against adversities. Therefore, when in early 2020 the Chinese economy was in covid-shock, the Chinese Government applied drastic and disciplined social measures. The country recovered in the same year.

China, like no other major economy in the world, grew in 2020 by about 2.3% – maybe more when the final figures are in. China has mastered the covid crisis within six to eight months, and has revamped an industrial and construction apparatus that was basically locked down by 80% during the 4 or 5 covid-peak months. By the end of 2020 it was 100% back in operation.

Compare this to western economies which are way down – Europe, according to official figures, by 12% to 15%. In the US, the FED predicted already last November that the country may lose up to a third of its economic output / GDP in 2020 / 2021.

The situation in the Global South is much worse. Catastrophic labor losses due to uncountable bankruptcies, are the result of generalized lockdowns in all 193 UN member countries simultaneously.

The International Labor Office (ILO) has predicted that global unemployment in 2021 may reach up to 50% of the world’s labor force of 3.5 billion (WB, June 21, 2020); meaning, about 1.7 billion people may be jobless. Most of them in the Global South, where about 70% of labor is informal, no contracts, no social safety nets, no social health care, no income, no shelter, no food — leading to total despair. According to both the British Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) – suicide rates are rampant.

Over the past 40 years, China has made historic gains in ending extreme poverty, bringing over 800 million people out of poverty, representing over 70 percent of global poverty reduction. In 2020 – despite covid – China has achieved zero poverty.

The most effective condition to achieve prosperity is societal harmony and PEACE. President Xi, in his address to the WEF last Monday, also called on the world to avoid confrontation. Instead, the world should stick to cooperation based on mutual benefits and resolve disagreements through consultation and dialogue.

To conclude, China has committed herself to help alleviate this ongoing epic crisis, Striving for balanced development for all countries, with the objective of an enhanced and continued cooperation for a world community with a shared future and common prosperity for mankind.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment 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).

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

Featured image is from TheAltWorld

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The new Biden Administration has from day one made it clear it will adopt a hostile and aggressive policy against the Russian Federation of Vladimir Putin. The policy behind this stance has nothing to do with any foul deeds Putin’s Russia may or may not have committed against the West. It has nothing to do with absurd allegations that Putin had pro-US dissident Alexei Navalny poisoned with the ultra-deadly Novichok nerve agent. In has to do with a far deeper agenda of the globalist Powers That Be. That agenda is what is being advanced now.

The Cabinet choices of Joe Biden reveal much. His key foreign policy picks–Tony Blinken as Secretary of State and Victoria Nuland as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Bill Burns as CIA head; Jake Sullivan as National Security Advisor ; Avril Haines as Director of National Intelligence—all are from the Obama-Biden Administration and all have worked closely together. As well, all see Russia, not China, as the prime security threat to the United States’ global hegemony.

As candidate, Joe Biden stated this often. His key foreign policy choices underscore that the focus with the Biden Administration, regardless how fit Biden himself is, will shift from the China threats to that of Putin’s Russia. Biden’s CIA head, Bill Burns, is a former Ambassador to Moscow and was Deputy Secretary of State during the Obama CIA coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014. Notably, when Burns left State in November 2014 he was succeeded by Tony Blinken, now Secretary of State. Blinken reportedly formulated the US State Department response to Russia’s Crimea annexation.

Nuland is key

All Biden choices are uniformly clear in blaming Putin’s Russia for everything from US election interference in 2016 to the recent SolarWinds US government computer hack, to every other claim aired against Russia in recent years, whether proven or not.

In trying to determine what the new Biden Administration and the US intelligence agencies have in store towards Putin and Russia, however, the best indication is the prominent role being given to Victoria Nuland, the person, together with then-Vice President Joe Biden, who ran the political side of the US coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2013-14. She infamously was wire-tapped in a phone call to the US Ambassador in Kiev during the Maidan Square 2013-14 protests, telling the Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, regarding EU choices for a new Ukraine regime, “F**k the EU.” Her husband, Robert Kagan is a notorious Washington neocon.

On leaving government on Trump’s election in 2016, Nuland became a Senior Counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group, headed by former Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright who is also chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) affiliate, National Democratic Institute. Nuland also joined the Board of the NED, after 2016, keeping in close contact with NED regime change operations. She is a Russia expert, fluent in Russian and a specialist in toppling regimes.

As Obama Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian and European Affairs in 2013, Nuland worked closely with Vice President Joe Biden to put into power Arseniy Yatsenyuk in a US-friendly and Russia-hostile Ukraine coup. She fostered months of protest against the regime of the elected President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, to force his ouster after his decision to join the Russian Eurasian Economic Union. Founder of the private intelligence group Stratfor, George Friedman, in an interview just after the February 2014 coup in Kiev, called it “the most blatant coup in (US) history.”

New Initiatives

In a major article in the August, 2020 Foreign Affairs, journal of the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Nuland outlines what most likely will be US strategy for undermining Russia in the coming months. She complains that, “resignation has set in about the state of US-Russian relations, and Americans have lost confidence in their own ability to change the game.” In other words, she is about “changing the game” with Putin. She charges that in the past 12 years, “Russia has violated arms control treaties; fielded new, destabilizing weapons; threatened Georgia’s sovereignty; seized Crimea and much of the Donbass; and propped up despots in Libya, Syria, and Venezuela. It has used cyber-weapons against foreign banks, electrical grids, and government systems; interfered in foreign democratic elections; and assassinated its enemies on European soil.”

She goes on to say the repeated US economic sanctions on select Russian banks and companies as well as Putin backers have done little to change Russian policy, claiming that, ”US and allied sanctions, although initially painful, have grown leaky or impotent with overuse and no longer impress the Kremlin.”

But Nuland suggests that Putin’s Russia today is vulnerable as never in the past 20 years:

“the one thing that should worry the Russian president: the mood inside Russia. Despite Putin’s power moves abroad, 20 years of failing to invest in Russia’s modernization may be catching up with him. In 2019, Russia’s GDP growth was an anemic 1.3 percent. This year, the coronavirus pandemic and the free fall in oil prices could result in a significant economic contraction…Russia’s roads, rails, schools, and hospitals are crumbling. Its citizens have grown restive as promised infrastructure spending never appears, and their taxes and the retirement age are going up. Corruption remains rampant, and Russians’ purchasing power continues to shrink.”

In her CFR article Nuland advocates using,

“Facebook, YouTube, and other digital platforms… there is no reason why Washington and its allies shouldn’t be more willing to give Putin a dose of his own medicine inside Russia, while maintaining the same deniability.”

She adds that because Russians widely use the Internet and it is largely open,

“Despite Putin’s best efforts, today’s Russia is more permeable. Young Russians are far more likely to consume information and news via the Internet than through state-sponsored TV or print media. Washington should try to reach more of them where they are: on the social networks Odnoklassniki and VKontakte; on Facebook, Telegram, and YouTube; and on the many new Russian-language digital platforms springing up.”

Navalny

Around the time Nuland submitted her July-August Foreign Affairs article, perennial Putin opponent, Alexey Navalny was in Berlin, ostensibly recovering from what he claims was an attempt by Putin’s intelligence to kill him with highly toxic nerve agent, Novichok.

Navalny, a US-educated opposition figure who was a Yale University Fellow in 2010 has been trying to gain a strong following for well over a decade, has been documented receiving money from Nuland’s National Endowment for Democracy, whose founder in the 1990s described it as doing, “what the CIA used to do, but privately.” In 2018 according to NPR in the US, Navalny had more than six million YouTube subscribers and more than two million Twitter followers. How many are bots paid by US intelligence is not known. Now, five months after exile in Berlin, Navalny makes a bold return where he knew he faced likely jail for past charges. It was obviously a clear calculation by his Western sponsors.

The US government’s NGO for Color Revolution regime change, the NED, in a piece published on January 25 echoes Nuland’s call for a social media-led destabilization of Putin. Writing about the Moscow arrest of Navalny just three days before the Biden inauguration, the NED states that,

“By creating a model of guerrilla political warfare for the digital age, Navalny has exposed the regime’s utter lack of imagination and inability….”

They add,

“Putin is in a Catch-22: If Putin kills Navalny, it could draw more attention to the problem and exacerbate unrest. If Putin lets Navalny live, then Navalny remains a focus for resistance, whether he is in prison or not… Navalny has very much outmaneuvered Putin at each turn since the poisoning. It’s becoming a bit humiliating for him.”

Since his alleged botched poisoning in August in Russia’s Far East, Navalny was allowed by the Russian government to fly to Berlin for treatment, a strange act if indeed Putin and Russian intelligence had really wanted him dead. What clearly took place in the intervening five months in exile suggests that Navalny’s return was professionally prepared by unnamed Western intelligence regime change specialists. The Kremlin has claimed intelligence that shows Navalny was directly being tutored while in exile by CIA specialists.

On Navalny’s Moscow arrest on January 17, his anti-corruption NGO released a sophisticated YouTube documentary on Navalny’s channel, purporting to show a vast palace alleged to belong to Putin on the Black Sea, filmed with use of a drone, no small feat. In the video Navalny calls on Russians to march against the alleged billion dollar “Putin Palace” to protest corruption.

Navalny, who clearly is being backed by sophisticated US information warfare specialists and groups such as the NED, is likely being told to build a movement to challenge United Russia party candidates in the September Duma elections where Putin isn’t a candidate. He has even been given a new tactic, which he calls a “smart voting” strategy, a hallmark NED tactic.

Stephen Sestanovich, New York Council on Foreign Relations Russia expert and former board member of the NED, suggested the likely game plan of the new Biden team. On January 25 Sestanovich wrote in the CFR blog, “The Putin regime remains strong, but nationwide protests in support of Alexei Navalny are the most serious challenge to it in years. Opposition leader Alexei Navalny is showing a political creativity and tactical skill that Putin has not previously faced. If the protests continue, they could reveal vulnerabilities in his decades-long hold on power.”

This was two days after Russia-wide protests demanding Navalny’s release from jail.

“With his bold decision to return to Moscow and the release of a widely viewed video purporting to expose regime corruption, Navalny has shown himself to be a capable and imaginative political figure—even from jail, perhaps the most formidable adversary Putin has faced,” he wrote. “The strategic sophistication of Navalny’s team is underscored both by its video release and, before that, by its exposé of the Federal Security Services (FSB) personnel who poisoned him last summer.”

The clear decision of the Biden team to name a former Moscow ambassador to head the CIA and Victoria Nuland to No. 3 position at the State Department, along with his other intelligence choices indicate that destabilizing Russia will be a prime focus of Washington going forward. As the NED gleefully put it,

“Navalny’s arrest, three days before Biden’s inauguration former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul says, has all the makings of “Biden’s first foreign policy crisis. Whatever was in their transition documents, this is now front and center for them.”

The reason however is not because of domestic corruption by Putin’s inner circle, true or not. Biden couldn’t  care less. Rather it is the very existence of Russia under Putin as an independent sovereign nation that tries to defend that national identity, whether in military defense or in defense of a traditionally conservative Russian culture.

Ever since the US-backed NED destabilization of the Soviet Union in 1990 during the Bush Administration, it has been NATO policy and that of the influential financial interests behind NATO to break Russia into many parts, dismantle the state and loot what is left of its huge raw materials resources. The globalist Great Reset has no room for independent nation states like Russia is the message that the new Biden team will clearly convey now.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

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

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

On the fourth anniversary of the Quebec Mosque massacre, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) warmly welcomes the recent announcement by the federal government that January 29th will now be recognized as a “National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia.” The recognition of January 29 is a significant accomplishment for CJPME and allied organizations who have been advocating for this outcome for years.

“Recognizing January 29th is a huge symbolic step towards combatting anti-Muslim hate and discrimination in Canada,” said Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. “It is significant that this new National Day, in addition to being dedicated to the remembrance of the victims and their families, that it is also dedicated to taking action to combat Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred in Canadian society,” said Woodley.

Just as the government’s designation of Dec. 6 as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women brought much needed attention to that issue, CJPME hopes that the new designation for January 29 will bring greater attention to the devastating impact of Islamophobia in Canada.

In 2018, CJPME and the Canadian Muslim Forum (CMF) launched an “I Remember January 29” campaign calling for a commemoration of the tragic Quebec City Mosque Massacre of 2017. Through this campaign, over 7000 Canadians sent emails and postcards decrying the problem of Islamophobia to politicians on Parliament Hill. CJPME is particularly encouraged to see that the title of the National Day specifically references “Action on Islamophobia,” as this reflects the recommendation of the M-103 report in 2018, and it is wording that CJPME and CMF have insisted on from the beginning. CJPME thanks its thousands of supporters who participated in this campaign.

Earlier this week, CJPME and the CMF published an open letter demanding concrete action to combat Islamophobia. The letter mentioned three recent Islamophobic incidents that have gained national attention, including attacks on the appointment of Ginella Massa, a hijab-wearing Afro-Latina, as host of CBC’s Canada Tonight; false innuendo that Syrian-Canadian Transport Minister Omar Alghabra had been involved in the “political Islamic movement”; and criticism of Tunisian-Canadian Bochra Manaï’s appointment as Montreal’s first-ever commissioner on racism and systemic discrimination. The letter called on Canada’s political and civic leaders to fully implement the rest of the recommendations from the M-103 report on Islamophobia.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: A vigil in Montreal’s Park Extension. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

January 30th 2020. Commemoration of the assassination o Mahatama Gandhi. 73 years ago on January 30th, 1948.

This article was originally published on Hindustan Times in May 2017.  

**

Historians and scholars have written extensively on “who killed Gandhi and why?” and the answer, obviously, doesn’t end with Godse. What Godse told the court in an attempt to explain why he chose to pump three bullets into Gandhi’s chest at point-blank range provides a glimpse into the politics of the assassination, writes Abhishek Saha.

On January 30, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi fell to his assassin Nathuram Vinayak Godse’s bullets during an evening prayer ceremony at Birla House in Delhi. Perched atop a gate of Birla House, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru announced to the world the “light has gone out of our lives”.

Eight men were convicted in the murder trial inside Red Fort by a special court, constituted by an order of the central government. Godse and co-conspirator Narayan Apte were hanged for the murder of the Father of the Nation on November 15, 1949.

Historians and scholars have written extensively on “who killed Gandhi and why?” and the answer, obviously, doesn’t end with Godse. What Godse told the court in an attempt to explain why he chose to pump three bullets into Gandhi’s chest at point-blank range provides a glimpse into the politics of the assassination.

Why Godse killed Gandhi

“I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus,” Godse told the court.

He added:

“I bear no ill will towards anyone individually, but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.”

Godse had been an active member of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha and ran a nationalist newspaper called Hindu Rashtra. Political psychologist and social theorist Ashis Nandy wrote in his book “At the Edge of Psychology: Essays in Politics and Culture” that Godse did not find the RSS militant enough, and in the Hindu Mahasabha “he found a more legitimate expression of the Hindu search for political potency”.

Another section in Godse’s speech in court states: “To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and well-being of all India, one fifth of the human race.”

In the speech, Godse also accused Gandhi of dividing the country into India and Pakistan.

Columnist Aakar Patel, writing in Outlook magazine earlier this year. “There is a problem with Godse’s argument and it is this. He thinks Gandhi was enthusiastic about dividing India when everything in history tells us the case was the opposite.”

Godse’s speech, Patel concluded, was illogical.

“Little of what Nathuram says makes sense by way of logic. It was his (Godse’s) hatred of the secular ideology of Gandhi, the true Hindu spirit that he is finally opposed to, having been brainwashed thoroughly by the RSS.”

Godse was not alone: The larger conspiracy

Extensive research by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre for their book “Freedom at Midnight” detailed how exactly the conspiracy to kill Gandhi was hatched.

The book, published to critical acclaim in 1975, laid bare facts which prove that Gandhi’s assassination was the outcome of a larger conspiracy by Hindu fundamentalists to eliminate Gandhi from the political scene. Collins and Lapierre made full use of the access they had to critical police and intelligence records and even interviewed people who played key roles in the conspiracy, such as Nathuram’s brother Gopal Godse, Vishnu Karkare (who assisted Apte in hatching the plan) and Madanlal Pahwa, who unsuccessfully attempted to kill Gandhi ten days before he was shot dead.

In recent times, scholars and historians like AG Noorani have relentlessly written about how Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the Hindutva ideologue and former president of the Hindu Mahasabha, was involved in the conspiracy but was acquitted only because independent witnesses could not corroborate approver Digamber Badge’s testimony against him in the court.

However, after Savarkar died, his bodyguard Apte Ramchandra Kasar and his secretary Gajanan Vishnu Damlewhen corroborated Badge’s testimony to the Justice JL Kapur Commission, which was formed to look into the Gandhi assassination conspiracy in 1966.

“Had the bodyguard and the secretary but testified in court, Savarkar would have been convicted,” Noorani noted in his essay “” in The Frontline magazine in 2012.

In the essay, Noorani cited letters written by then home minister Vallabhbhai Patel, who wrote to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1948 that it was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that “(hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through”.

Noorani also quoted correspondence between Patel and Bharatiya Jana Sangh founder Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, in which Patel writes, “…our reports do confirm that, as a result of the activities of these two bodies (RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha), particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in this conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of government and the state.”

In 2003, the NDA government installed a portrait of Savarkar in the parliament’s central hall alongside, ironically, those of Gandhi and Nehru.

The ideology that killed Gandhi: Where do we stand today?

As we celebrate the 69th anniversary of our freedom from colonial rule, it is perhaps worthwhile to ponder on what the politics of Gandhi’s assassination means in today’s socio-political context.

“There are two main understandings of Indian nationalism, one which considers Hinduism to be its central feature and the other which does not have such a neat definition but considers everyone who identifies with and adopts India to be Indian. Savarkar was the one who put the final seal to the ideology India as a Hindu nation. Gandhi, Nehru and others opposed this,” said Aniket Alam, executive editor of the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW).

Majoritarian Hindu fundamentalism and similar ideologies which were pivotal in the politics of Gandhi’s assassination are doing the rounds even today. But it would be incorrect to say that it was only the Hindu extremist political parties which were opposed to Gandhi’s principles.

As Alam pointed out, the Left parties and revolutionaries, BR Ambedkar and his followers, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his Muslim League were extremely critical of Gandhi’s politics.

“Thus when we say that Hindutvawadis attack Gandhi and despise Gandhi, we should not forget that he was intensely disliked by many others and some of these traditions continue in India today. They were not complicit in his murder but they would be equally happy to destroy his historical reputation and his political legacy,” said Alam.

Nonetheless, some historians say the Hindu extremist ideology which killed Gandhi is the same as the one which threatens India today.

“The communal forces and their divisive ideology which killed Gandhi were same as the ones we see today in the form of the Ghar Wapsi and Love Jihad campaigns,” said Mridula Mukherjee, professor of history at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University.

“The main objective of communal forces is to increase antagonism between communities. It’s their aim to promote the idea that religious identities must be at loggerheads with each other. The vicious atmosphere that was created by them at the time of Gandhi’s assassination is the same as it is today.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The numbers reflect the latest data available as of Jan. 22 from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System website. Of the 329 reported deaths, 285 were from the U.S., and 44 were from other countries. The average age of those who died was 76.5.

As of Jan. 22, 329 deaths — a subset of 9,845 total adverse events — had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS) following COVID-19 vaccinations. VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before confirmation can be made that an adverse event was linked to a vaccine.

The reports, filed on the VAERS website between Dec. 14, 2020 and Jan. 22, describe outcomes ranging from “foaming at the mouth” to “massive heart attacks” to “did not recover.”

According to the Washington Post, as of Jan. 29, 22 million people in the U.S. had received one or both doses of a COVID vaccine. So far, only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been granted Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). By the FDA’s own definition, the vaccines are still considered experimental until fully licensed.

Even with the updated injury numbers released today, the CDC said Thursday that safety data shows “everything is going well.” According to USA TODAY:

“Early safety data from the first month of COVID-19 vaccination finds the shots are as safe as the studies suggested they’d be.

“Everyone who experienced an allergic response has been treated successfully, and no other serious problems have turned up among the first 22 million people vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

According to the VAERS data, of the 329 reported deaths, 285 were from the U.S., and 44 were from other countries. The average age of those who died was 76.5.

States reporting the most deaths were: California (22), Florida (16), Ohio (18), New York (15) and KY (13). Most of the reports were from, or filed on behalf of people who had received only the first dose. About half of the people reporting had the Pfizer vaccine, the other half Moderna.

The Moderna vaccine lot numbers associated with the highest number of deaths were: 025L20A (13 deaths), 037K20A (11 deaths) and 011J2A (10 deaths). For Pfizer, the lot numbers were: EK5730 (10 deaths), EJ1685 (11 deaths), EL0140 (15 deaths), EK 9231 (12 deaths) and EL1284 (11 deaths).

Several deaths and multiple severe allergic reactions are under investigation in the U.S. and Europe.

Last week, California health officials temporarily paused a large batch of Moderna vaccines due to a high number of allergic reactions, but reversed that decision a few days later.

Anyone suffering from a serious injury will have little legal recourse because they will be directed to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program which has rejected 90% of vaccine-injury claims over the past decade.

On Jan. 3, Miami obstetrician Dr. Gregory Michael died after he suffered a hemorrhagic stroke. Michael died about two weeks after receiving Pfizer-BioNtech’s COVID vaccine. Although he became ill just three days after he got the shot, Pfizer said it didn’t think there was any direct connection to the vaccine. The New York Times quoted Dr. Jerry Spivak, a blood disorder expert at Johns Hopkins University, saying “I think it’s a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.”

Officials in Orange County, California, are investigating the death of a 60-year-old healthcare worker who died Jan. 9, four days after receiving his second injection of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine. Tim Zook, an x-ray technologist at South Coast Global Medical Center in Santa Ana, was hospitalized on Jan. 5, several hours after being vaccinated. Zook’s wife, Rochelle Zook, told the Orange County Register that her husband’s health rapidly deteriorated over the next few days. She said she didn’t blame any pharmaceutical company and that people should still “take the vaccine — but the officials need to do more research. We need to know the cause.”

Data about deaths following receipt of the experimental Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are also emerging from Israel, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. Norway launched an investigation into the vaccines after the Norwegian Medicines Agency received reports of 33 suspected adverse drug reactions with fatal outcomes following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Pharma and federal agencies attributed the majority of these cases to “coincidence.”

“Coincidence is turning out to be quite lethal to COVID vaccine recipients,” said Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “If the clinical trials are good predictors, the rate of coincidence is likely to increase dramatically after the second shot.”

The clinical trials suggested that almost all the benefits of COVID vaccination and the vast majority of injuries were associated with the second dose.

While the VAERS database numbers are sobering, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, the actual number of adverse events is likely significantly higher. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on the willingness of individuals and professionals to submit reports voluntarily.

In December, CHD and Kennedy wrote to former FDA director, Dr. David  Kessler, co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and President Biden’s version of Operation Warp Speed. Kennedy told Kessler that VAERS has been an abject failure, with fewer than 1% of adverse events ever reported.

A critic familiar with VAERS’ shortcomings bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as “nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities’ systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety.”

CHD is calling for complete transparency. The children’s health organization is asking Kessler and the federal government to release all of the data from the clinical trials and suspend COVID-19 vaccine use in any group not adequately represented in the clinical trials, including the elderly, frail and anyone with comorbidities.

CHD is also asking for full transparency in post-marketing data that reports all health outcomes, including new diagnoses of autoimmune disorders, adverse events and deaths from COVID vaccines.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from CDC

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

What a glorious thing the reopening is! After nearly a year of darkening times, the light has begun to dawn, at least in the US. 

Given how incredibly political this pandemic has been from the beginning, many people smell a rat. Is it really the case that the reopening of the American economy, particularly in blue states, is so perfectly timed? Do the science and politics really line up so well?

These are questions for another day. And for the record, my own opinion is that the loosening of restrictions is timed well with the relaxing of public disease fear, from whatever source, political or through exhaustion or through a shift in the media narrative. In any case, it doesn’t matter for now. What matters right now is that the astonishing destructiveness of lockdowns might be coming to an end.

For those of us inveighing against lockdowns for a full year, it’s truly been a remarkable week. Restrictions are being loosened or are going away. We are finally getting some truth about the carnage. And we are even starting to see some elected officials being honest with us.

Let’s start in the most locked down state on the mainland: Massachusetts. Governor Charles Baker, whose pandemic management has wrecked so many businesses in his state, has decided it’s time to open up restaurants and businesses.

A hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center admits that the lockdowns didn’t achieve their goal. Shira Dorn said: “Businesses and restaurants have not been shown to be a significant source of spread of infection, and it’s not clear that the additional measures that were instituted in November and December actually helped.”

So sorry we ruined your holidays and lives.

The egregious limits on gatherings will persist for a few more weeks, but the tone of the argument here has shifted. It is the most significant change in state policy in a very long time. Perhaps people can begin soon to get their human rights back?

The same is happening in other states.

Washington, D.C. will resume indoor dining.

Maryland’s governor has decided that the state needs to reopen schools now and no later than March 1.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan says Michigan restaurants can reopen for indoor dining on February 1. Her health adviser decided to resign. Let us hope it is the beginning of many.

Chicago’s mayor is now demanding an immediate opening of restaurants and bars. Chicago is also threatening teachers unions that they must return to work.

New York Governor Cuomo has dramatically reversed his rhetorical course and demanded a reopening of the city. More announcements are expected in the coming days.

Governor Gavin Newsom, incredibly, has lifted all stay-at-home orders across the state and is permitting dining to open up. Many restaurants have defied orders for months now, and good for them. This new announcement shows that their defiance had an influence.

Montana’s new governor has lifted some Covid restrictions.

National Public Radio has decided to announce that the virus has peaked.

The WHO is insisting that the PCR cycle threshold must change. If nations adjust, it should make a big difference in the case trend.

And perhaps in the most honest statement uttered by any elected official in twelve months, Joseph Biden said the following: “There’s nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.” He didn’t need to qualify that statement. He could have stopped after pandemic.

CNN has removed the death tracker from its main page, while the New York Times has reported a 33% decline in new cases in the past two weeks. Plus, the Times, which arguably made the most profound contribution to the public panic over the virus, is finally reporting on the terrible carnage.

In an incredibly heartbreaking article, the Times chronicles the unspeakable deaths of despair from young children denied schooling over the past year. It’s an absolutely shocking article, one that should echo unto the ages, given what happened this last year. It’s worth a read.

As for the astonishingly anti-scientific blather dished out by the media over the last year, even that is starting to change. The Washington Post has published a helpful introduction to immunological basics, as written by JHU Professor Marty Makary:

Having the infection activates both antibodies as well as memory B- and T-cells, which teach your immune system to recognize the same virus in the future to swiftly eradicate it.

Natural immunity after covid-19 infection appears to last for at least the one year in which the virus has been circulating at large. Extrapolating from research on the SARS and MERS coronaviruses, it could be much longer. In one study of 176 people infected with SARS, immunity lasted for an average of two years. Another long-term analysis of health-care workers previously infected with SARS found antibodies up to 12 years later. Protective antibodies for the MERS coronavirus have similarly been documented to last for at least three years. And while the 1918 pandemic was caused by an influenza virus, the immune systems of those infected were able to make antibodies to the virus nearly nine decades later, a 2008 Nature study found.

Even mild infections appear to elicit a persistent and functional immune response. One recent European study found that people who had mild or asymptomatic covid-19 mounted a “robust T-cell immunity” afterward. A separate French study affirmed this, noting that some people who lived with a confirmed covid-infected person developed T-cell immunity even when they did not test positive for covid.

The article goes even further to openly admit what many of us have noticed since March: “Many medical experts have been dismissive of natural immunity due to prior infection, but there is overwhelming data showing that covid-19 reinfections are rare, and when they do occur, the infection is often mild.”

These basic facts fundamentally change the rationale for locking down. We’ve evolved with viruses without locking down. Starting in the late 19th century, once we got smarter about viruses, we realized that protection of the vulnerable and exposure among the non-vulnerable, in the framework of a functioning society, was the best approach to dealing with pandemics. We pursued that policy for a full century until last year. The unprecedented experiment with lockdowns will end up causing more death than if we had maintained a functioning society while treating disease as a medical and not a political problem.

We are also getting some truth telling on track-and-trace, courtesy of Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal:

Top of the list is magic solution X, a national test and trace program. I won’t mince words. A 9-year-old could see the math didn’t work. Covid spreads more easily than the flu. An overwhelming share of cases are asymptomatic or indistinguishable from ailments that millions of Americans suffer every day. In a country as big, mobile and open as the U.S., there was zero chance of catching and isolating enough spreaders to matter.

Many experts said so at the time, but quietly. Anthony Fauci eventually said so, but quietly. All implicitly knew not to get between the media and its imperative that every big misfortune be played as a failure of inadequate government.

Even when the testing data shouted the truth, the press couldn’t hear it. Our testing misses 70% to 90% of Covid cases and yet 91% of the people being tested for Covid tested negative and were suffering from something else. We were never going to make a dent in the epidemic this way. It was a distraction.

Finally, we have actual experiments in openness right here in the US. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and South Dakota have all been open since the spring of last year, with life continuing on more or less as normal. The results have been no worse and most often better than what we see in lockdown states. It’s almost as if the virus doesn’t care about your political solutions.

One final data point. I watched the AFC Championship football game last night. Gone were the dreary ads of 2020 that all began “In these challenging times.” Instead we were treated to pictures of happy parties, friends socializing, people living life normally and happily. Even the masks are going away. True the stadium was only half full due to preposterous regulations but it felt much more normal.

Are our governments getting wise? Doubtful but many are feeling pressure to start recognizing the rights of human beings again. The new variant (viruses naturally mutate and the NYT is trying to bring calm) might frighten them again. Biden has already imposed new international travel restrictions. We aren’t out of the woods yet.

Will they admit error and apologize? That will take longer if it happens at all. At this point, right now, other things matter more. The priority must be to emancipate us from bad science and destructive policy so we can put our lives back together again.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and nine books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

“Rebuilding trust and increasing global cooperation are crucial to fostering innovative and bold solutions to stem the pandemic and drive a robust recovery.”

– Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum [1]

“I don’t consider the COVID to be the great crisis. I think that the Great Reset is more of a crisis!”

-Diana Johnstone, from this week’s interview

.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The gathering of world leaders and elites completed their annual event this week.

The six day online Davos Agenda Summit, the first major global summit of the new year, saw the arrival of 1000 global leaders including heads of State and government, big company CEOs, and heads of multilateral organizations, along with members of civil society and academia. The program was built around the theme:  A Crucial Year to Rebuild Trust.[2]

A variety of topics were on the menu, including Artificial intelligence, the fourth industrial revolution, climate change, social justice, gender disparity, and trade. Although the over-riding focus was addressing the “economic, environmental, social and technological challenges following the COVID-19 pandemic.”[3][4]

Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum Founder and Executive Chairman was quoted as saying the following:

“In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need to reset priorities and the urgency to reform systems have been growing stronger around the world.”[5]

The pandemic, organizers say, accelerated the systemic changes that were apparent before it began. At the conference, Schwab released his latest publication, “Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet,” building a post COVID future on 50 years of advocacy for the stakeholder’s approach.[6]

What smells off about the approach however is the consequences for the less well off. Where does the common woman and man have a seat at the WEF? If multiple frauds and deceptions are being committed throughout the presence and reporting of the COVID crisis, what similar deceptions could be waiting in the wings at the Great Davos Delivery?

This week we will be dwelling on this theme, an ongoing COVID talking point now on the cusp of becoming the new normal in global economics.

In our first half hour, we hear Dr. Christopher Shaw, a neuroscientist introduce a unique angle with regard to the experimental virus armed with the messenger RNA. This was a left-over remaining from last week’s program.

In our second half hour, after repeating all of the problematic messaging in the official COVID story, we play a broadcast featuring Diana Johnstone, author of The Great Pretext … for Dystopia discussing the Great Reset. It was recorded by Chris Cook of CFUV’s Gorilla-Radio.

Dr. Christopher Shaw is active with Physicians for Informed Consent. He is a Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, and holds cross appointments with the Department of Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience. He is the founder and a former director of Neurodyn, a biotechnology company based out of Prince Edward Island. Dr. Shaw is also on the scientific advisory board of Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute.

Diana Johnstone is an American political writer based in Paris. Best known for her book, Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Johnstone is also the author of Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, and her  latest: Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher. She is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

Notes:

1. www.weforum.org/press/2021/01/world-leaders-to-meet-during-davos-agenda-in-a-crucial-year-to-rebuild-trust-51d7fa48d1
2. www.india.com/news/world/6-day-wef-davos-summit-2021-begins-online-from-sunday-pm-modi-xi-jinping-among-speakers-4352663/
3. www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021
4. www.weforum.org/press/2021/01/world-leaders-to-meet-during-davos-agenda-in-a-crucial-year-to-rebuild-trust-51d7fa48d1
5. ibid
6. ibid

First published on November 14, 2017.

In Commemoration: The 73d anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi  on January 30th, 1948

***

The Gandhian strategy is the combination of truth, sacrifice, nonviolence, selfless service and cooperation. According to Gandhi one should be brave and not a coward and should present his views, suggestions and thoughts without being violent. One should fight a war with the weapons of truth and nonviolence. Gandhi said that “There is no god higher than truth.” According to his thoughts, nonviolence is ultimate solution of every kind of problem in the world.

In present scenario, Satyagraha is more than a political tool of resistance. It is a holistic approach towards life, based on the ideals of truth and moral courage. The similarities of the Satyagraha to some of the greatest philosophical and religious tenets of the world have been observed and much written about. Gandhi’s system of Satyagraha was based on nonviolence, non cooperation, truth and honesty. Gandhi used nonviolence in India’s freedom struggle as main weapon and India became independent from British rule.

In present times, there are some live examples which show the success of nonviolence resistance by using Gandhian strategy. Mahatma Gandhi was against any form of exploitation and injustice. According to him, evils must be opposed at any cost. But he insisted that the weapons must be non violent and moral ones. The adoption of peaceful method made one superior and put the enemy at a disadvantage but the condition is the opponent must be dealt with mutual respect and love. Gandhi believed that only through love an enemy could be permanently won.

Introduction

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was ‘a man of millennium’ who imparts the lesson of truth, Nonviolence and peace. The philosophy and ideology is relevant still today. The philosophy of Gandhi was based on truth, sacrifice, nonviolence selfless service and cooperation. In modern times, nonviolent methods of action have been a powerful tool for social protest. According to Gandhi one should be brave and not a coward. He should present his views, suggestions and thoughts without being violent. One should fight a war with the weapons of truth and nonviolence. Gandhi said that “There is no god higher than truth.” According to Gandhi’s thoughts nonviolence is ultimate solution of every kind of problem in the world. Gandhi was single person who fought against the British with the weapons of truth and Nonviolence by persuading countrymen to walk on the path of nonviolence. Gandhi leading a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India, which eventually helped India, wins its independence in 1947. By the efforts of Gandhi India became independent. Gandhi initiated nonviolence activities like Quit India movement and non-operation movement. Gandhi could never have done what he did alone – but with his ability to identify a seed here, a seed there and nurture it, he was able to create a forest of human change. He understood that it was not enough to be a leader, but to create leaders.

In quite simple and clear words, Gandhism consists of the ideas, which Mahatma Gandhi put forth before human world. Along with that, to the maximum possible extent, Mahatma Gandhi treated his individual life in accordance with these ideas. Clearly, Gandhism is a mixture of Gandhi’s concepts and practices. I do not hold merely his theory to be Gandhism. The basic ground ship of Gandhism happens to be nonviolence. The nonviolence is the most ancient eternal value. This nonviolence is the ground of ancient-most civilization and culture of India. Mahatma Gandhi said on this very account while making his concepts and practices based on nonviolence: “I have nothing new to teach you… Truth and nonviolence are as old as hill.” As we know, nonviolence and truth are two sides of the same coin. After knowing Gandhism, it is imperative for us to know clearly the concept of nonviolence also as it accords the ground for Gandhism. Gandhi’s importance in the political world scenario is twofold. First, he retrieved nonviolence as a powerful political tool and secondly manifestation of a higher spiritual goal, culmination in world peace. For Gandhi, means were as important as the end and there could be only one means – that of nonviolence.

As a situation opposite to violence is nonviolence, we can firmly state, “Total nonviolence consists in not hurting some other one’s intellect, speech or action per own thought, utterance or deeds and not to deprive some one of his life.” Mahatma Gandhi fully agrees with above-mentioned derivation of nonviolence. He himself has said, “Nonviolence is not a concrete thing as it has generally been enunciated. Undoubtedly, it is a part of nonviolence to abstain from hurting some living being, but it is only an iota pertaining to its identity. The principle of nonviolence is shattered by every evil thought, false utterance, hate or wishing something bad unto someone. It is also shattered per possession of necessary worldly things.” In this chain Mahatma Gandhi clarified in an edition of Young India: “…To hurt someone, to think of some evil unto someone or to snatch one’s life under anger or selfishness, is violence. In contrast, purest nonviolence involves a tendency and presuming towards spiritual or physical benefit unto every one without selfishness and with pure thought after cool and clear deliberations… The ultimate yardstick of violence or nonviolence is the spirit behind the action.” There are many examples of their use like resistance, non-violent resistance, and civil revolution. Mahatma Gandhi had to struggle in his whole life, but he never disappointed, he continued his innate faith in nonviolence and his belief in the methods of Satyagraha. The significance of Satyagraha was soon accepted worldwide. Martin Luther King adopted the methods of Satyagraha in his fight against the racial discrimination of the American authorities in 1950. Gandhism is very much contextual today on this accord. It is significant. We should grasp importance of Gandhism while analyzing it.

Presently a big portion of the world happens to be under Democratic system of Government. Theoretically, this system stands out to be the best up to now. This is a truth. It is the best because people are connected with it directly or indirectly at every level. Not only this, it is this very system, which provides maximum opportunities of public progress and development. People can themselves decide in this system the mode of their welfare. However, even though being theoretically the best system of government, if we peruse the democratic nations, we first of all find that there is non-equal development of the citizens. We subsequently find that these nations are more or less victimized by regionalism. They have problem relating to language. They are under clutches of terrorism and communalism. There is also the problem of negation of human rights in these nations. There are other vivid problems akin to mention above and peace is far away so long as these problems exist. All citizens must have equal development and they should have communal harmony towards making all citizens collective and unified partners in progress. But, in reality, it is not so. It is essential that the nations of democratic system of government should be free from above-mentioned problems, must be capable of ensuring equal development of their all citizens and the citizens concerned must march forward on path of progress in unified way along with rendering contribution to world peace.

Gandhi demonstrated to a world, weary with wars and continuing destruction that adherence to Truth and Nonviolence is not meant for individuals alone but can be applied in global affairs too. Gandhi’s vision for the country and his dreams for the community as a whole still hold good for India. He got the community to absorb and reflect true values of humanity and to participate in tasks that would promote the greater good. These issues are still relevant to what free India is and represents. The main cause of worry today is intolerance and hatred leading to violence and it is here the values of Gandhi need to be adhered to with more passion.

Gandhi and Nelson Mandela

Gandhian Strategy

Gandhian strategy is mainly comprised with:

1. Satyagraha
2. Truth and honesty
3. Nonviolence
4. Cooperation
5. Peace and love

Satyagraha -A holistic approach towards life, based on the ideals of truth and moral courage.

“Satyagraha’s goal is winning over people’s hearts, and this can be achieved only with tremendous patience,” Satyagraha is more than a political tool of resistance. The similarities of the Satyagraha to some of the greatest philosophical and religious tenets of the world have been observed and much written about. However, in the specific context of India, Satyagraha was an immense influence. It went a long way in instilling among the Indians a dignity for hard labor and mutual respect. In the traditional Indian society torn apart by caste and creed based discriminations, Satyagraha stated that no work was lowly. It championed secularism and went a long way in eradicating untouchability from the heart of India’s typically stratified society. Satyagraha glorified the role of women as an important member of the society. All in all, Satyagraha instilled in the Indian mind a dignity and a self respect that is yet unprecedented in its modern history.

Gandhi’s system of Satyagraha was based on nonviolence, non-cooperation, truth and honesty. Gandhi used nonviolence in India’s freedom struggle as main weapon and India became independent from British rule.

Truth – The Most Powerful Weapon

Gandhism is more about the spirit of Gandhi’s journey to discover the truth, than what he finally considered to be the truth. It is the foundation of Gandhi’s teachings, and the spirit of his whole life to examine and understand for oneself, and not take anybody or any ideology for granted. Gandhi said: “The Truth is far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction.” Truth or ‘Satya’ was the sovereign principle of Mahatma Gandhi’s life. The Mahatma’s life was an eternal conquest to discover truth and his journey to that end was marked by experiments on himself and learning from his own mistakes. Fittingly his autobiography was titled ‘My Experiments with Truth.’ Gandhi strictly maintained that the concept of truth is above and beyond of all other considerations and one must unfailingly embrace truth throughout one’s life.

Gandhi pioneered the term Satyagraha which literally translates to ‘an endeavor for truth.’ In the context of Indian freedom movement, Satyagraha meant the resistance to the British oppression through mass civil obedience. The tenets of Truth or Satya and nonviolence were pivotal to the Satyagraha movement and Gandhi ensured that the millions of Indians seeking an end to British rule adhered to these basic principles steadfastly.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr

Nonviolence Is Everlasting

Gandhian strategy is the collection of inspirations, principles, beliefs and philosophy. The fundamentals of Gandhi’s nonviolence theory, Jainism and Buddhism were the most important influence. Both Jainism and Buddhism preached nonviolence as the basic principal of existence. Gandhi was also influenced by Bhagvad Gita with its stress on non attachment and selfless action, Christianity, along with its massage of love and compassion, extended even to one’s enemies, was another important influence on Gandhi’s life. Gandhi’s life was based on truth, honesty and moral courage.

Mahatma Gandhi was great national hero, who served the nation with truth and nonviolence. Gandhi was against violence. He always disliked war on the ground of its violent nature. That’s why when the Second World War began in 1939; he opposed the stand of British government dragging India into war without consulting Indian leaders. Gandhi was in favor of nonviolence; therefore he was against in any cooperation in war efforts. According to Gandhi the use of nonviolence consists of anger, selfishness, hatred and enmity. According to him violence cannot do anything good to human beings. A Gandhian strategy for confronting terrorism, therefore, would consist of the following:

Stop an act of violence in its tracks. The effort to do so should be nonviolent but forceful. To focus solely on acts of terrorism, Gandhi argued, would be like being concerned with weapons in an effort to stop the spread of racial hatred. Gandhi thought the sensible approach would be to confront the ideas and alleviate the conditions that motivated people to undertake such desperate operations in the first place.

As we know, nonviolence and truth go side by side. After knowing Gandhism, it is imperative for us to know clearly the concept of nonviolence also as it accords the ground for Gandhism.

For Gandhi, means were as important as the end and there could be only one means- that of nonviolence.

What is nonviolence? Ordinarily, we attribute nonviolence as a dictum that prescribes non-snatching of anyone’s life. Really, this is not complete derivation pertaining to the concept of nonviolence. Nonviolence is quite opposite to violence. As such, it would be better to know the position relating to violence in order to know nonviolence and to be in knowledge of its meaning. According to a Jain scholar:

“Whenever, we hurt some other living being through our thought, utterance or action under non-cordial stipulation and non-apt learning, such an impure spirit or act of destroying life of some other one, including the impure tendency, utterance or presuming, is taken to be full of vice of violence. In such a situation, even if there is no sort of violence externally, it intrinsically ipso facto remains a tendency of violence.”There are three categories of violence:

• When we hit physically anybody.
• When we think wrong and feel jealous with anybody.
• When we aggressively speak and abuse to anybody.

All these categories create negative energy in human body. The negative energy has adverse affect on human body. Gandhi criticized violence. It is a body of ideas and principles that describes the inspiration, vision and the life work of Gandhi. It is particularly associated with his contributions to the idea and practice of nonviolence resistance, sometimes also called civil resistance. The term “Gandhism” also encompasses what Gandhi’s ideas, words and actions mean to people around the world, and how they used them for guidance in building their own future. Gandhism also permeates into the realm of the individual human being, non-political and non-social. A Gandhian can mean either an individual who follows, or a specific philosophy which is attributed to, Gandhism.

In context of nonviolence being perpetual, Mahatma Gandhi states, “…When we peruse the era from beginning unto now relating to the period for which we gain historical evidence, we find that man has been ultimately treading path of nonviolence.” It is, as such, that nonviolence came into existence along with man. “In case it has not been with man from the very beginning, there might have been self-doom by man.” As Martin Luther King Jr. said: “The choice is not between violence and nonviolence but between nonviolence and non-existence.”
However, it has not been that and not only human race is alive in such a huge number but there has been gradual enhancement in development and nearness in spite of presence of various obstacles and nuisances. This could never have been, but because nonviolence is perpetual, it happened.

Mahatma Gandhi was against any form of exploitation and injustice. According to him, evils must be opposed at any cost. But he insisted that the weapons must be non violent and moral ones. The adoption of peaceful method made one superior and put the enemy at a disadvantage but the condition is the opponent must be dealt with mutual respect and love. Gandhi believed that only through love an enemy could be permanently won.

Nonviolence is not passive. It is active, creative, provocative and challenging. Gandhi described nonviolence as “A force more powerful than all the weapons of world combined.” “Nonviolence is the greatest and most active force in the world.” Gandhi wrote, “It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of humanity. When we tap into the spirit of nonviolence, it becomes contagious and can topple empires.” In relation to violence, there are two options in the world. These options are, we fight –back or run away. Nonviolence gives us third option: creative active, peaceful resistance to injustice. Nonviolence means standing unmoving against injustice until injustice is transformed into justice. Nonviolence dose not harm to others and does not adversely affect other directly .but it works internally. Instead of killing others, we should do in the nonviolent struggle for justice and human rights. Nonviolence begins in the heart then it moves out to our families, local communities, cities, nation and world.

Gandhi thought, debased those who adopted it. A violent posture adopted by public authorities could lead to a civil order based on coercion. For this reason Gandhi insisted on means consistent with the moral goals of those engaged in the conflict.

Gandhi and Einstein

Relevance of Gandhian Strategy in Modern Context

In modern times, nonviolent methods of action have been a powerful tool for social protest. There are many examples of nonviolence like civil resistance, nonviolence resistance, and civil revolution. Here certain movements particularly influenced by a philosophy of nonviolence should be mentioned, including Mahatma Gandhi leading a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India, which eventually helped India win its independence in 1947, Gandhi had to pay for his ideals with his life, but he never veered from his innate faith in nonviolence and his belief in the methods of Satyagraha. The significance of Satyagraha was soon accepted worldwide. Martin Luther King adopted the methods of Satyagraha in his fight against the racial discrimination of the American authorities in 1950.

He dreamt that of ethics and values practiced in daily lives. But more than half a century after independence is it really so? But should we judge Gandhi and nonviolence only by the test of short-term success? If there lays inbound strength in truth that could free us from the chains of the British rule then why can’t it rid us of the corruption prevalent everywhere? It’s not the principles that have become irrelevant rather it is the impatient nature of today’s progress that has made “corruption” so popular. Violence is definitely not the answer to burning issues. The need for the day is to shut down the egoistic attitude and mutual distrust. Nonviolence can be a good force if practiced. If we “shoot the messenger” we can’t progress. There is no room for patronage among equals. M. N. Roy, who founded Radical Humanism, said: “When a man really wants freedom and to live in a democratic society he may not be able to free the whole world… but he can to a large extent at least free himself by behaving as a rational and moral being, and if he can do this, others around him can do the same, and these again will spread freedom by their example.” If that is the goal, then Gandhi is more relevant than ever. In present times, there are some live examples which show the success of Nonviolence resistance by using Gandhian strategy.

On 5 April 2011, a 73-year-old man in central Delhi stopped eating. The man in question was Kisan Baburao Hazare, and he was protesting the Congress-led central government’s lacka­daisical attempts to punish those guilty of large-scale corruption. His specific demand was that “civil society” should have a say in drafting a stringent anti-corruption law, the Lokpal Bill. The government draft was eyewash, he claimed; outside partici­pation was the only way to ensure an anti-corruption law with any teeth. Hazare, “Anna” to his followers, was by no means the only man on a hunger strike there. But he was onto something. While the government was drowning in a flood of corruption scandals – most prominently, the 2G spectrum allocation controversy and the Commonwealth Games fiasco – Anna Hazare’s perfectly timed protest managed to ride the wave. A throng of civic activists, movie stars, and well-heeled supporters from the urban middle classes took his side. Though estimates of its popularity are hard to gauge, it is fair to say that the Anna Hazare movement spread beyond Delhi and to the rest of urban India, which is why the Congress Party soon capitulated. On 8 April the govern­ment agreed that five members, chosen by Anna Hazare, would be part of the Lokpal Bill drafting committee. Neither Anna Hazare’s methods nor the cause were particularly original. Yoga guru Baba Ramdev had previously fasted on the corruption issue; he fasted again soon after Anna Hazare’s fast ended. The move to enact an effective anti-corruption bill also has an old genesis. In the 1960s itself, the idea of the Lokpal was suggested by the first Administrative Reforms Commission. Even before Anna Hazare’s fast, Aruna Roy and other civil society members had been Anna Hazare is one of India’s well-acclaimed social activists. A former soldier in the Indian army, Anna is well known and respected for upgrading the ecology and economy of the village of Ralegan Siddhi which is located in the drought prone Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra state.

On the extraordinary 12th day of Anna Hzare’s anti corruption fast, the parliament responded with extraordinary grace to show what it could do to honor a crusader’s urge. After over eight hours of debate around the structure of Lokpal Bill the Government and the opposition in both the Loksbha and Rajya Sabha came together to agree ”in-principal” to the three major demands the activist had raised in his letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as a condition to end his protest. Anna Hazare’s previous achievements which are based on truth and Satyagrha are following:

The erstwhile barren village has metamorphosed into a unique model of rural development due to its effective water conservation methods, which made the villagers self-sufficient. Earlier, the same village witnessed alcoholism, utter poverty and migration to urban slums. Inspired by Hazare’s unique approach of salvaging a hopeless village, the state government has implemented the `Model Village’ scheme as part of its official strategy. Hazare is now synonymous with rural development in India. Integrated village Development Project as a part of Golden Jubilee celebration of Bharat Chhodo Andolan. Adarsh Gaon Yojna was started under his chairmanship – “Model Village “project. Watershed development is one of the key tools contributing towards the overall objective of reducing poverty through sustainable development.

The common man is put to lot of hardships and it has become difficult to make both ends meet as prices of essential commodities are rising constantly due to corruption. Hazare believes that our freedom is at the teeth of danger due to corruption and unless it is eliminated, the country will not be free in its true sense. Therefore, a peaceful war has been waged against corruption with the help of immense support from people.

Right to Information includes the citizens’ right to – inspect works, documents, and records, take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records, take certified samples of material, obtain information in form of printouts, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts. The citizens can obtain the above from all government departments to ensure transparency. All they need to do is to invoke the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The state of Maharashtra leads in RTI activism and use, thanks to Anna Hazare’s inspiring leadership.

Gandhigiri The public face of the movement, Anna Hazare, describes himself as a Gandhian. His social movement, centered in Ralegaon Siddhi in rural Maharashtra, harks back to Gandhi’s Phoenix farm and Sabarmati ashram. Many of his campaigns, against alcoholism or untouchability, make the Gandhian connect between social reform and political emancipation. His preaches nonviolence is comfortable with religious idioms (a portrait of Bharat Mata hung behind him while he fasted for the Jan Lokpal Bill), 14 and makes personal probity the centre piece of the campaign. Yet, while the movement claims Gandhi’s morals and employs his methods, its political vision is as far as can be from Gandhi himself. Ironically, this is what makes it so successful in21st century India. Understanding this neo-Gandhian activism, “Gandhigiri” is key to understanding the Anna Hazare movement. Two makers of modern India were quick to distance themselves from Gandhi’s idea of a state. As has been well chronicled, Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision of a modern, centralized, powerful Indian state that could bring about both economic prosperity as well as social justice was anathema to Gandhi’s union of village republics. Gandhi, an early critic of modernity, was disillusioned with the violence and illegitimacy of the State. Independent India is a testament to exactly the reverse impulse: of a centralized state driving large development projects in the name of the greater common good.

Gandhi and Tolstoy

Conclusion

Gandhi dreamed of a new world of nonviolence with overall peaceful environment. Nonviolence is a universal phenomenon and it has great relevance and significance. It is the ultimate solution of all kinds of problems and conflicts in the society, nation and world. However, its result depends upon its understanding and proper application. The present scenario of violence and exploitation all over the world has raised an important issue. Any nation which has been suffered with communalism, dictatorship, corruption and power games really needs to go back to Gandhi’s conviction of nonviolence and truth as his mission. By adopting nonviolence, social, political, economic and religious conflicts shall be removed. Undoubtedly, the social doctrine of nonviolence that has emerged from Gandhian ideas has now become the key to forge and sustain the new social and political order. Today, there is need to adopt Gandhian philosophy and ideology in overall world to remove all kind of problems and creating peaceful environment. Gandhi is not the past, he is the future. He is an early sign of what we can be.

Presently a big portion of the world happens to be under Democratic system of Government. Theoretically, this system stands out to be the best up to now. This is a truth. It is the best because people are connected with it directly or indirectly at every level. Not only this, it is this very system, which provides maximum opportunities of public progress and development. People can themselves decide in this system the mode of their welfare. However, even though being theoretically the best system of government, if we peruse the democratic nations, we first of all find that there is non-equal development of the citizens. We subsequently find that these nations are more or less victimized by regionalism. They have problem relating to language. They are under clutches of terrorism and communalism. There is also the problem of negation of human rights in these nations. There are other vivid problems akin to mention above and peace is far away so long as these problems exist. These nations should get themselves rid of these problems, all citizens of them must have equal development and they should have communal harmony towards making all citizens collective and unified partners in progress. But, in reality, it is not so.

It is essential that the nations of democratic system of government should be free from above-mentioned problems, must be capable of ensuring equal development of their all citizens and the citizens concerned must march forward on path of progress in unified way along with rendering contribution to world peace. Gandhism is very much contextual today on this accord. It is significant. Let us grasp importance of Gandhism while analyzing it in brief.

Gandhi inspires an alternative vision of politics and resistance at a time when oppression is not only getting more overt and physical but also more insidious. His ideology of nonviolence is a good point to start from. It may not succeed, but it opens a world of possibilities and encourages us to think outside the box. His life also illustrates how radical ideas are first dismissed, only to be tested and embraced later. Gandhi demonstrated to a World, weary with wars and continuing destruction that adherence to Truth and Nonviolence is not meant for individuals alone but can be applied in global affairs too. Gandhi’s vision for the country and his dreams for the community as a whole still hold good for India. He got the community to assimilate and reflect true values of humanity and to participate in tasks that would promote the greater good. These issues are still relevant to what free India is and represents. The main cause of worry today is intolerance and hatred leading to violence and it is here the values of Gandhi need to be adhered to with more passion. He is relevant not yesterday or today but forever!

Sunanda Sharma is Assist. Prof. Dept. of Commerce JCDAV College, Dasuya, Punjab, India.

Sources

Chand Hukam, History of modern India, Anmol Publication Pvt. Ltd (2005)

Chand Hukam, History of Modern India, Anmol Publication, 2003.

Nanda B.R, Mahatma Gandhi-A Biography, OXFORD University Press, Calcutta, Chennai, Mumbai.

Jai Narain Sharma, “Indian society of Gandhian studies”, Journal of Gandhian studies, Vol. 5, 2007.

Jain, N.K., WTO Concept Challenges and Global development.

Kapur, Devesh (2010): “The Middle Class in India: A Social Formation or Political Actor” in Julian Go

Pati, Biswamoy (2004): “BJP’s ‘Stumbling Blocks’: The Voter, Pluralism and Democracy”, Economic & Political Weekly, 39(21).

Rudolph, Lloyd I and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph (1981): “Judicial Review versus Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Struggle over Stateness in India”, 19, J Commonwealth and Comparative Politics.

Sitapati, Vinay (2009): “Right to Education Bill Ignoring Disabled, Pass only After Changes: Disability Activists”, The Indian Express, 3 August.

Sridharan, E (2008): “The Political Economy of the Middle Classes in Liberalizing India”, ISAS Working Paper.

Vanaik, Achin (2002): “Consumerism and New Classes in India” in Sujata Patel, Jasodhara Bagchi and Krishna Raj (ed.), Thinking Social Science in India: Essays in Honor of Alice Thorner (New Delhi).

All images in this article are from Transcend Media Service.

First published on January 28, 2020

This incisive article focusses on Mohandas Gandhi‘s call for non-violence, while underscoring today’s instruments of violence –including economic violence– exerted with impunity by the upper echelons of the financial establishment.

Robert J. Burrowes describes the complexities of the World prior to the onset of the Corona Crisis (in late January) as:

“an interrelated series of military, nuclear, ecological, economic, geoengineering, 5G, biodiversity and climate crises”

“The World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, which had no problem co-opting the usual range of concerned high-profile individuals to participate in (and thus add a veneer of legitimacy to) its annual forum [January 2020] despite its extensively documented role in killing and exploiting fellow human beings and plundering the Earth while obscuring and ‘greenwashing’ its violence using the corporate media.”

And these are the Davos people committed to enforcing a “New Normal” of  engineered unemployment and poverty, which is presented to public opinion as a humanitarian public health endeavour.

We refer you to an extensive archive of articles by Robert J. Burrowes on conflict, non violence and international solidarity.

Michel Chossudovsky, January 30, 2021,  on the 73d commemoration of Mohandas Gandhi’s assassination

***

As we approach the 73^d anniversary of the assassination of Mohandas K. Gandhi on 30 January 1948, it is worth reflecting on one simple fact that he did not realize. His efforts to teach humanity that conflict, including violent conflict, could be resolved without violence were based on one fundamentally flawed assumption: that at least some humans were interested in, and committed to, seeking out and using nonviolent strategies for dealing with conflict in each and every context.

Unfortunately, as his own experience taught him and he showed clear signs of realizing towards the end of his life, the fundamental truth is that humans love violence and it is this love of violence that will ensure the extinction of Homo sapiens in the near term absent a profound response that shows no sign of emerging yet. See ‘Human Extinction Now Imminent and Inevitable? A Report on the State of Planet Earth’.

This love of violence, reinforced by the enormous fear associated with resisting it, is generated by the violent parenting and education models that we have long been using and which inflict enormous ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence on all young people throughout their childhood and adolescence in the name of ‘socialization’. See ‘Why Violence?’, ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’ and ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

These violently dysfunctional parenting and education models ensure that virtually every child emerges into adulthood as an unconsciously terrified, self-hating and powerless individual. This individual has been terrorized into surrendering their unique Self and accepting the ‘socially constructed delusional identity’ they have been given to participate in society as a submissive student, worker/soldier and citizen. ‘Powerful’ is not a word that can be used to describe the typical human being.

This ‘individual’, among a vast range of other violent and dysfunctional behaviors, chronically over-consumes (as they have been taught to do) to compensate for their inability to feel their deeply suppressed feelings including their fear, (emotional) pain, anger, sadness, love and joy. Unfortunately, of course, this over-consumption cannot make someone psychologically whole and that is why virtually all humans who are in the circumstances to do so, chronically over-consume and chronically accumulate in an endless but futile attempt to satisfy deep but unmet emotional needs. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.

As a result of this socially-approved psychological dysfunctionality, we are now confronted with an interrelated series of military, nuclear, ecological, economic, geoengineering, 5G, biodiversity and climate crises that are not being contained in any way because virtually everyone is deluding themselves about the drivers of these interrelated crises – on two distinct levels – and what must be done about them.

Most fundamentally, as briefly identified above and elaborated in the references cited, to the extent that some humans are even interested in tackling this multifaceted crisis in our biosphere, they are failing to identify their own psychological dysfunctionality and its causes as the primary driver of this crisis. And secondly, therefore, they are attempting to resolve the crisis without understanding its cause.

As a result, virtually all people end up powerlessly begging the insane global elite – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’– or its compliant government agents, to fix this crisis for them rather than taking the necessary strategic action (in one or more of a range of ways) themselves.

This was classically illustrated at the recent World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, which had no problem co-opting the usual range of concerned high-profile individuals to participate in (and thus add a veneer of legitimacy to) its annual forum despite its extensively documented role in killing and exploiting fellow human beings and plundering the Earth while obscuring and ‘greenwashing’ its violence using the corporate media.

See the WEF’s delusional ‘How to Save the Planet’ which obviously does not even mention the wars, grotesque inequality – see ‘5 shocking facts about extreme global inequality and how to even it up’ – and other violence it helps to generate and maintain, let alone mention what is actually necessary if we are to tackle this multifaceted crisis and avert human extinction. For one brief exposé of the World Economic Forum’s central role in elite violence, exploitation and destruction, see ‘Exposing the Giants: The Global Power Elite’. For more detail, see Giants: The Global Power Elite.

Needless to say, the co-opted individuals are politically naïve, to put it mildly, and have no understanding of how the world actually works. For a brief outline of this latter point, see ‘Why Activists Fail’.

So what are the functions of elite-sponsored gatherings such as the World Economic Forum in Davos?

In essence, its functions are to deflect attention from elite violence, exploitation and destruction and to delude people into believing that its intention is to act in the best interests of humanity and the biosphere. This is done so that people continue to focus their efforts on lobbying the elite (and their government agents) rather than taking effective action themselves. How is this done?

At elite fora of this nature, there are always two agendas. The public agenda is designed to delude the gullible public: it is designed to pay lip service to selected problems at a superficial level using a panel of high profile speakers to distract our attention. But the deep agenda is undeclared and is only discussed by key groups of elite individuals who meet secretly to plan, organize and strike deals regarding their ongoing violence, exploitation and destruction. Some of these individuals might even appear at the public forum so that their presence is noted; many will not be seen at all. But none of them is paying attention to what is spoken at the public gatherings because it is irrelevant to them.

Of course, the elite-owned and controlled corporate media will dutifully report the public gatherings with high profile speakers begging the elite to take some form of action to address one or other of our crises. But the corporate media well understands that it must make no reference to the many secretive gatherings held throughout the forum where the real action takes place. A fine outcome for everyone involved: the concerned public is deluded into believing that because its spokespeople have spoken (and been given prominent media attention) that their concerns have been heard, and the elite has deflected all attention from the further violence, exploitation and destruction it has planned.

So this charade, played out routinely throughout the year in a variety of elite-controlled fora where it is intended – but in stark contrast to the strict secrecy surrounding other elite gatherings such as those involving the Group of Thirty and the extended executive committee of the Trilateral Commission which perform the core policy-planning for the global elite – masks the most fundamental problem of all.

Which, in essence, is this: Who wants to address their own psychological dysfunctionalities and/or who wants to reduce their own consumption? It is far easier to delude oneself about the cause (anything but our own psychological dysfunctionalities and over-consumption), blame someone or something else (such as capitalism) and beg someone else (such as elites and their governments) to fix it. And then powerlessly complain when nothing happens.

This is why the obvious lack of interest in even understanding, fundamentally, what is driving violence in each and every context is such a glaring omission from the scholarly literature. Of course, there are plenty of attempts to explain violence in particular contexts, ranging from those supposedly explaining the cause of domestic violence to those supposedly explaining the cause of war or the climate catastrophe, but these are always incredibly simplistic because they do not understand what is causing violence per se (and hence driving it in each and every context). And if we do not understand the fundamental cause of violence – see ‘Why Violence?’ – then it cannot be addressed, as our incredibly violent world – with humans now on the brink of precipitating their own extinction – clearly demonstrates. (Of course, as more than 50 years of experience has taught me, there is no funding to undertake research to understand violence nor any funding to work to end it: Obvious symptoms of our love of violence.)

So let me illustrate just some of the ways, apart from chronic overconsumption and chronic accumulation, in which this human love of violence manifests.

Most obviously, humans love profiting from violence and the larger the scale at which the violence is conducted the better. So, for example, the shareholders, executives and staff of weapons corporations – particularly Lockheed Martin (USA), Boeing (USA), BAE Systems (UK), Raytheon (USA), Northrop Grumman (USA), General Dynamics (USA), Airbus Group (Europe), United Technologies Corporation (USA), Leonardo (Italy), Thales (France), Almaz-Antey (Russia) – make enormous profits or simply earn a salary/wage by manufacturing and selling weapons to kill people all over the world whom they do not even know.

Needless to say, these shareholders, executives and staff are devoid of a conscience or moral compass in any form, as well as the capacities for love, empathy and compassion in any meaningful way. ‘We make weapons to defend our country’, they might claim. Which only proves they are devoid of the capacity for critical analysis as well, given the real reason that military violence is inflicted around the world – see Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield and ‘Understanding NATO, Ending War’– and the myriad ways that conflict can be resolved without violence provided one has the intellectual, emotional and moral capacities to do so. See ‘Human Intelligence or Human Awareness?’ and ‘Challenges for Resolving Complex Conflicts’.

Similarly, shareholders, executives and staff of fossil fuel corporations – see a long list of key corporations in ‘Strategic Aims’– love profiting from the exploitation of resources that, when burnt, are destroying Earth’s climate. Like their counterparts in the weapons industry, these people are so psychologically damaged that they are simply devoid of capacities such as conscience, love and compassion as well as that for critical analysis too.

But the list of humans who simply love profiting from violence is endless. Consider those involved, from politicians and bureaucrats to military officers and soldiers, who authorize, organize, plan and conduct war as well. Not to mention taxpayers, of course, who happily (or fearfully) pay for it all.

Or consider those in the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries who are intent on destroying our damaged minds even more completely – see ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’– or those involved in the many other industries that also profit from inflicting, financing and/or promoting violence in one or more of its myriad forms, whether against humans or the biosphere.

These industries include the following: the major asset management corporations (such as BlackRock and J.P. Morgan Chase), the major banks and their ‘industry groups’ like the International Monetary Conference, the large investment firms, the major financial services companies, the big technology corporations, the major media corporations particularly including the three global news agencies (Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and Thomson Reuters), the large marketing and public relations corporations, the major agrochemical giants, the huge biotechnology (genetic mutilation) corporations, the major mining corporations, the nuclear power corporations, the major food multinationals (selling processed, poisoned, genetically mutilated and/or junk food) and water corporations. For the names of key corporations in each of these industries, see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

Of course, there are many other industries which do nothing but inflict violence too, such as the police, legal and prison systems. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’ and ‘Punishment is Violent and Counterproductive’.

But separately from the manifestations of violence illustrated above, which fall mainly into the domains of direct (biological and physical), institutional (socially endorsed), structural (such as capitalism and imperialism) and ecological violence, there are several other domains of violence each of which has its own manifestations too. These include violence that is labeled cultural (‘those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence – exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science (logic, mathematics) – that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence’ in the words of Professor Johan Galtung) and psychological (‘lies, brainwashing, indoctrination of various kinds, threats, etc. that serve to decrease mental potentialities’), for example. For a fuller discussion of these categories of violence, see ‘Ending Violence, Exploitation, Ecological Destruction and War: Creating a Culture of Peace’.

However, to reiterate what I mentioned at the beginning of this article, the fundamental driver of all of this violence is our violent parenting and education models. See ‘Why Violence?’, ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’and ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

So, unless we address this fundamental cause of violence, there is no prospect of ending violence generally and human extinction, at our own hand, is inevitable and will now take place in the near term. For further documentation of this point, see ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’, ‘Doomsday by 2021?’ and ‘Extinction in 2020?’

Ending Violence

So if you share Gandhi’s passion to end violence, then we must do many things.

Most fundamentally, we must nurture children so that they have the capacity to live by their conscience, the intellectual capacity to critique society and the courage necessary to resist elite and other violence strategically and fearlessly, while living sustainably despite the entreaties to over-consume. See ‘My Promise to Children’ and ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

If your own intellectual and/or emotional functionality is the issue and you have the self-awareness to perceive that, and wish to access the conscience and courage that would enable you to act powerfully, try ‘Putting Feelings First’.

If we are to resist elite violence effectively, in a great many contexts, we must campaign strategically to do so. Whether you are engaged in a peace, climate, environment or social justice campaign, the 12-point strategic framework and principles are the same. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy. And, for example, you can see a basic list of the strategic goals necessary to end war and halt the climate catastrophe in ‘Strategic Aims’.

If you want to know how to nonviolently defend against a foreign invading power or a political/military coup, to liberate your country from a dictatorship or a foreign occupation, or to defeat a genocidal assault, you will learn how to do so in ‘Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy’.

Given that substantially reducing consumption is imperative if we are to survive, we will also need to become largely self-reliant. You can learn how to to do this in a way that has strategic impact by participating (preferably now using a substantially accelerated timeframe) in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ which outlines a simple plan to systematically reduce your consumption by at least 80%, involving both energy and resources of every kind – water, household energy, transport fuels, metals, meat, paper and plastic – while dramatically expanding your individual and community self-reliance in 16 areas.

And if you want to be part of the worldwide movement committed to ending all violence, consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Conclusion

Human beings love violence. This love of violence is the inevitable outcome of parenting and education models that are designed to destroy the ‘Selfhood’ of each child and turn them into a ‘socially constructed delusional identity’ that readily participates, as a submissive student, worker/soldier and citizen, in their society on the promise that they can over-consume as compensation for surrendering their unique Self.

This over-consumption requires extraordinary levels of violence in its many domains so that the nature and extent of the violence is largely obscured from the attention of most people.

Nevertheless, the simple reality is this: If enough of us reduce our consumption and increase our local self-reliance, capitalism will fade away, wars and other military violence against resource-rich countries (in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Central/South America) to steal resources on our behalf will cease, and the enormous pressure on our biosphere will be decreased. Of course, we can accelerate this outcome by acting strategically on several other fronts at the same time, as noted above.

But we need a global movement – and soon – for this strategy to succeed. Mind you, no other strategy has any prospect of succeeding.

While the global elite is destroying the biosphere to produce the goods we all buy, it does not need to respond to our entreaties no matter what form they take. In essence, if you fly and drive, the elite will make sure the war economy extracts the raw materials to make your aircraft and your vehicle, and the fossil fuels (or equivalent) to fuel them. If you don’t fly and drive, the elite won’t destroy more of the biosphere (often destroying countries, killing people and inflicting other atrocities in the process) to produce these commodities for you. Your personal choice (for good or bad) makes a vital difference, including because of the example you set for others.

As Gandhi, already wearing his own homespun cloth, noted more than 100 years ago: ‘Earth provides enough for every person’s need but not for every person’s greed.’ This is something that those attending the World Economic Forum are too psychologically damaged to understand.

And you?

Or, if the options above seem too complicated, consider committing to:

The Earth Pledge 

Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:

1. I will listen deeply to children (see explanation above)
2. I will not travel by plane
3. I will not travel by car
4. I will not eat meat and fish
5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
7. I will not buy rainforest timber
8. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
9. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
10. I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
11. I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
12. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
13. I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. 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.

Did CDC Deliberately Mislead Public on Allergic Reactions to Moderna Vaccine?

By Dr. Meryl Nass and John Stone, January 29 2021

On Jan. 13, California health officials issued a hold on 330,000 doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine after “fewer than 10” people at San Diego’s Petco Park stadium vaccine clinic suffered allergic reactions to the vaccine. Santa Clara County officials lifted the hold on the vaccine lot in question on Jan. 21.

Ten Reasons Why SARS-CoV-2 Is an “Imaginary” and “Theoretical Virus”. “They Never Isolated the Virus”

By Makia Freeman, January 29 2021

The Imaginary and Theoretical Virus known as SARS-CoV-2, a concept which has been used by the NWO (New World Order) controllers to shut down the world, is becoming more and more exposed as the months go by.

Electromagnetic Fields, 5G and Health: What About the Precautionary Principle?

By John William Frank, January 29 2021

Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question.

Biden Will Likely Try to Politically Influence Venezuela by Re-engaging with It Economically

By Paul Antonopoulos, January 29 2021

After the EU, the U.S. could also end its recognition of the self-proclaimed interim president and change its sanctions policy with a new one that is more conducive to normalization. Washington will most likely try and strengthen American economic presence in the devastated Venezuelan economy and convert that into political influence.

With Likely Victory of Andrés Arauz, Ecuador Will Join Latin America’s Anti-Imperialist Surge

By Alan MacLeod, January 29 2021

Ecuador is just weeks away from becoming the latest Latin American nation to move away from the IMF and United States and elect a strongly progressive, anti-imperialist government.

If US Foreign Policy Toward Palestine Is Any Indication, “Trump Is Here to Stay”

By Rima Najjar, January 29 2021

As I watch the unfolding political drama of the impeachment trial in the US Senate, the glimmer of hope for change I had following the incredible scenes at the Capitol on Jan 6 is being dimmed. The question in my mind now is whether it is even possible, with the tools being used by Joe Biden, to turn the tide on Trump’s movement.

Blinken Says Iran Must Comply with Nuclear Deal before the US Does

By Dave DeCamp, January 29 2021

In a sign that the US is a long way from lifting sanctions on Iran, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US will not return to the nuclear deal until Iran comes back into compliance.

Video: Israeli Military Asks $1.2 Billion to Prepare for Strike on Iran

By South Front, January 29 2021

The Israeli military needs over $1 billion to fund its widely promoted strike on Iran, which Tel Aviv has threatened to carry out if the US should rejoin the nuclear deal.

Relations Between India and Russia on the Rise

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, January 29 2021

Military relations between Russia and India are increasing and this can bring a series of significant changes in international society. However, this is unlikely to be pleasing to Washington, which sees New Delhi as a key partner in its strategy for the Indo-Pacific region.

“Western Civilization”: The Culture of Slavery vs. the Culture of Resistance

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, January 29 2021

The general problem of culture today is its ability to facilitate and support negative aspects of society through encouraging escapism, diversion and ignorance regarding many important issues of contemporary life, such as economic crises, repressive legislation, poverty, and climate chaos.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As a good tradition observed in Russia, Jan 25 is popularly called Tatyana’s Day – the last day of the first study semester in the academic year for all institutes and universities, so President Vladimir Putin seized the opportunity to interact with a cross-section of students via videoconference.

In his introductory remarks, Putin expressed appreciation for their readiness to learn and receive new knowledge amid the difficult conditions of the pandemic, and despite the fact that the technical capabilities for remote study are not always available, some places lack equipment and the necessary internet speed.

“Overall, this unusual format could not but affect the comprehensiveness and quality of education and the academic performance rating. Again, I reiterate that the transition to a totally remote study format was an exclusively temporary measure (in the places where it was introduced), related to, as we know, the spread of the coronavirus,” he said.

At the same time, it is necessary to make use of the experience accumulated, the best know-how and practices, increasing the digital potential of all universities. Incidentally, it had already laid the groundwork for this, meaning the education system was prepared for the challenges of the era of rapid technological transformation and, importantly, opened up new opportunities for young people throughout the country. Online education is extremely important for such a huge country as Russia.

Putin said that efforts to strengthen and drastically expand the chain of modern higher education institutions all over Russia certainly rank among national priorities. This work is already underway, and it will continue.

“We have already expanded state-funded places at higher education institutions. This mainly concerns higher education institutions in the regions. Consequently, at least 60 percent of Russian high-school graduates can expect to study free of charge under higher education curricula,” he informed. “We will expand the share of state-funded students because the number of high school graduates will increase here in the next few years, due to positive earlier results achieved by our programmes to support families, to increase birth rates and to facilitate demographic development.”

According to him, affordable higher education is a highly significant matter in the context of social and national development and in providing equitable and equal opportunities for people’s self-realisation. Successful studies at higher education institutions are intended to pave the way for professional success in life.

Furthermore, this year (2021) has been declared the Year of Science and Technology. This is ultimate recognition of the merits of our scientists and engineers, the enormous role of knowledge and innovation in people’s life and in the development of our regions, cities and villages.

“I am confident that it is universities that must become real centres for the scientific and technological development of the Russian regions and pool the efforts of students, postgraduate students, strong teachers and professors, and company specialists for resolving practical tasks. All of them must form a single team and work in this way,” Putin told the students.

To attract and interest these young and talented people, it is necessary to strengthen the research potential of universities, upgrade their infrastructure in general, and build dormitories as well as sports and social facilities. Of course, it is necessary to improve cities and create the conditions for leisure and recreation, as well as for implementing business, creative and public initiatives.

In this context, last year a draft federal law that substantially expands the autonomy of universities in forming educational programmes, and introducing many other useful innovations, was submitted to the State Duma.

In a word, it is essential to ensure modern standards for education and life and for a start of career. There is a saying, “East or West, home is best.” This saying reflects great wisdom. It is necessary to use energy, vigour and talent for developing this big and enormous country.

Vladimir Putin held a meeting via videoconference with representatives of universities and other higher education institutions of Kazan, Samara, Smolensk, Ufa, Crimea, Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod and Saransk.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles including can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

‘They adopted our dressing fashion, and begun wearing the togas; little by little they were drawn to touches such as colonnades, baths, and elegant talks. Because they didn’t know better, they called it ‘civilization,’ when it was part of their slavery‘

‘Inde etiam habitus nostri honor et frequens toga; paulatimque discessum ad delenimenta vitiorum, porticus et balinea et convivorum elegantiam. Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset‘  (Tacitus, Agricola)

Introduction

The general problem of culture today is its ability to facilitate and support negative aspects of society through encouraging escapism, diversion and ignorance regarding many important issues of contemporary life, such as economic crises, repressive legislation, poverty, and climate chaos. Or worse still, the use of culture to promote elite views of society regarding power and money, as well as imperialist agendas through negative depictions of a targeted ethnic group or country.

In this, some would call a neo-feudalist age, we see echoes of an earlier feudalism with its abuse of power and wealth that the philosophers of the Enlightenment tried to deal with and rectify. The Enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries.

It was led by philosophers such as Cesare Beccaria, Denis Diderot, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, John Locke, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Hugo Grotius, Baruch Spinoza, and Voltaire. Their concerns about injustice, intolerance and autocracy led to the introduction of democratic values and institutions, and the creation of modern, liberal democracies.

A painting of the 1840 Anti-Slavery Conference. The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840, by Benjamin Robert Haydon (died 1846), given to the National Portrait Gallery, London in 1880 by the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. Oil on canvas, 1841. 117 in. x 151 in. (2972 mm x 3836 mm). This monumental painting records the 1840 convention of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society which was established to promote worldwide abolition.

However, a new movement in the arts and literature arose in the late 18th century, Romanticism, which emphasized inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual. Romanticism was a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, aristocratic society and politics, and the scientific rationalization of nature. Romanticism became the basis of many subsequent cultural movements whose common feature has been anti-science and individualistic.

The Romanticist influence can be seen in ‘mainstream’ mass culture and high culture in terms of its emphasis on formal experimentation or emotions over sociopolitical content. Romanticist reaction stressed “sensibility” or feeling, and tended towards looking inwards. It was a movement whose ideas have come to dominate much of culture today.

Weighing scales, planets, and fractals

Romanticism is portrayed as having left and right aspects. If we picture a weighing scale with opposing ideas, for example,  we can have the radical opposition to fascism (Romanticist Expressionism) on one side and the radical right of National Socialism on the other side. However, what if this weighing scale was on one side of an even bigger scale? On the other side of that bigger scale would be Enlightenment ideas.

Image on the right: Little weighing scale on one side of an even bigger scale

We rarely get to see the Enlightenment side of the larger scales. We live in a society where we are generally presented with the small scales two sides to everything (the bi-party system, good Nazis [only following orders] v the bad Nazis [gave the orders], this ‘good’ person v that ‘bad’ person, good cop v bad cop) but the reality is that they are usually different sides of the same coin. Similarly, on the smaller scale, the left and right aspects of Romanticist ideas are also two sides of the same coin, because what they both have in common is their rejection of science and reason.

Yet, on the big scales, the Enlightenment side we find progressive politics, the left opposition who were the first to be put into the concentration camps in the 1930s, the community workers, writers, and activists who work diligently today for change in the background are all squeezed out of the large, dominant media-controlled picture.

The problem with this skewed picture is that understanding what is going on becomes as difficult to ascertain as the movements of the planets were to the ancients. Seeming to go in all sorts of strange directions, the ancient Greeks called the planets ‘planeta’ or ‘wanderers’. The movements of the planets were perplexing in a geocentric (earth-centered) universe. It was only with the application of modern science, putting the sun at the center of a solar system, that the odd movements of the planets suddenly fell into place and made sense. We have the same experience of ‘revelation’ or understanding when science is applied to many different difficult problems in various aspects of history, philosophy and society itself.

‘Planets appear to go in one direction, take a looping turn, and then go in the opposite direction. This appears because of the differences of our orbits around the Sun. The Earth gets in an inside or outside track as we pass them causing a planet to look as if it had backed up and changed direction. They wander around the sky.’

The word ‘science’ comes from the Latin word ‘scientia‘ meaning ‘knowledge’ and is a systematic exploration that allows us to develop knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.  The development of science has allowed us to determine what is truth and what is falsehood. Truth is defined as the property of being in accord with fact or reality and the application of science allows us to verify truth in a provable way.

In this sense truth is like a fractal. Fractals are geometrical shapes that have a certain definite appearance. When we magnify a fractal we see the same shape again. No matter how much we magnify the shape, the same geometrical patterns appear infinitely. Truth is similar to a fractal in that whether the truth of something is held by one person, a group of people, a community or a nation its essence remains the same on a micro or macro level.

Image below: ‘Fractals appear the same at different levels, as illustrated in successive magnifications of the Mandelbrot set. Fractals exhibit similar patterns at increasingly small scales called self-similarity, also known as expanding symmetry or unfolding symmetry.’

The heliocentric view of the universe remains true even if only one person believes or many believe, even in the face of powerful forces. For example, Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism led him to be investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, where he was found guilty of heresy and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. The truth eventually came out and Galileo was pardoned by the Roman Catholic church (359 years later).

Contradictions and falsehoods

It has often been said that the truth will set you free. We live in a society of contradictions and falsehoods where lies, cheating and deception contradict reality. However, many refuse to see the truths of modern society, while others are actively involved in creating the deceptions that maintain the status quo. We know that people are ‘unfree’ and we accept many different levels of this condition: captivity,  imprisonment, suppression, dependency, restrictions, enslavement, oppression.

We may even see this condition as applying to others and not to ourselves. But if we examine closely and truthfully our own position in the societal hierarchy we may recognize our own powerlessness: the contradiction between our view of ourselves and the reality of our situation. Although we vote and we recognize the social contract by rendering taxes to the state, the fact is that very little of substance changes and generally things seem to get worse.

As I have written elsewhere, the fact is that we are triply exploited: we are taxed on wages, alienated from wealth created (profits), and we pay interest on the money borrowed from the wealthy to pay for the capital and current expenditure needed for the maintenance of society and fill in the gap created by the wealthy in the first place.

How is this system of exploitation maintained? Aside from the obvious threat of imprisonment for nonpayment of taxes, and the existence of police and army to enforce the laws of the state: the most influential, and sometimes most subtle tool, is through culture.

The culture of slavery

Culture has a long history of use and abuse, from the bread and circuses of Roman times to the social media of today.

In modern society mass culture helps to maintain this system of exploitation and keeps people in general from questioning their position in the societal hierarchy. The middle classes are lulled into thinking they are free because of better wages making for an easier life, while the working class work ever harder to achieve the benefits of the middle class: higher education, higher status, higher wages. (It has been suggested that the middle class are essentially ‘working class people with huge debts’ e.g. large mortgages.)

However, in general, people work in a globalized system of exploitation in states that support and maintain it thus making wage slaves of the 99 percent.

Slaves in chains during the period of Roman rule at Smyrna (present-day İzmir), 200 CE.

The traditional definition of slavery is ‘someone forbidden to quit their service for another person and is treated like property.’ Modern slavery takes on different forms such as human trafficking, debt bondage, and forced labour:

“Experts have calculated that roughly 13 million people were captured and sold as slaves between the 15th and 19th centuries; today, an estimated 40.3 million people – more than three times the figure during the transatlantic slave trade – are living in some form of modern slavery, according to the latest figures published by the UN’s International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Walk Free Foundation. Women and girls comprise 71% of all modern slavery victims. Children make up 25% and account for 10 million of all the slaves worldwide.”

While this may apply to the most extreme cases in modern society, the majority of workers have no control over the wealth they produce:

“one of the defining features of the employment relationship in all capitalist countries is that the worker’s will is, by law, “subordinate” to the employers. The employer has the right, within broad bounds, to define the nature of the task, who performs it, and how. This shows up in all kinds of surveillance, control, and submission — also known as maximizing productivity and extracting profit.”

The investors and the shareholders benefit the most, while the employees receive wages of varying levels according to the demand for their particular skillset.

We are encouraged to accept this way of life and there are plenty of different state methods to make sure that we do. However, culture is an important tool of soft power, in particular, mass culture.

The role of mass culture is absolutely essential for the creation, maintenance, and perpetuation of a broad acceptance of the ever-changing forms of technological ‘progress’ and geopolitical shifts in modern capitalist societies, particularly as the global financial crisis (corporate and national debt) deepens.

Culture on three levels

To do this, modern mass culture operates on three different levels. The first level is creating passive acceptance through diversion and escapism and turning people into passive consumers. Secondly, through the overt representation of elite ideology. Thirdly, and more controversially, through covert manipulation of mass culture to benefit the agenda of elites.

In the first case, consumption becomes inseparable from the ideas of enjoyment and fun. Earlier twentieth century theorists of the Frankfurt School saw consumers as essentially passive but later theoreticians such as Baudrillard saw consumption as an unconscious social conditioning, consuming culture to achieve social mobility by showing awareness of the latest trends in mass culture.

Secondly, overt representation of elite ideology is evident in mass culture that glorifies the upper classes and promotes racism and militarist imperialism. In particular, mass culture depicting historical and contemporary events can be portrayed from an elite perspective.

Thirdly, conscious manipulation of the masses using psychological means, and more controversially, predictive programming. In the 1930s Edward Bernays was a pioneer in the public relations industry using psychology and other social sciences to design public persuasion campaigns. Bernays wrote: “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.”

‘For Adorno and Horkheimer, the culture industry creates false needs to keep us purchasing products we do not actually need by manipulating our psychological impulses and desires.’

Another form of mass manipulation is the concept of predictive programming. Predictive Programming is the theory “that the government or other higher-ups are using fictional movies or books as a mass mind control tool to make the population more accepting of planned future events.”  It is by its nature hard to prove yet the many extraordinary coincidences between events depicted in mass culture and later actual events is, at the very least, disconcerting. For example, the film The Manchurian Candidate depicting the son of a prominent U.S. political family who is brainwashed into being an unwitting assassin for a Communist conspiracy, was released in 1962, a year before the assassination of J F Kennedy in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, an emotionally disturbed ‘communist sympathizer’ who declared his innocence and believed he was being used as a ‘patsy’.

Thus, these three levels allow elites to control how the past, the present, and the future is depicted in mass culture, according to national and geopolitical agendas.

Cultural producers

In their defense, the role of cultural producers has never been easy, and the more money or support that is needed for a cultural project, the harder it is to maintain an independent position.

While with modern production methods and technology it is easier to produce books, films and music independently of the major producers and distributors, in the past elite pressure, censorship, and imprisonment were common.

Pushkin, for example, in his Ode to Liberty, exclaimed with indignation:

“Unhappy nation! Everywhere
Men suffer under whips and chains,
And over all injustice reigns,
And haughty peers abuse their power
And sombre prejudice prevails.“

However, later during the time of Nicholas I, he changed and ‘adopted the theory of art for art’s sake’:

“According to the touching and very widespread legend, in 1826 Nicholas I graciously “forgave” Pushkin the political “errors of his youth,” and even became his magnanimous patron. But this is far from the truth. Nicholas and his right-hand man in affairs of this kind, Chief of Police Benkendorf, “forgave” Pushkin nothing, and their “patronage” took the form of a long series of intolerable humiliations. Benkendorf reported to Nicholas in 1827: “After his interview with me, Pushkin spoke enthusiastically of Your Majesty in the English Club, and compelled his fellow diners to drink Your Majesty’s health. He is a regular ne’er-do-well, but if we succeed in directing his pen and his tongue, it will be a good thing.” The last words in this quotation reveal the secret of the “patronage” accorded to Pushkin. They wanted to make him a minstrel of the existing order of things. Nicholas I and Benkendorf had made it their aim to direct Pushkin’s unruly muse into the channels of official morality.”

Pushkin’s contemporaries, the French Romanticists, were also, with few exceptions, ardent believers in art for art’s sake, the idea of the absolute autonomy of art with no other purpose than itself.

In the twentieth century, Ars Gratia Artis (Latin: Art for Art’s Sake) would become the motto for the American media company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to designate art that is independent of political and social pressures.

Of course, while some believe that art should not be politicized, others think that if art was not a social endeavor then it would be used as a commercial item only available to the rich, e.g. a profitable escapist product while simultaneously maintaining and promoting a conservative mindset.

‘During the Cold War period, films were an important factor in the persuasion of the masses. They would be used in various ways, to present the ideal image of their country and to distinguish a national enemy, to name a few.’

However, any thoughts of art as a progressive tool were soon quashed by the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) in the USA, a body which was set up in 1938 to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and any organizations with left wing sympathies.

Dialectic of Enlightenment

Not long after, a theoretical analysis of consumerist mass culture was published in a book by Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895–1973) in 1947 entitled Dialectic of Enlightenment in which they coined the term the Culture Industry. For Adorno and Horkheimer “the mass-media entertainment industry and commercialized popular culture, which they saw as primarily concerned with producing not only symbolic goods but also needs and consumers, serving the ideological function of diversion, and thus depoliticizing the working class.”

They believed that the production of culture had become like a “a factory producing standardized cultural goods — films, radio programmes, magazines, etc.— that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity.”

Thomas Hart Benton, Hollywood 1937-38 oil on canvas; 56×84 in. (142.2×213.4 cm)

More significantly, Adorno and Horkheimer also believed that the scientific thinking the Enlightenment philosophers had developed “led to the development of technologically sophisticated but oppressive and inhumane modes of governance.”

Adorno and Horkheimer believed that because the rationalization of society had ultimately led to Fascism, science and rationalism provided little optimism for future progress and human freedom.

However, this view of the history of science and its relationship with human emancipation is, according to Jeffrey Herf in ‘”Dialectic of Enlightenment” Reconsidered’, one that ignores many progressive movements and changes brought about by Enlightenment ideas, and that Horkheimer and Adorno’s view of modern society and politics simply reduced modernity to technology, science, and bureaucracy. Herf outlines many of the events, institutions, laws, rights, treatments and other human benefits that Adorno and Horkheimer (and others) had ignored:

“In Weber’s sociology, Heidegger’s philosophical ruminations, or Dialectic of Enlightenment, the panoply of ideas and events associated with the 1688 revolution in Britain, the moderate wing of the French Revolution, and the ideas and institutions that emerged from the American Revolution, and then from the victory of the North in the American Civil War, are simply absent. As a result of this paucity of historical specificity, Horkheimer and Adorno’s view of modernity during World War II was a very German caricature that did not include ideas about the extension of citizenship, British antislavery, American abolitionism, feminism in Europe and the United States, and the rule of law. Theirs was modernity without liberal democratic ideas and institutions, the rule of law, and the freedom of speech, of assembly, of the press, and of religion or unbelief. […] Dialectic of Enlightenment presented modern science as primarily an exercise in the domination of nature and of human beings. Theirs was a view of the history of the scientific revolution that left out Galileo’s challenge to religious authoritarianism and Francis Bacon’s liberating restatement of the role of evidence in resolving contentious issues. From reading Horkheimer and Adorno — as well as Heidegger and Baumann — one would conclude that modern science was first and foremost a source of control, and would have no idea of how modern medicine, unthinkable without the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution, had come into existence.” [1]

Thus, Adorno and Horkheimer’s view leaves us with an almost Nietzschian nihilism, that knowledge is impossible, and life is meaningless because to try and improve society will fail and ultimately only increase oppression. Without action, Nietzsche predicted a society of ‘the last man’, the “apathetic person or society who loses the ability to dream, to strive, and who become unwilling to take risks” and slave morality characterized by pessimism and cynicism. A society which has not only lost its ‘will to power’ but also its will to revolt.

The culture of resistance

Throughout history, oppression has been met with resistance in many forms such as uprisings, rebellions, and insurrections.

‘Richard II meeting with the rebels of the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.
The Peasants’ Revolt, also named Wat Tyler’s Rebellion or the Great Rising, was a major uprising across large parts of England in 1381. The revolt had various causes, including the socio-economic and political tensions generated by the Black Death pandemic in the 1340s, the high taxes resulting from the conflict with France during the Hundred Years’ War, and instability within the local leadership of London.’

The resistance often starts with strikes, boycotts, and civil disobedience, leading to mass movements of people who ultimately reject the old system of governance and change it for a new system which can be anti-colonial, anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist. The rise of resistance seems to generally develop in three stages, each affecting culture in very different ways. These different stages could be called criticism, substitution and implementation.

Irish Citizen Army group outside Liberty Hall. Group are lined up outside ITGWU HQ under a banner proclaiming “We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland!”. Photo taken in early years of WWI.

Criticism

Resistance often begins as criticism of the policies or nature of government, or the state. This can be aesthetic or intellectual resistance appearing, for example, in various art forms. Critiques can be of an ideological nature, or simply to highlight social problems and issues. Resistance can take the form of criticism of officially sanctioned culture through demonstrations and boycotting.

It may also take a violent form, for example, the blowing up of colonial statues in Ireland (see my comprehensive list of statues blown up in my blog post here). The blowing up of Nelson’s Pillar in Dublin in 1976 was celebrated subsequently in two different ballads which became immensely popular, an aesthetic critique arising out of a violent ‘critique’.

On a formal level resistance can also be ‘form-poor’ as struggle without help from educated or trained professionals is left to amateurs.

Substitution

Gradually, a new ideology, a different reading of history, a new set of artists and writers produce culture which eventually substitutes the old culture with a new culture as the movement gathers momentum.

The less costly forms like art, music, ballads, books etc. can become very popular and important elements of the resistance itself. The more expensive cultural forms are difficult to produce in the new culture, e.g., cinema, theatre, opera, TV etc., (unless of course if the format is changed like in community theatre substituting for state theatre).  Digital equipment can be vastly cheaper to use for the making of movies for mass viewing assuming that the outlet for presentation, the internet, is not closed off through censorship.

Implementation

The final stage is implementation, whereby popular resistance takes control of the state and is able to implement progressive culture as state policy. This is particularly important for the most costly art forms which also gain access to state finance and auditoriums. It allows movies, for example, to cover ignored themes such as histories of resistance, or to show past events from more radical perspectives than the previous elite mindset and agendas.

These different levels of cultural change: criticism, substitution, and implementation can be a long process or all come together in a short span of time.

The storming of the Bastille, 14 July 1789, during the French Revolution.

I have tried to show in my previous examination of ten different art-forms (see: art, music, theatre, opera, literature, poetry, cinema, architecture, TV, and dance articles) that since the Age of Enlightenment there has been a strong vein of radical ideas relating to social progress. Over the centuries radical culture has looked at the plight of the oppressed using different forms such as naturalism, realism, social realism, and working class socialist realism.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment believed that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization would have universal application globally. They also believed in the idea that empirical knowledge should be the basis of society and that with these ideas political and societal change would strengthen civilization itself. While social progressivism, as a political philosophy, is reformist in nature, it also has the potential to snowball into more radical action through discussion around questions as to who runs the state and ownership of the means of production.

The form and content of the culture of resistance has many aspects. Some emphasize change on the community level, developing the skills, community spirit, and artistic sensibilities of the community members whether they be producers, creators or observers. An important element of this strategy for social change is encouraging critical thinking through participation in active dialogue. General themes for discussion have been, for example, gender equality, human rights, the environment and democracy.

The Bash Bush Band musical protesters at Bush’s 2nd inauguration, Washington DC.

Others have taken a more radical approach of examining human conflict and its sources. They look at human conflict from a social perspective and see society in terms of conflicting economic classes. By portraying economic classes in conflict they hope to evolve or expand a working class consciousness or at least an understanding of, and empathy with, oppressed groups. Radical artists, writers, composers etc are encouraged to take a scientific approach and work against superstitions and blind practices. As radical cultural producers they try to present the truth and inspire wide-ranging social and political activism.

Future of culture?

Modern resistance, often in digital form on the internet today, is now subject to a creeping censorship as big tech tries to slow down the efficacy of the internet at making widely available different perspectives on many different issues. At the same time, big tech tries to portray technological progress as social progress, and is at the forefront of liberal campaigns for individual rights at the expense of mass movements for collective or group rights. Such group rights allow for organizations to speak for, and negotiate on behalf of trade unions, trade associations, specific ethnic groups, political parties, and nation-states.

However, internet censorship and the gradually increasing power of the state (through police, courts, and prisons) using current and new legislation will be able to continue unabated, that is, unless the slave culture that facilitates it is shaken off and a new culture of resistance is born.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. 

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

Note

[1] Jeffrey Herf, “Dialectic of Enlightenment” Reconsidered Source: New German Critique , FALL 2012, No. 117, Special Issue for Anson Rabinbach (FALL 2012), pp. 81-89 Published by: Duke University Press [p84] Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23357065

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

On Jan. 13, California health officials issued a hold on 330,000 doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine after “fewer than 10” people at San Diego’s Petco Park stadium vaccine clinic suffered allergic reactions to the vaccine. Santa Clara County officials lifted the hold on the vaccine lot in question on Jan. 21.

One day later, on Jan. 22, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a Morbidity Mortality Weekly “early release” report on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. For the report, the CDC used data reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) between Dec. 21, 2020  – Jan. 10, 2021 to investigate cases of anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, following injections of Moderna’s vaccine.

The CDC’s choice to use VAERS data to calculate the rate of anaphylaxis associated with Moderna’s vaccine is idiosyncratic and troubling. Why?

First, VAERS is a “passive” reporting system, which results in a high degree of underreporting. In fact, a 2010 study (Lazarus et al, 2010) commissioned by the CDC, concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries” are reported to VAERS. A 2015 study (Shimabukuro et al, 2015) similarly concluded that vaccine adverse events are underreported.

The other problem with VAERS? Reports often get filed only weeks or months after the event, which means the data is not current.

There are other reporting systems that the CDC could have used to calculate anaphylactic reactions to Moderna’s vaccine.

For example, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) data, which the CDC used to calculate its overall rate of 1.3 events per million doses, updates in real time. So does the V-safe database, which was created specifically to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. V-safe sends text message prompts to vaccine recipients on a daily basis for a week after a person is vaccinated, and occasionally thereafter. The prompts urge vaccine recipients to report any side effects directly using a cell phone app.

CDC notified the public of six cases of anaphylaxis following Pfizer’s COVID vaccine during the first week of the vaccination program. Its information came from the V-safe active surveillance data.

Both the Vaccine Safety Datalink and V-safe are considered “active” surveillance systems, sensitive for identifying events and fit for calculating event rates in a vaccinated population. However, unlike VAERS, neither systems’ contents are available for public scrutiny.

CDC’s Jan. 22 report on the Moderna reactions surprisingly asserted that “reporting efficiency to VAERS … is believed to be high,” and “VAERS is likely sensitive at capturing anaphylaxis cases occurring after COVID-19 vaccinations.”

The only reference cited to support these assertions was a 1995 CDC publication on VAERS, written by the CDC’s own scientists — which instead of supporting the CDC’s Jan. 22 assertions, contradicted them.

Just like the 2010 Lazarus study, the CDC’s 1995 report found that less than 1% of certain serious adverse events were being reported to VAERS. The report, which didn’t mention anaphylaxis, also “highlight[ed] the limitations of passive surveillance systems in assessing the incidence of vaccine adverse events.”

In fact, according to the VAERS website: “It is not possible to use VAERS data to calculate how often an adverse event occurs in a population.”

Notwithstanding these extraordinary impediments to relying on VAERS to calculate any adverse event rate, CDC found 108 potential episodes of anaphylaxis following Moderna vaccinations in VAERS, of which only 10 met the Brighton criteria for anaphylaxis. With 4 million doses administered, the CDC calculated a rate of 2.5 anaphylaxis events per million doses — still double the accepted average rate for vaccination.

Pfizer’s vaccine has also been associated with higher-than-expected anaphylaxis events. By Dec. 19, 2020, after only a few days of use, the CDC had confirmed 6 cases of anaphylaxis among 272,000 vaccine recipients, or 22 cases per million doses. This is also considerably higher than CDC’s expected rate of 1.3 per million cases of  anaphylaxis following vaccination.

CDC had promised it would have five adverse event monitoring systems at work at the onset of the COVID-19 vaccination program, and it would add six more systems later.

Yet V-safe is the only one of these systems currently in use that provides active surveillance. As such, it is the only one from which adverse event rates can be reliably calculated. The CDC should have used V-safe to calculate the anaphylaxis rate associated with the Moderna vaccine — but it didn’t.

If the CDC were desperate to improve the appearance of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine safety profile, and release the 330,000 doses quarantined in California, using the VAERS data — and hoping no one would notice — was probably the best option.

If the CDC wants to cultivate trust in COVID vaccines and reinstate trust in vaccine injury monitoring, it’s essential that it make public the best, most accurate data — data the CDC has had all along.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from CHD

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

James (he gives his last name in the video) is a CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant), and he recorded this video as a whistleblower because he could not keep silent any longer.

James reports that in 2020 very few residents in the nursing home where he works got sick with COVID, and none of them died during the entire year of 2020.

However, shortly after administering the Pfizer experimental mRNA injections, 14 died within two weeks, and he reports that many others are near death.

The video is long (47 minutes), and it is clear that James is suffering from emotional stress, and he admits that he has nothing to gain from going public, and that he will probably lose his job for doing so.

But he makes it very clear that these were patients he knew and cared for (he is also a “lay pastor”), and that after being injected with the mRNA shot, residents who used to walk on their own can no longer walk. Residents who used to carry on an intelligent conversation with him could no longer talk.

And now they are dying. “They’re dropping like flies.”

His superiors are explaining the deaths as being caused by a COVID19 “super-spreader.”

However, the residents who refused to take the injections, are not sick, according to James.

James makes it very clear that as a Christian, he cannot live with his conscience anymore, and that he can no longer remain silent.

He is not anti-vaccine, but just sharing what he knows is true, regarding the people he has cared for in his profession for over 10 years now.

This is a very clear pattern now. Inject the elderly with the mRNA injections, then blame their illnesses and deaths on the COVID virus.

The only reason Big Pharma and their sponsored corporate media are getting away with this, is because more healthcare workers like James are not coming forward to speak up for the helpless.

Even many in the Alternative Media are guilty for not covering this genocide against our seniors, as James states, because people are more concerned with Donald Trump and Joe Biden political news, while people’s grandmother, grandfather, and others are being killed by these injections.

James calls upon other CNAs, nurses, and family members to go public and tell the world what is going on with these experimental mRNA COVID injections.

How many more lives need to be lost before we say something?

If you know what is happening, but are not speaking out, then you are part of the problem.

And shame on you in the Alternative Media who are more concerned about which tyrant should be president than you are about covering the greatest crime of genocide this country has ever seen.

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?(Proverbs 24:11-12)

The video is from our Minds.com account. It should also soon be available on our Bitchute channel, and Rumble account. (Still rendering at time of publication.)

Click here to watch the video.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As I watch the unfolding political drama of the impeachment trial in the US Senate, the glimmer of hope for change I had following the incredible scenes at the Capitol on Jan 6 is being dimmed. The question in my mind now is whether it is even possible, with the tools being used by Joe Biden, to turn the tide on Trump’s movement.

The US news media is marveling that, for the first time ever, a president has denounced white supremacy “by name” in an inaugural address. The hashtag #EndWhiteSupremacy is gaining currency. But I believe the rallying cry generated in opposition to Trump’s nativist, xenophobic and racist politics, the same elements that had shaped the politics of the first half of the twentieth century, is insufficient to turn the face of this country toward its “better angels.”

The devil is in both the details and history. Some activists are already raising the alarm that “moves to combat far-right extremism will instead redound against communities of color and leftwing activists.”

Others, like a friend commenting on my post that attempted to make sense of why only a handful of Republicans in the Senate had voted for the impeachment trial to take place (the vote was 54 to 45 in favor), believe that “The GOP want power, and contesting an election or assaulting the Capitol doesn’t faze them. The Dems are living in a dream world, like the late Weimar politicians.”

After being confirmed by the Senate as secretary of state, in a stunningly oblivious statement, ignoring the fact that half the American government is afraid of one man, Antony Blinken had this to say during an interview with Andrea Mitchell: “It remains striking to me how concerned and maybe even scared the Russian government seems to be of one man, Mr Navalny.”

Many people outside politics are trying to grapple with the fact that, for all practical purposes, jury nullification is built into this Senate impeachment trial (as it was in the first). The upcoming trial (to begin Feb 8) appears to be merely a political exercise meant “for history” to record, not a vehicle to showcase truth, justice and accountability. We just have to live with it. We have to live with the version that gives credence to, in Trump’s words, “a continuation of the greatest witch-hunt in history!”

I am no stranger to witnessing slavish loyalty to unprincipled movements. As a Palestinian American, I have witnessed the misplaced and deeply-entrenched US loyalty to Israel and Israel only, no matter how egregious its actions become (think of Obama administration’s defense of Israel’s brutalizing a civilian population when bombing besieged Gaza in 2014). When I hear phrases like “Trump owned them,” (meaning the insurrectionists), I understand immediately that such a thing is possible.

Haven’t books been written on how Israel and its allies “own” US foreign policy on Israel/Palestine? When I hear paranoid inversions of reality and fact such as the Capitol rioters saying, “they are locking us down, taking away our freedom and our country, too,” I think of all the hasbara Israel has deployed over the years with talking points that aim to invert reality, so much so that, in many people’s minds, Israel is still perceived as being viciously mistreated and the people it victimizes, the oppressed and dispossessed Palestinian people, are perceived as the victimizers.

Long before Trump’s account was removed from Twitter for misinformation, as journalist Daoud Kuttab wrote way back in 2015,

paid individuals, often university students, who are hired by the office of the prime minister of Israel to respond quickly and fiercely to anyone daring to criticise the state of Israel and its actions… Many commentators are not traceable to any real individual because they use pseudonyms. On Twitter, where there is much debate surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some anti-Palestine comments or reactions come from pages with 25 followers and little activity; one begins to doubt whether these are genuine Twitter users.

And the campaign to invert reality and entrench doublespeak regarding Israel and its apartheid, supremacist Zionist ideology is still being waged on social media today. As I write this, a petition launched by American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) states: “The Israeli government is pressuring Facebook to add critical usage of the word ‘Zionist’ to its hate speech policy. If Facebook restricts use of the word ‘Zionist,’ how can Palestinians describe our daily lives under Israeli apartheid, or discuss our families’ history?”

Trump may have failed to reverse the election, but he continues to reverse reality. As a Palestinian American, I ought to be inured to denials of reality in the highest places in the US as well as on social media. Still, it’s devastating for me to realize that Trump is the beginning of something that is here to stay, that the sacking of the Capitol, for all its farcical elements as the “stupid coup,” is the who-we-are coup according to millions and their Republican enablers in the Senate and that Democrats have no clue how to stop them.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Trump and Netanyahu’s love affair around Jerusalem and Palestine’s fate – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Israeli military needs over $1 billion to fund its widely promoted strike on Iran, which Tel Aviv has threatened to carry out if the US should rejoin the nuclear deal. According to Israeli sources, the military would need these additional funds to deal with the challenges that it faces including ‘threats’ from the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance.

The interesting fact is that even the IDF Chief of Staff admits that Israel is the initiator of the escalation. However, the Israeli leadership continues to insist that the Iranian threat is growing.

“In general, none of [our enemies] want to initiate anything against us. All of their actions — almost without exception — are retaliatory to our actions, not actions that they’ve initiated. And when they decide to carry out [an attack], they experience difficulties and decide to abandon their ways of acting,” IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi said adding that military spending must be increased, despite the coronavirus crisis.

“The missiles don’t get sick, but they can be fired the moment the other side decides that’s what it wants to do,” Kohavi stated referring to the missile arsenal of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.

It is interesting to know: Would the new US administration fund Israeli preparations for a strike against Iran beforehand or it would prefer to compensate it after the event.

In any case, as of now there are no conditions to test Israeli readiness to really attack Tehran. Whether the Biden administration will rejoin the nuclear deal is still in question. Iran argues that it would reject any preconditions and the deal could only be considered to be restored after the lifting of all the imposed sanctions.

Meanwhile, the main side suffering are the Gulf allies of the Israeli-US bloc. The new Iranian-backed group, which claimed responsibility for the recent attack on the Saudi capital, issued a threat to the United Arab Emirates. On January 27, the Righteous Promise Brigades released a poster showing a drone attacking Burj Khalifa in the Emirate of Dubai. Rising to 829.8 meters in height, Burj Khalifa is the world’s tallest structure and building.

“The second blow will be on the dens of evil in Dubai, with the help of the Almighty, if the crimes of Bin Salman and Bin Zayed are repeated,” the statement reads. The RPB said its attack on Riyadh was a response to the January 21 bombings in the Iraqi capital. ISIS claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack. However, the Righteous Promise Brigades blamed Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

“The second blow will be on the dens of evil in Dubai, with the help of the Almighty, if the crimes of Bin Salman and Bin Zayed are repeated,” the statement reads. The RPB said its attack on Riyadh was a response to the January 21 bombings in the Iraqi capital. ISIS claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack. However, the Righteous Promise Brigades blamed Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

What makes the current state of war against “terrorism” so dangerous is that the national security apparatus has been politicized, Phil Giraldi writes.

President Joe Biden has already made it clear that legislation that will be used to combat what he refers to as “domestic terrorism” will be a top priority. That means that his inaugural speech pledge to be the president for “all Americans” appears to apply except for those who don’t agree with him. Former Barack Obama CIA Chief John Brennan, who is clearly in the loop on developments, puts it this way in a tweet where he describes how the new Administration’s spooks “are moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about [the] insurgency” [that includes] “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.”

The United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and association, has been under siege for some time now. Government has always used its assumed powers conferred by a claimed state of emergency to deprive citizens of their rights. During the American Civil War Abraham Lincoln imprisoned critics of the conflict. Woodrow Wilson’s First World War administration brought in the Espionage Act, which has since been used to convict whistleblowers without having to present the level of evidence that would be required in a normal civil trial. During the Second World War, Franklin D. Roosevelt erected concentration camps that imprisoned Japanese Americans whose only crime consisted of being Japanese.

But perhaps the greatest attack on the Bill of Rights is more recent, the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts that were passed into law as a consequence of the “Global War on Terror” launched by President George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11. Together with the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which includes a court designed to speed up the warrant approval process, ordinary citizens found themselves on the receiving end of surveillance for which there was little or no justification in terms of probable cause. The FISA process was even notoriously abused in the national security apparatus attempt to derail the campaign of Donald Trump. The tools are in place for ever more government mischief and no one should doubt that the Democrats are just as capable of ignoring constitutional safeguards as the Republicans have been.

What makes the current state of war against “terrorism” so dangerous is that the national security apparatus has been politicized while the government has learned that labeling someone or some entity terrorist or even a “material supporter of terrorism” is infinitely elastic. That is precisely why Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has frequently called out opponents and attached to them the terrorist label, since it then permits other steps that might otherwise be challenged.

And there is also the fact that the playing field has changed since the First and Second World Wars. The government has technical capabilities that were never dreamed of in most of the twentieth century. Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers have demonstrated how the government routinely ignores constitutional limits on its ability to interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens. Not only that, it can monitor the lives of millions of Americans simultaneously, giving the police and intelligence agencies the power to mount “fishing expeditions” that literally invade the phones, computers and conversations of people who have not been guilty of any crime.

The authorizations that already exist will be further weaponized to go after dissidents as identified by the new regime. A bill introduced by House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff “would take existing War on Terror legislation and simply amend it to say we can now do that within the U.S.” It would be combined with previous legislation, including former president Barack Obama’s infamous 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the military to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected of terrorism without a trial. Obama and Brennan also assumed an illegal and unconstitutional right to act as judge, jury and executioner-by-drone of American citizens overseas. Given those precedents, a bill like Schiff’s would free the national security community’s hands even more.

The new body of legislation would mean increased secret legal surveillance, suppression of free speech, indefinite incarceration without charges, torture, and even perhaps assassination. If it sounds like totalitarianism it should. There ought to be particular concern that the plan of the Biden Administration to go after so-called domestic terrorists will be this generation’s version of either Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The incident that took place at the Capitol Building on January 6^th (already being referred to as 1/6 in some circles) has been exaggerated beyond all recognition and is now being regularly referred to as an “insurrection,” which it was not, by both politicians and the mainstream media. The language used to vilify what are alleged to be “right wing” and “white supremacist” enemies of the state is astonishing and the technology is keeping pace to turn the United States and other countries into police states to ensure that citizens will do the bidding of government.

To cite only one example of how technology can drive the process, Biden has several times threatened to initiate and enforce something like a nationwide lockdown to defeat the coronavirus. Can he do it? Yes, the tools are already in place. Facial recognition technology is highly developed and deployable in the numerous surveillance cameras that are being installed. Wrist bands are being developed overseas that are designed to compel compliance with government dictates on pandemic measures enforcement. If you have been told to stay home and are instead walking the dog your wrist band will tell the police and they will find and arrest you.

And, as the old saying goes, the Revolution is already beginning to devour its own children. Universities and schools are insisting that teachers actively support both publicly and privately the new “equity and diversity” order while police departments are purging themselves of officers suspected of being associated with conservative groups, meaning that something like a loyalty test might soon become common. Recently the Defense Department has begun intensive monitoring of the social media of military personnel to identify dissenters, as is already done in some large companies with their employees. The new Director of National Intelligence hardliner Avril Haines has already confirmed that her agency will participate in a public threat assessment of QAnon, which she has described as America’s Greatest Threat.

Haines has also suggested that intelligence agencies will “look at connections between folks in the U.S. and externally and foreign” while Biden on his first full day in office has pledged to thoroughly investigate claims about Russian hacking of U.S. infrastructure and government sites, the poisoning of Putin critic Alexei Navalny, and the story that Russia offered the Taliban bounties to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan. It could be Russiagate all over again, with a claimed foreign threat being used to conceal civil rights violations being committed by the federal government at home.

And, of course, the new policies will reflect the biases of the new rulers. Right wing “terror” will be targeted even though the list of actual right-wing driven outrages is embarassingly short. Groups like Black Lives Matter will be untouchable in spite of their major role in last year’s rioting, arson, looting and violence that caused $2 billion damage and killed as many as thirty because they are in all but name part of the Democratic Party. Antifa, which rioted in Portland last week, will also get a pass – the media routinely describes leftist violence as “mainly peaceful” and only sometimes concedes that some “property damage” occurred.

It is Trump supporters and conservatives in general who are being shown the exit door, to include calls for “deprogramming them”. The Washington Post’s Zionist harpy Jennifer Rubin recently declared that “We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.” She also echoed calls for making them unemployable, “I think it’s absolutely abhorrent that any institution of higher learning, any news organization, or any entertainment organization that has a news outlet would hire these people.”

As the notably clueless Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in 2006 while Lebanon was getting bombed and shelled by Israel, “We are seeing the birth pangs of a new Middle East…” so too are we Americans seeing something new and strange emerging from the ruins of Trumpdom. It will not be pretty and after it is over Americans will enjoy a lot fewer liberties, that is for sure.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Charlottesville riot (Source: Shutterstock)

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

On 11 January, just a few days before the inauguration of President Joe Biden, the outgoing Trump administration made the shameless decision to return Cuba to its ‘state sponsors of terrorism’ (SST) list.

In one of his last acts as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo cited Cuba’s refusal to extradite leaders of Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN) and its alleged interference in Venezuela as justification.

It is difficult to know where to start in describing the hypocrisy, fraudulence and vindictiveness of this action. There was a widespread backlash and condemnation, not only from Cuba and its close friends, but from many in the US too.

US Congressman Gregory Meeks, the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, stated he was “outraged that Donald Trump is designating Cuba as a SST less than a week after he incited a domestic terror attack on the US Capitol.” The policy “focused on hurting the Cuban people – from drastically reducing remittances in the middle of a pandemic, to limiting the ability of Americans to travel to the island,” and he urged Biden to reverse it.

Biden could undo the myriad of presidential measures that Trump took against Cuba with a simple presidential directive. However, removing the country from the SST list is more complicated. It requires a formal review, which could take months, plus congressional sign-off which would meet pushback from hard line Republicans.

The designation also adds additional trade and economic sanctions to those already in place which will make companies and third countries think twice before doing business with Cuba.

The State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs pushed through the decision, rather than the Counterterrorism Bureau, as would usually be expected.

Ben Rhodes, who served as Deputy National Security Adviser in the Obama administration and played a key role in normalising US-Cuba relations, tweeted that this was evidence it was politically motivated:

“This is such politicised garbage meant to tie the hands of an administration that takes power in ten days. Cuba is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Ordinary Cubans will suffer so Pompeo can look tough to a few people in Miami.”

Ine Eriksen Søreide, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs questioned the reasoning behind the measure, specifically the presence of members of Colombia’s ELN in the country. Cuba has been Norway’s partner in the peace negotiations and hosted talks between the ELN and the Colombian government in Havana before talks broke down in 2019.

“If a country risks being placed on a terrorism list as a result of facilitating peace efforts, it could set a negative precedent for international peace efforts,” said Ms Eriksen Søreide.

Perhaps the most offensive part for Cubans is the fact that they themselves have been the victims of numerous terrorist attacks by US-based groups. From attacks on literacy brigades and burning of crops in the 1960s, to the mid-air bombing of a Cubana flight in 1976; from the introduction of dengue fever and swine flu into the country in the 1980s to the bombings of Cuban hotels in the 1990s; the island has suffered a long and horrific list of atrocities, many carried out by US citizens who were never prosecuted.

Such attacks have cost the lives of 3,478 people and injured 2,099. Cuban American terrorists such as Orlando Bosch and Posada Carilles both died free men in the US, protected from their crimes by a complicit State Department. The Miami Five had to leave their homeland and families to go undercover in the 90s to help protect the Cuban people because the US government failed to act.

Cuba is the antithesis of a state sponsor of terrorism. The popularity of the international campaign for their medical brigades to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, and the number of official nominations made on their behalf, illustrates the absurdity of such a claim.

Sacha Llorenti, Executive Secretary of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-Peoples’ Trade Treaty represented the thoughts of many when he described the US actions as an “affront to the peoples of the world. In the midst of a pandemic and suffering under a criminal blockade, Cuba is sending doctors and saving thousands and thousands of lives. If there were a list of countries sponsoring solidarity and life, Cuba would be in first place.”

British MP Richard Burgon described the decision to return Cuba to the list as “disgraceful” and made for “cynical political objectives based upon lies. Obama rightly removed Cuba from this classification and I hope that Joe Biden does so too, and swiftly.”

The Cuba Solidarity Campaign calls for this disgraceful designation to be reversed, together with all the extra measures against Cuba implemented by the Trump Administration. The speed with which President Biden acts on this will indicate his administration’s future intent towards the island. However, we can not settle for Obama mark 2. The blockade of Cuba remained in place, even at the height of the rapprochement between the two countries in 2016. Yet, just four years later, in 2020, the annual cost of the blockade to the Cuban economy exceeded $5 million for the first time in its history. It is the longest and most extensive set of sanctions against a country in living memory – a cruel and vindictive act of economic warfare against the Cuban people which must end now.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is by martirena via Cuba Solidarity Campaign

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In a sign that the US is a long way from lifting sanctions on Iran, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US will not return to the nuclear deal until Iran comes back into compliance.

“President Biden has been very clear in saying that if Iran comes back into full compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA, the United States would do the same thing,” Blinken said at a press conference on Wednesday.

“But we are a long ways from that point. Iran is out of compliance on a number of fronts. And it would take some time … for it to come back into compliance in time for us then to assess whether it was meeting its obligations,” he said.

Blinken’s comments come after Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said the US must take the first step. Writing in Foreign Affairs last week, Zarif called on President Biden to unconditionally lift sanctions if he is serious about restoring the JCPOA.

Zarif’s argument is that since the US was the first to violate the deal by re-imposing sanctions on Iran in 2018, it’s on Washington to revive the JCPOA. Iran gradually began violating the deal in 2019, after waiting a year for the other signatories to offset US sanctions.

Zarif, and other Iranian officials, have made it clear these violations are easily reversible and that they would quickly comply with the agreement if the US gives Iran sanctions relief.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Featured image: Tony Blinken At His Confirmation Hearing, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 19, 2021. Screenshot.
via Mondoweiss

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

From across the globe, hundreds of activists, intellectuals and artists launched an open letter calling on Facebook to ensure that any amendments to its hate speech policy keep all people safe and connected. The petition garnered over 14,500 signatures in its first 24 hours.

Led by 31 organizations, the global campaign “Facebook, we need to talk” began in response to an inquiry by Facebook to assess if critical conversations that use the term “Zionist” fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook’s Community Standards. Facebook may make a decision as soon as the end of February 2021. Zionism is a political ideology and movement that emerged in the 19th century and led to the founding of the state of Israel on Palestinian land; It has been deeply contested since its conception, including within the Jewish community.

Notable human rights activists and cultural figures such as Hanan Ashrawi, Norita Cortiñas, Wallace Shawn and Peter Gabriel have signed the petition, which notes that if Facebook restricts the usage of the word “Zionist,” it would prevent Palestinians from talking about their daily lives, shield the Israeli government from accountability for human rights violations, and do nothing to make Jewish people safer from antisemitism.

“We are deeply concerned about Facebook’s proposed revision of its hate speech policy to consider “Zionist” as a proxy for ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish,’” the petition reads. “The proposed policy would too easily mischaracterize conversations about Zionists — and by extension, Zionism — as inherently antisemitic, harming Facebook users and undermining efforts to dismantle real antisemitism and all forms of racism, extremism and oppression.”

This attempt to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies — both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world — is part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters. The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation. The IHRA definition conflates antisemitism with holding the Israeli government accountable for rights violations, stifling protected political speech that is necessary for healthy, open discussions about foreign policy and human rights.

After 12 hours the petition already had thousands of signers, including: Atilio Boron, Judith Butler, Michael Chabon, Noam Chomsky, Julie Christie, Richard Falk, Amos Goldberg, Marc Lamont Hill, Adnan Jubran, Ronnie Kasrils, Elias Khoury, Karol Cariola, Ken Loach, Miriam Margloyses, Ilan Pappe, Vijay Prashad, Prabir Purkayastha, Rima Berns-McGown, Jessica Tauane, Einat Weizman and Cornel West. (See facebookweneedtotalk.org/petition-text/english for a complete list of initial signatories.)

The campaign was launched by 7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, Palestine Legal, MPower Change, Jewish Voice for Peace, Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Eyewitness Palestine, BDS National Committee, American Muslims for Palestine and Adalah Justice Project. (See below for a complete list of cosponsors.)

Rabbi Alissa Wise, Deputy Director of Jewish Voice for Peace: “If Facebook decides to add ‘Zionist’ to its hate speech policies, it will be in order to shield the Israeli government from accountability. This is not an earnest effort seeking to dismantle antisemitism on its platforms. Facebook should be focusing on those involved in white nationalist groups inciting violence, not Palestinians seeking to share their experiences living under Zionism with the world.”

Lau Barrios, Campaign Manager at MPower Change: “This move by Facebook would represent them actively siding against Palestinians and those fighting in solidarity alongside them for Palestinian liberation. It would also set a dangerous precedent around Big Tech’s ability to further target our movements and harm marginalized communities for simply sharing their lived experiences, such as life under apartheid. Facebook must stop harming and silencing Palestinians living under apartheid and start cracking down on white supremacist groups — like the Proud Boys — that have used their platform as a recruitment site and to push anti-Semitic, anti-Black, and Islamophobic rhetoric for years. That would require looking in the mirror. We hope they finally do so — and listen to Palestinians and the most impacted communities.”

Nadim Nashif, Executive Director of 7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media: “Suppressing critical discussion of Zionism and Zionists on the Facebook platform would be a political act that would severely restrict Palestinians and human rights defenders from communicating about the history and the lived reality of Palestinians.”

Liz Jackson, Senior Staff Attorney at Palestine Legal: “The policy Facebook is considering would be yet another tool to silence Palestinians and their allies who are trying to tell the world about the impacts of Zionism on their daily lives. Every year Palestine Legal hears from hundreds of people in the U.S. — Palestinians and their allies — who are censored, punished and harassed for speaking out for Palestinian freedom. The vast majority are accused of antisemitism because they criticized the political positions of Zionists, in defense of Palestinian lives. Facebook must resist this censorship, not reinforce it.”

To read the full text of the open letter, list of signatories, and background about the campaign, visit facebookweneedtotalk.org. For interviews with petition organizers or signatories, contact Sonya E. Meyerson-Knox at [email protected]or 929-290-0317.

Campaign background

We all want to connect. And social media can be a powerful tool to help us get past walls and share our stories, grow our networks and stand up for one another. But some politicians and governments are trying to turn these necessary guardrails into walls that keep us apart, generating fear and keeping us divided so they can avoid being held accountable for their actions.

Right now, Facebook is reaching out to stakeholders to ask if critical conversations that use the term “Zionist” fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook’s Community Standards. Basically, Facebook is assessing if “Zionist” is being used as a proxy for “Jewish people or Israelis” in attacks on its platform.

Facebook may make a decision as soon as the end of February 2021.

This move is part of a concerning pattern of the Israeli government and its supporters pressuring Facebook and other social media platforms to expand their hate speech policies to include speech critical of Israel and Zionism – and falsely claiming this would help fight antisemitism. They are hoping that by mischaracterizing critical use of the term “Zionists” as anti-Jewish, they can avoid accountability for its policies and actions that violate Palestinian human rights. Such a move would do nothing to address antisemitism, especially the violent antisemitism of right-wing movements and states — which, as recent events have shown, is the source of the most tangible threats to Jewish lives.

Attempts to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies carried out by state actors — both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world — are part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters.

The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation.

If Facebook does move to restrict use of the word Zionist, this would block important conversations on the world’s largest social media platform, harm Facebook users attempting to connect across space and difference, and deprive Palestinians of a critical venue for expressing their political viewpoints to the world. Palestinians need to be able to talk about Zionism and Zionists in order to share their family stories and daily lived experience with the world. That language is essential to clearly distinguishing between Judaism and Jewish people, on the one hand, and the State actors responsible for human rights violations against Palestinians, on the other.

***

Facebook, we need to talk campaign co-sponsors:

7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media

Adalah Justice Project

American Muslims for Palestine

Arab Resource & Organizing Center (AROC)

BDS México

BDS National Committee

Center for Constitutional Rights

Color of Change

Disciples of Christ Palestine-Israel Network

Eyewitness Palestine

Fight for the Future

Free Press

Free Speech on Israel

Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA)

If Not Now

Independent Jewish Voices Canada

Jewish Voice for Labour

Jewish Voice for Peace

Kairos Action

Los Otros Judíos

Media Justice

Movement Alliance Project

MPower Change

National Students for Justice in Palestine

National Lawyers Guild

Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy (PIPD)

Palestine Legal

Palestine Solidarity Campaign, UK

Palestinian Youth Movement

South Africa BDS Coalition

US Campaign for Palestinian Rights

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Jewish Voice for Peace

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Ecuador is just weeks away from becoming the latest Latin American nation to move away from the IMF and United States and elect a strongly progressive, anti-imperialist government.

If the country’s polls are to be believed, Ecuador is set to become the latest Latin American nation to move away from the United States and elect a strongly progressive, anti-imperialist government. Successive public opinion studies have shown Andrés Arauz of the Unión por la Esperanza coalition holding a commanding lead over his rivals, with some suggesting he may receive double the votes of his nearest challenger.

In 2018, Mexico voted in its first leftist president in decades. One year later, Argentina returned to progressive hands with the election of Alberto Fernández. Perhaps most remarkably of all, Bolivians managed to turn back the U.S.-backed coup against Evo Morales last year, electing Morales’ finance minister, Luis Arce in October. Added to that are the failed attempts by the Trump administration to dislodge socialist governments in Venezuela and Nicaragua. Meanwhile, far-right Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro is currently under fire from all sides for his handling of the COVID-19 crisis and has his popularity plunge.

The youthful Arauz is an economist by trade, and a disciple of Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador from 2007 to 2017 and the only Ecuadorian leader in modern history to be re-elected. Arauz, still only 35-years-old, served as Minister of Knowledge and Human Talent at the tail end of the Correa administration and initially wanted to select the former president as his running mate. However, Correa was banned from politics by a court presided over by his rival and current president, Lenín Moreno. He now lives in exile in Belgium, the country of his wife’s birth.

Correa, still a popular figure inside the country, reduced poverty by 38% and extreme poverty by 47%, while doubling social spending, particularly in education, health, and housing. He was able to do this by defaulting on odious debt, ignoring mainstream economists’ advice to keep taxes on the wealthy low and increasing the government’s share of the country’s oil revenues from 13% to 87% — much to the chagrin of foreign energy corporations.

Correa was also part of a continent-wide move to the left, a wave of progressive, anti-imperialist presidents elected in the time frame, a movement that included Lula da Silva in Brazil, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and Néstor Kirchner in Argentina. Under Correa’s leadership, Ecuador expelled the United States military from the country, insisting they could only return if they granted his country a base in Florida. He also offered asylum to Western dissidents like Julian Assange.

His vice-president, Lenín Moreno was elected in 2017 on a promise to carry on his legacy. Almost immediately, however, Moreno performed a 180-degree turn on policy, pulling Ecuador out of a number of regional alliances with other progressive anti-imperialist countries and renewing close ties to the U.S. It wasn’t long before poverty and inequality in Ecuador began to rise and Moreno was agreeing to substantial loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), reversing Correa’s oil policy and opening the country to foreign exploitation once more. At the same time as this was happening, the left appeared to be waning across the region. In 2016, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers’ Party was impeached, a chain of events that eventually led to Bolsonaro’s rise. Meanwhile, conservative billionaire Sebastian Piñera won Chile’s 2017 presidential election.

Arauz has promised to reverse Moreno’s spending cuts and cease business with the IMF. “We don’t see any sense in continuing with the current programme the IMF has with the Moreno government,” he told the Financial Times. “Firstly because the quantity of resources is too small and secondly because the conditionality associated with it is absolutely counter-productive for Ecuador’s growth and development needs.” Instead, he will increase public spending to counter the negative effects of the pandemic, raise taxes on the wealthy and increase capital controls on rich individuals taking their money out of the country. If foreign capital is necessary, he has stated he will negotiate with development banks in China.

Ecuador was hit extremely hard by the coronavirus, in part because of Moreno’s decision (encouraged by Washington) to expel around 400 Cuban doctors on the eve of the pandemic. Some opinion polls have found the current president’s popularity to lie in the single digits.

Economic issues are the primary concern for voters in this election, with 32% identifying poverty and 25% unemployment as their key concerns. Ecuador’s poverty rate jumped from 25.7% in December 2019 to 58.2% in June 2020, with extreme poverty quadrupling over the same period.

Most polls identify Arauz’s closest challenger as Guillermo Lasso, a 65-year-old banker, and former Coca-Cola executive popular with the country’s wealthier class. An anti-communist, he was a member of the right-wing Christian group Opus Dei and came second in the 2017 presidential election, running on a neoliberal platform. However, in recent weeks, Lasso has been fading, and some polls show 51-year-old indigenous leader Yaku Pérez in second. Pérez came to prominence in the nationwide protests against Moreno’s austerity measures in 2019 but has also distanced himself from Correa and socialism.

“Arauz will win unless they steal it from him,” wrote Professor Steve Ellner, managing editor of the journal Latin American Perspectives. “After all, Correa had a 60% favorable rating when he left office. Moreno is completely discredited, and Lasso has been around too long to be considered a new face for business in politics — and in addition is associated with global capital.”

However, the left has been under considerable pressure during the campaign, not least the banning of Correa from holding office. 10,000 Ecuadorians who live in Venezuela, generally considered to be a progressive group, are in the dark about whether they will be allowed to participate, despite the fact that voting is mandatory for all citizens.

The 2010s were a dark decade for the continent’s left-wing groups. However, a victory in Ecuador would underscore the dawning of a new era in the region the United States calls its “backyard.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Alan MacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. He is author of “Bad News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting.” His latest book, Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, was published by Routledge in May 2019.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Abstract

New fifth generation (5G) telecommunications systems, now being rolled out globally, have become the subject of a fierce controversy. Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail. This essay identifies four relevant sources of scientific uncertainty and concern: (1) lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; (2) a rapidly accumulating body of laboratory studies documenting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects of RF-EMFs—but one with many gaps in it; (3) an almost total lack (as yet) of high-quality epidemiological studies of adverse human health effects from 5G EMF exposure specifically, but rapidly emerging epidemiological evidence of such effects from past generations of RF-EMF exposure; (4) persistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities do not base their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, related to unmanaged conflicts of interest. The author, an experienced epidemiologist, concludes that one cannot dismiss the growing health concerns about RF-EMFs, especially in an era when higher population levels of exposure are occurring widely, due to the spatially dense transmitters which 5G systems require. Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.

Read full document here.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Sines coal plant in Portugal went offline at midnight yesterday evening (14 January), leaving the country with just one remaining coal power station in operation, which is scheduled for closure in November.

Portuguese energy utility EDP announced its decision to shut down the 1,296 MW Sines coal plant in July last year, bringing the closure forward by two years – from 2023 to 2021. EDP’s initial plans were to close Sines in 2030.

The decision is “part of EDP group’s decarbonisation strategy” and was taken in a context where energy production increasingly depends on renewable sources, the company said back in July.

EDP’s decision to accelerate the phase out of coal was “a natural consequence of this energy transition process,” “in line with European carbon neutral targets” and the country’s national energy and climate plan, which puts the emphasis on renewables, EDP said in a statement.

This leaves Portugal with just one remaining coal power plant in operation, Pego, which is already scheduled for closure in November this year, campaigners said.

When it does, Portugal will become the fourth country in Europe to completely eliminate coal in electricity production – following in the footsteps of Belgium (2016), Austria and Sweden (2020), according to Europe Beyond Coal, an environmental NGO.

Campaigners applauded the move, underlining that Sines had until then represented, on average, 12% of Portugal’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

“In four years, Portugal has gone from having a rough strategy to exit coal by 2030, to concrete plans to be coal free by year’s end. Sines going offline even earlier than expected underscores the reality that once a country commits to clean energy, the economics of renewables deliver the transition very quickly,” said Kathrin Gutmann, campaign director at Europe Beyond Coal.

“Countries like Germany, Czech Republic and Poland who have committed to, or are considering coal phase out dates well after the needed 2030 end for coal in Europe should take note: not choosing ambitious phase-outs will leave you playing catch up as they happen anyway.”

In addition to Portugal, five more European countries are expected to end coal by 2025: France (2022), Slovakia (2023), the UK (2024), Ireland (2025) and Italy (2025), according to Europe Beyond Coal.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: The decision is part of EDP’s decarbonisation strategy, which involves the early closure of plants in the Iberian Peninsula, the Portuguese utility said. [EDP]

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Brazilian activists continue to campaign for justice two years on from the Brumadinho mining disaster in Brazil.

For two years now, the people of Brumadinho, Brazil have endured tireless searches and rescue attempts, looking for missing loved ones and seeing only mud.

Brazilian mining giant Vale has constructed mining operations across the state of Minas Gerais, disfiguring existing local political and social dynamics by creating a direct economic dependence on extractivism.

In Brumadinho it was no different. On 25 January 2019, a tailings dam at Vale’s Córrego do Feijão mine collapsed. The millions of cubic metres of mining waste the dam contained spilled out in a toxic mud flow. A total of 272 people were left dead or disappeared, buried in mud. Families, friends and neighbours were left desolate, in deep sadness and trauma.

Disaster

What happened at Brumadinho is often referred to as a disaster or one of Brazil’s worst ever industrial accidents. Many of those who survived it and who now campaign for justice, however, insist that it should be seen instead as a crime.

Vale’s representatives were aware of the possibility of rupture – including the existence of cracks identified by the mining company’s workers and residents of the region. Early last year, Brazillian courts accepted charges of homicide which allowed a case to move forward against employees of Vale and German auditor TÜV SÜD for their role in the deadly dam collapse.

While TÜV SÜD certified the dam as safe, there are suggestions that it was known within the company that this was not the case, and that the auditors were involved in covering up the dangers posed.

An International Commission of Jurists with specialists in health, labour and mining was created to draw worldwide attention to Vale and its destructive mining operations. The Commission points to the fact that the majority of victims in the Brumadinho dam collapse were hired workers from the company itself, making it Brazil’s biggest labour disaster.

On the day of the collapse, warning sirens were not switched on. In what seems like an act of culpable disregard by Vale for their own workers, the victims did not even have the chance to run.

Aftermath

In the years since the dam collapse, the communities affected by this crime have both mourned and mobilised. Local organizations, Church representatives, and others are building collective solidarity to amplify the call for justice and reclaim the narrative of what happened at Brumadinho (against the sanitized and establishment version of events promoted by vested interests).

RENSER (Região Episcopal Nossa Senhora do Rosário) has been the main Church-based group at the forefront of working with those affected. Its work has been refocusing the narrative away from corporate “management and processes” and instead towards the structural, material and psychological impacts on Brumadinho’s communities and families.

To mark the second anniversary of this tragic destruction and loss of life, RENSER has organised a series of activities as a form of online ‘pilgrimage’. At the centre of this work is the launch of the Pact of Those Affected by Vale’s Crime in Brumadinho, which brings together voices from the community in memory of those lost and dedicated to resist “economic development based on exploitation and contempt for life, in all its forms.”

Using faith as a cornerstone and source of unity, the Pact honours the lives of those who have “long felt the effects of predatory and irresponsible mining” and stands as a testimony to the strength of a community determined to be strong in the face of such loss and grief.

Vidas Barradas (2020). Photos: Cid Faria.

Permanent struggle

The Movement of People Affected by Dams in Brazil (MAB) has also organised a series of events it is calling the Journey of Struggles to mark “two years of Vale’s crime in Brumadinho”.

Its agenda presents what it calls the “permanent struggle” of those affected by Vale and what the company represents – a struggle for the right to water, emergency financial assistance and participation in agreements between Vale and the state government of Minas Gerais.

For MAB, collective action is essential in holding to account those responsible for the death and destruction in Brumadinho. As it clearly states, “there’s only justice with struggle and organisation”.

Disaster sprawl

With the second anniversary approaching, Brumadinho may be the current focus of groups like RENSER and MAB, but it is by no means the only site in the state of Minas Gerais where they act in solidarity with those badly affected by Vale’s practices.

In November 2015, the Fundão dam at the Samarco iron ore dam collapsed, releasing 50 million cubic metres of mine waste. Twenty people lost their lives. The villages of Bento Rodrigues, Paracatu de Baixo and Gesteira were destroyed. More than 600km of the river basin was polluted.

In the five years since, entire communities living in the surrounding Rio Doce basin have had to live with polluted water, lack of access to their land, and broken promises from the mining giants behind the catastrophe.

The Samarco mine is owned 50/50 by Vale and the Anglo-Australian mining company BHP. Despite facing ongoing legal action over the case, the owners resumed operation of the Samarco mine in late 2020.

Sanctity of life

In both of these cases, those organizing for justice are clear: this is not simply about compensation. No amount of money is worth life and lives. No profit is worth the life of the people living and working in and around these mine sites. People who once brought joy, affection and comfort will no longer return, and no money can pay for that.

As the Pact of Those Affected evocatively puts it: “May money never be a reason for division among us and let us not be bought by the crumbs of those who kill.” The social and spiritual trauma caused by these tragedies must be reckoned with.

In the areas surrounding Brumadinho, potentially irreversible damage has been done to peoples’ way of life. Indigenous Pataxó Hã Hã Hãe people can no longer perform their rituals on the river due to contamination, or even use the water for consumption or to irrigate their crops. Their long-term self sustainability may never recover.

The case is similar for African descent quilombola communities and others making their lives and livelihoods in this region. While corporate interests may see compensation payments as the end of the matter, the story that affected communities are fighting to tell and to establish says otherwise.

Respect, comprehensive reparation and justice are what they expect from Vale and the equally negligent public authorities.

Never forgotten

The advocacy work done by solidarity groups, the church, and community activists is far from over. They stand against corporate and state powers that have vested interests in supporting Vale, and their actions are reclaiming the voice of those whose story this is to tell.

They are keeping alive the memory of those who were killed and continuing to fight for justice in the face of overwhelming grief.

We must never forget the people of Brumadinho, their struggle against these predatory mining abuses, and their rightful demand for justice.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Gabriela Sarmet is co-founder of the Coletivo Decolonial, a researcher on socio environmental conflicts in Latin America and a volunteer & individual associate member of the London Mining Network. 

Saul Jones is the communications coordinator at London Mining Network.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Military relations between Russia and India are increasing and this can bring a series of significant changes in international society. The Indian government recently sent about 100 soldiers to Russia to train them in handling the S-400 anti-aircraft system, which New Delhi plans to acquire as soon as possible. However, this is unlikely to be pleasing to Washington, which sees New Delhi as a key partner in its strategy for the Indo-Pacific region.

In October 2018, India signed a contract with Russian company Rosoboronexport for the purchase of five S-400 anti-aircraft systems for more than 5 billion dollars. At the time, Washington disapproved the negotiation, but as India had not yet received the equipment, tensions eased. However, the Asian country will receive the first anti-aircraft batteries between September and October 2021 and that will be operational later this year or early next year, which worries Americans deeply. New Delhi recently informed that it has already transferred a significant advance payment to Rosoboronexport and is designing a mechanism to make the final payment soon. Meanwhile, the Indians are planning mechanisms to ease their tensions with the US, which has already threatened to impose severe sanctions.

The S-400 is an extremely powerful system, being used by the Russian armed forces since 2007. With a range of hundreds of kilometers and being able to shoot down ballistic missiles, the S-400 can significantly improve Indian national security in the midst of the regional tensions. Indeed, India is rushing to increase the material and human resources of its armed forces, mainly due to the fact that its dispute with China continues. Still, it is necessary to emphasize that, although tensions with China have gained a lot of evidence since May last year (when there were small incidents of direct confrontation and deaths), the dispute between India and Pakistan still remains and generates victims every year, making that region a big focus of tensions, with three nuclear powers involved in territorial disputes.

Throughout the Trump administration, tensions between the US and India due to the agreement with Russia were eased, although they remained. The former American president has warned New Delhi several times to cancel the deal before receiving the equipment. The reason Trump did not make more active interventions in the case is simple: the US and India have a common enemy, China, and the Americans cannot lose this important ally against Beijing. However, now, in the early days of the Biden administration, Washington receives news on the consummation of the agreement between Indians and Russians. Biden, who has a more active attitude towards the imposition of American interests with his defense of global hegemony, will now have to choose between continuing Trump’s policy or taking a more aggressive attitude towards India.

For India, however, the situation has not changed so much. New Delhi has never been interested in forming an ideological alliance with Washington – Indian interest is limited to the existence of a common enemy. To ensure their security against this enemy, Indians seek American support – but if the US does not provide all the resources necessary for India to guarantee its protection, the Indian government will seek this guarantee in other possibilities of cooperation, such as Russia.

What we can see in the Indian case is yet another evidence of the irreversibility of the process of geopolitical multipolarisation – mainly in international trade. India, while a historical ally of the US, seeks to equip itself with Russian armaments and to strengthen commercial and military ties with Russia, because what New Delhi wants is to guarantee its own interests, regardless of which power may be an ally for this. With the rise of trade wars and the wave of international sanctions politically or ideologically motivated, Washington tried to impose on the world a very distorted notion of the function of trade, limiting the exchange of resources between nations to the existence of political and ideological affinities. However, this type of trade limitation cannot be maintained for long, as this would lead to an irreparable global crisis. Knowing this, more and more nations seek to diversify their trade options and maintain ties simultaneously with apparently antagonistic potentials.

With this scenario, it will be up to the new American president to choose between sanctioning India – which will make the US to lose an important ally and push the Indians even further into relations with Russia – or to maintain a peaceful policy of “warnings” and “verbal disapprovals”, without any aggressive commercial measure, accepting the fact that any nation can buy any product – military or not – from any nation.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Following its January 6 announcement, the European Union (EU) reaffirmed on Monday that it no longer recognizes Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela. In 2018, the EU claimed that Nicolás Maduro was not the legitimate president and backed Guaidó. After the EU, the U.S. could also end its recognition of the self-proclaimed interim president and change its sanctions policy with a new one that is more conducive to normalization. Washington will most likely try and strengthen American economic presence in the devastated Venezuelan economy and convert that into political influence.

Although the European Council believes that the December 6 parliamentary election in Venezuela was a “missed opportunity” for democracy because they were supposedly not in line with international standards for democratic processes, it was concluded that Guaidó remains a “privileged interlocutor” for the EU, but as an opposition figurehead and not interim president.

Guaidó remains the recognized interim president of Venezuela for only the United Kingdom and the U.S., but that could soon change. Guaidó’s political party did not go to the polls and could not measure the influence and popularity they have among Venezuelans because they were afraid that they would not receive the support they promised their Western partners they enjoyed.

Maduro’s political opposition lost control of the parliament in the recent election. The parliament was their political stronghold between 2015 and December 2020. Guaidó, who chaired the parliament, lost the formal basis that Western countries used to declare him as the interim president of Venezuela. January 5 marked two years since Guaidó declared himself interim president because the opposition did not recognize Maduro’s election as head of state. They claimed that the presidential election was rigged. At the time, self-proclaimed president Guaidó was immediately recognized by the U.S. as interim president, and then by the EU.

After Biden’s election to the U.S. presidency, Maduro immediately sent him congratulations, expressing hope that he would lift sanctions against Venezuela and start a new era in bilateral relations. The EU, under pressure from former U.S. President Donald Trump, followed a rigid policy against Venezuela, full of accusations, threats, sanctions and demands that he surrenders his presidency. But now a lot has changed. That is why neither the U.S. or the UK will continue recognizing Guaidó for long.

A few days after receiving a congratulations from Maduro, Biden diplomatically replied that he was ready to start a new policy and new negotiations with Venezuela. It is symptomatic that as soon as there was a new president in the White House, the Guaidó-aligned president of CITGO, an extremely rich and U.S.-based branch of Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA, immediately resigned. This is an indication that Guaidó has come to an end.

It must be remembered that in the middle of last year, a court in London recognized Guaidó as the “acting president” of Venezuela and gave him access to Venezuela’s gold reserves stored in the Bank of England, which was followed by a lawsuit from Maduro’s legal team. At the end of October last year, the Court of Appeals in London concluded that the Court of First Instance did not assess the facts well and that Maduro exercised control over the government, which is why the case returned to the Court of First Instance for retrial. It is very likely that the British court will accept the fact that Guaidó no longer has a formal basis to dispose of such large gold reserves, which is very important for the functioning of Venezuela in these extremely difficult economic times caused by U.S. sanctions.

With the departure of Trump, who was the first to recognize Guaidó as interim president and constantly imposed sanctions against Venezuela, a lot has changed. Biden will try to achieve political power through economic influence in Venezuela. Because of the sanctions, not only did Venezuelan companies suffer, but also foreign companies that did business in the South American country. Because of that, about 50 large companies from the U.S. had to leave Venezuela, suffering major losses.

Biden no longer wants such a policy and announced that it is inadmissible to have bad relations with Latin America because it is too close to the U.S. It is likely that the new president will, first of all, try to win over countries with his economic policy, and then through economic influence, achieve political ones. If Biden follows this path, it will encourage American companies to invest in Venezuela again, and they will look to strengthen those ties. In this way, it will amortize the destructive policies made by Trump against Venezuela.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“Nothing ever seems to last

promises made promises lost

and pride is kept at any cost

and flowers die and children cry

and lonely people carry on.”

She was tired, but not too tired to go to work. Matter of fact, she was lucky to be able to have a job. So many of her friends were still at home, collecting, if fortunate enough,  those ‘not enough’ unemployment checks. She herself had no choice. She needed the money to stay in her apartment and pay to fix that old clunker on ‘life support’. True, the moratorium on her rent had been good for the interim, but now it was back to reality. And what would happen when they started demanding all that back money? No one in government gave that answer… because no one knew how that would play out. Yes, she was tired, too tired to even ponder all that.

She lived with her daughter, who was in her third year of college. The kid was already saddled with the student loans, and could not find a part time job anymore. Waitresses, or ‘Servers’ as they were called, were not in demand, to say the least. On top of that her daughter was doing ‘Virtual learning’ and that took discipline, which she did not have much of. So, she needed to keep on her kid to follow the regimen needed to pass those courses. All this made her even more tired.

She had absolutely no social life now. With this pandemic all she could do was rely on ‘Face time’ with her sister and a few close friends.

No more lunches or drinks and dancing out, and that was actually good right now.

It saved her money, money needed at this moment to stay afloat. Being about to hit sixty years of age she had terrible health coverage.

Her job only covered about one third of the premiums, and her deductible was $2500. If she had to go into the hospital, even for one or two nights, it would be her problem, not the insurance companies. A year ago, before the pandemic, she cut her finger really bad on a scissor at home. It just would not stop bleeding, so she had to rush to an Urgent Care nearby. When she felt faint after being stitched up, she started to pass out. The aide panicked a bit and called 911. Within minutes the Paramedics arrived and hurried her into the ambulance and rushed her to the ER. That bill cost her $1500, and she was still paying it off. Not being a political person at all, THAT woke her up a bit, and she became a Bernie Sanders supporter. This whole medical insurance thing was a joke, and she knew then that everyone should have coverage those on Medicare had… or even better than that.

The $600 dollar checks for the two of them had come in handy… but they both knew it was not enough. She wished she had been more well read on things pertaining to the issues important to her economic survival. Yet, she knew instinctively that the big corporations and the very wealthy were making out like bandits while the two of them suffered. When she saw how the candidate Andrew Wang was pushing for a Universal Basic Income, she hoped that something like that could be instituted. No one running other than he and Sanders seemed to be behind it, and she knew then that Biden was too wishy washy to ever do it as president. He was now president and she was correct. It faded away and she was left hoping for maybe one more stimulus check. So sad.

So, she wore her face mask and went about her business of just getting through this all. When would she be able to get the vaccine? At her age it might be months, or even a year. She and her daughter would have to truck it through. Help would not be on the way.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

While both right wings of the US war party differ on some issues, they’re likeminded on most geopolitical ones.

It’s notably the case with regard to policies toward nations free from US control, especially China, Russia and Iran.

They’re considered adversaries for being unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests.

At his first press conference following Senate confirmation as Biden/Harris secretary of state, Antony Blinken was especially hostile toward Russia.

He was also unreassuring about US relations with China and Iran, suggesting continued dirty business as usual ahead instead of constructive change.

Meddling in the internal affairs of other nations is longstanding US policy.

It was evident in Blinken’s Wednesday remarks.

Expressing concern about pro-Western Kremlin critic/convicted felon Alexey Navalny’s detention in Moscow for breaching terms of his suspended embezzlement conviction, Blinken said the following:

The Biden/Harris regime is “reviewing (Russian) actions that are of deep concern to us, whether it is the treatment of Mr. Navalny, and particularly the apparent use of a chemical weapon in an attempt to assassinate him (sic),” adding:

“We’re looking very urgently as well at SolarWinds and its various implications.”

“We’re looking at the reports of bounties placed by Russia on American forces in Afghanistan.”

“And of course, we’re looking at these questions of election interference.”

All of the above and more are baseless accusations.

Despite no evidence supporting them, Blinken said Biden/Harris are “not ruling out anything” in retaliation.

More unlawful sanctions and other dirty tricks are likely.

On Tuesday, Vladimir Putin and Biden spoke by phone.

Despite no prospect for improved bilateral relations, Putin said “normalization of relations between Russia and the US would meet the interests of both countries and, considering their special responsibility for maintaining global security and stability, of the entire international community,” according to what his website posted.

Both leaders agreeing to extend New START for another five years is a positive step if there’s US follow-through with no hitches ahead.

Arms Control Association director Daryl Kimball said extending the agreement “will enhance US and global security, curtail dangerous nuclear arms racing, and create the potential for more ambitious steps to reduce the nuclear danger and move us closer to a world without nuclear weapons,” adding:

It’s “just the beginning.” Much more is needed to “reduc(e) and eventually eliminat(e) deadly nuclear stockpiles…”

Putin noted that both leaders discussed other bilateral and international issues.

His hope for improved relations with the US is highly likely to be dispelled in the days, weeks and months ahead — like virtually always before.

While Blinken said Washington’s relationship with China “is arguably the most important relationship that we have in the world,” things ahead are likely to remain much more confrontational that accommodative.

Admitting that Sino/US relations have “adversarial aspects,” they’ll likely overshadow cooperative ties on issues of mutual concern.

Straightaway after Wednesday’s Senate confirmation, Blinken spoke to his Japanese, South Korean, UK, French, German and Mexican counterparts.

He didn’t call Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

Other Biden/Harris officials signaled no change in US adversarial relations toward China ahead.

Climate envoy John Kerry said the new US regime will challenge China on various issues, including human rights and intellectual property protection in exchange for cooperation on other issues.

Ignoring horrendous US human rights abuses at home and abroad, Dem and GOP officials falsely accused Beijing of interning and abusing Uyhgur and other Muslims in “concentration camps.”

Pompeo falsely accused China of “genocide.” Addressing his phony accusation Wednesday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the following:

“We have said many times that the so-called ‘genocide’ in Xinjiang is a completely false accusation, a lie concocted by some anti-China forces and a staged farce to smear and defile China,” adding:

“We believe the vast majority of countries in the world are sharp-eyed as they have an objective and fair assessment of Xinjiang’s development and the Chinese government’s policy on making Xinjiang a stable and prosperous place.”

Separately, White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki called China’s telecom giant Huawei a national security threat to “the US and our allies,” adding:

“We’ll ensure that the American telecommunications networks do not use equipment from untrusted vendors, and we’ll work with allies to secure their telecommunications networks.”

Her hostile remark signaled likely continuation of Trump’s war on China by other means politically, economically and technologically.

Biden’s UN envoy designee Linda Thomas-Greenfield vowed to counter China’s “authoritarian agenda” and global influence, adding:

“We know China is working across the UN system to drive an authoritarian agenda that stands in opposition to the founding values of the institution – American values (sic).”

“Their success depends on our continued withdrawal. That will not happen on my watch.”

She’ll work with other governments to “push back on China’s self-interested and parasitic development goals (sic).”

The above differs sharply from her earlier view on Sino/US relations, calling them “win-win-win cooperation.”

All of the above suggests continuation of hardline US policies under Biden/Harris against all nations free from its control.

It’s likely true with Iran ahead, Blinken saying:

“(I)f Iran comes back into full compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA, the United States would do the same thing and then we would use that as a platform to build, with our allies and partners, what we called a longer and stronger agreement and to deal with a number of other issues that are deeply problematic in the relationship with Iran (sic)” adding:

“But we are a long ways from that point.”

“Iran is out of compliance on a number of fronts (sic).”

“And it would take some time, should it make the decision to do so, for it to come back into compliance in time for us then to assess whether it was meeting its obligations.”

“So we’re not – we’re not there yet to say the least.”

Blinken failed to explain that the Trump regime breached its JCPOA obligations by abandoning the landmark agreement in 2018 — not Iran.

E3 countries Britain, France and Germany followed suit.

In response to their breach of Security Council Res. 2231, unanimously affirming the landmark agreement, Iran responded as permitted under JCPOA articles 26 and 36.

Foreign Minister Zarif and other Iranian officials said that if the US and E3 countries come back into compliance with their mandated obligations and lift unlawfully imposed sanctions, Tehran will observe JCPOA provisions as originally agreed on in 2015.

On Wednesday, Iran’s UN envoy Majid Takht-Ravanchi said the following:

“The United States must immediately adhere to its commitments in the nuclear agreement, which was enshrined in international law in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.”

“By doing so, (Biden/Harris) will put the country back into compliance.”

“The new (US regime) should also swiftly remove the new sanctions” imposed by Trump.

“This will indicate the new government’s commitment to rebuilding the United States’ shattered global credibility.”

The above apparently is unacceptable for Biden, Harris and Blinken.

If they remain firm in their stance, US relations with Iran will continue to be confrontational.

Whenever transition of power occurs in Washington, dirty business as usual continuity remains at least largely unchanged.

After a few days in power, Biden’s geopolitical agenda appears much like his predecessors, a disturbing sign going forward.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Trump was too busy nursing his grudge to bother with overseas matters, but both his son-in-law and secretary of state rushed through a package of foreign policy initiatives and policies, writes As`ad AbuKhalil.

Donald Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and now former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rushed to engineer various foreign policy initiatives in the very last stretch of the Trump administration.

Trump was too busy nursing his grudge to bother with overseas matters, but both Kushner and Pompeo rushed through a package of foreign policy initiatives and policies.

Pompeo decided to classify Cuba, again, as a terrorism-sponsoring state.  That in itself tells you how hollow and flimsy the official criteria for U.S. designation of individuals, groups, and states as terrorists.

The criteria of classification are first and foremost political and subject to extreme fluctuations: Sudan was declared a terrorist state until it normalized with Israel — under extreme pressure.

Furthermore, Cuba has suffered from U.S. terrorism since the victory of the 1959 revolution against the U.S.-supported mafia which ruled Cuba.

Pompeo also decided to add the Houthis in Yemen to the terrorism list, as if the Houthis ever engaged in activities outside Yemen and when, in fact, they have been the most bitter foes of Al-Qa`idah in Yemen. Meanwhile the Saudi-UAE-U.S. war on Yemen has in fact improved the lot of Al-Qa`idah there.

The Houthis’ terrorism designation would complicate the cumbersome efforts of international organizations to provide aid to Yemen, and the U.S. has rejected UN pleas to factor in the humanitarian needs of the people of Yemen.

Various international sanctions were added, including one with religious significance for millions of Shi`ites, and Pompeo, in the wake of a tête-à-tête with the director of Mossad, announced that Iran is now the new base for Al-Qa`idah.

This move blatantly ignores the Sunni-Shiite conflict between the two sides, which the Zionists in D.C. are too quick to dismiss for propaganda purposes, just as they themselves promoted the myth of an alliance between Saddam Husayn and Osama Bin Laden.  Of course, some of these recent U.S. official acts were political favors to the Saudi regime (and to Israel).

The Saudis have been ingratiating themselves with the U.S. administration ever since Trump was elected. But the ingratiation increased in intensity after the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi when Trump extracted more concessions from the regime under the pretext of fending off congressional action against Riyahd.

Saudi Arabia not only blessed the recent wave of Gulf and other Arab normalization with Israel, but it was the chief instigator and sponsor, despite its reluctance to join openly.  It is a matter of time —when Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MbS) feels secure in the throne —before the regime will follow the tide of normalization.

The Trump administration was also eager to please both Saudi Arabia and Israel to make it more difficult for the Biden administration to return to Obama’s framework of relations with Iran.

GCC Feud Resolved

But Kushner was most busy in the Gulf region.  He engineered a dramatic Gulf Cooperation Council reconciliation on Jan. 4 after years of feuding between Qatar, on the one hand, and the UAE and Saudi Arabia on the other.

Image on the right: Jared Kushner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2018, at embassy dedication ceremony. (U.S. Embassy Jerusalem, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

In 2017, Saudi Arabia and the UAE both declared an open boycott and siege on Qatar and accused it of conspiring with Iran against its neighbors.  The UAE intelligence service even hacked the official national news site of Qatar to distort the words the Qatari Emir.

All UAE and Saudi regime media used the hacking to make claims about a historical betrayal by Qatar of Arabs (bin Salman presumably represents the Arabs according to this scenario).  Saudi Arabia closed its borders with Qatar and banned Qatar’s airline from flying over Saudi airspace.

Egypt and Bahrain also joined the campaign on Qatar while Kuwait and Oman took a neutral role and were rather closer to the Qatari stance.  Saudi Arabia and the UAE quickly released a list of conditions that Qatar had to accede to before any reconciliation would be considered.

The UAE-Saudi-Bahraini alliance made it clear that they wouldn’t settle for any deal that would not include closure of all pan-Arab Qatari media outlets, including Al-Jazeera.  Initially, Trump tweeted sympathy with the Saudi-UAE campaign against Qatar but the U.S. government — presumably under pressure from the military command — quickly adjusted and called for reconciliation, taking into consideration that Qatar hosts the biggest U.S. military base in the Middle East.

The Combined Air and Space Operations Center (CAOC) at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, provides command and control of air power throughout Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and 17 other nations. (U.S. Air Force, Joshua Strang)

Kuwait attempted mediation but the Saudi and UAE regime would not budge.  Qatar was willing to make compromises as it has done in the past when it would for example ban Saudi dissidents from appearing on Aljazeera as a price for better relations with the Saudi regime. (I was contacted in 2017 at the onset of this conflict by Aljazeera and invited to appear presumably to bash the Saudi regime, but I made it very clear that I won’t be a tool for warfare between various despotic regimes. I reminded them that they feuded in the past and then reconciled).

The reconciliation was sudden and concessions by the UAE and Saudi Arabia were uncharacteristic, to the effect that they basically dropped the famous 13 conditions and agreed to lift the tight siege on Qatar in return for nothing from Qatar — at least nothing that we know of.

The two regimes had not been magnanimous toward Doha, whom they accused of collaborating with their chief enemy, Iran, and conspiring with Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood.  (It is true that Qatar has been a chief sponsor in recent years of the Muslim Brotherhood and a close ally of Turkey which also supports the Brotherhood).

Their Own Interests

While it was Kushner who sponsored this GCC reconciliation, the two regimes (the UAE and Saudi Arabia) also have their own calculations.

Both the Saudi and UAE regimes were assuming that Trump was going to be re-elected.  Both were nervous about a Biden presidency, although bin Salman had the most reasons to worry.  It’s not that Biden will reverse the traditional U.S. foreign policy of installing and coddling despots around the world.

That won’t change. But the Democratic leadership is on the record committing to hold bin Salman responsible for the murder of Khashoggi, who has become in Democratic rhetoric a symbol of freedom of speech (as opposed to say, Julian Assange) — which is ironic given Khashoggi’s lifetime of propaganda work for the House of Saud.

Biden pledged to seek accountability and that won’t be easy to reverse, despite Biden’s long career of support for Arab despots.  Most likely, Biden will support the replacement of MbS with another prince. Former Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayif remains a favorite of the D.C. security and intelligence establishment.

But the rehabilitation of MbS is not out the question, especially if he were to follow in Sadat’s footsteps by addressing the Israeli Knesset.

Bin Salman has not been able to visit Western capitals since the murder of Khashoggi, and no Saudi king can rule without having direct access to the White House and Congress.  Bin Salman needs to improve his image quickly now that Biden has taken over.

Trump, not unlike previous presidents, supported and armed Gulf despots but Kushner took the relationship with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ), the ruler of Abu Dhabi, and MbS a step further by pushing for a regional triangle, which includes Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel.

The normalization process was blessed and instituted by MbS, but he has not openly joined in.  He has been cautious, particularly because of internal dissent within the Saudi royal family (many of his uncles and cousins remain under house arrest).

If MbS can achieve GCC reconciliation and help the U.S. in creating a united front against Iran in the region, he gains more support from Israel, which is already lobbying the Biden administration for a softer approach to those Arab despots (namely, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

There was little attention paid in the media, following the announcement of Gulf reconciliation, to an important Trump administration announcement: that the U.S. decided a week before Biden’s inauguration to move Israel from under U.S. European military command to Central Command, which covers the Arab region.

The U.S. will be working to consolidate the Israeli-Gulf regional alliance and the Biden administration won’t work to reverse that either.

Biden: No Change Toward Palestine Either

Image below: June 16, 2016: Antony Blinken, as deputy secretary of state, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem. (U.S. State Department, Wikimedia Commons)

In fact, most of the pro-Israeli policies of the Trump administration will remain in place, like reopening the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem, re-opening the PLO office in Washington, refunding the UN’s Palestinian relief agency UNRAW, and declaring support for a two-state solution but without committing to any concrete steps to ensure its implementation.

MbS is working to prepare the stage not only for his coronation but for U.S. support for his coronation.  He knows that his task has been made most difficult with the murder of Khashoggi and with the advent of a new administration which does not have the same admiration for his role in the region.

The direct line to Kushner in the West Wing is gone, as is the attempt to obtain Trump’s gratitude with an arms deal.  Not that Biden will be going around the world punishing despots, but MbS has a big hurdle to overcome with the new White House and State Department teams.

For that, the road to Washington will pass — as is always the case for Arab tyrants — through Tel Aviv.  MbS has now arranged for the (theoretical) consolidation of the GCC team, and with the addition of Israel to Central Command, he will present a unified front vis-à-vis Iran to the Biden administration.

Oct. 14, 2020: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud prepare to address reporters in Washington, D.C. (State Department, Ron Przysucha)

By reconciling with Qatar, he has succeeded in obtaining Qatari good will, which will be translated into unannounced concessions by Doha: It will over time end its hosting of Saudi dissidents in its media, and criticisms of Gulf normalization with Israel will diminish gradually so as not to cause frictions between GCC members. (Let us not forget that the Qatari regime took the first steps to open normalization with Israel among Gulf countries).

The GCC has been a united front in name only and conflicts and frictions between its members has characterized its history.  But the preservation of the GCC has been an American imperative especially with the projection of U.S. military force in the Gulf following the war on Iraq in 1991.

Nevertheless, the recent reconciliation could be significant for an eager Saudi crown prince who is wondering how the Biden administration will handle his succession to the throne.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

As`ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the “Historical Dictionary of Lebanon” (1998), “Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New War on Terrorism (2002), and “The Battle for Saudi Arabia” (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhalil

Featured image: Jan. 12, 2021: Secretary of State Michael Pompeo delivers remarks at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. (State Department, Freddie Everett)

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Biden, the current occupant of the White House, and President Putin of Russia have had their first telephone meeting. President Putin stressed that it is in the interest of the US, Russia, and the entire world for the tense relationship between Washington and the Kremlin to be normalized. Biden apparently, was noncommittal on this overriding issue and although indicating agreement to renew the 1991 treaty to limit and reduct strategic offensive arms, Biden mainly raised American propaganda issues with Russia.

Considering Washington’s record since the Clinton regime of simply abandoning out of hand previous agreements with Russia, renewing the START Treaty might not mean much.  The important issue is the normalization of relations between the nuclear superpowers. As Russia can wipe the US off of the face of Earth, Washington needs to be careful what impression it creates in the Kremlin.

Vladimir Putin is correct that a normalization of relations between the US and Russia is in the interests of both countries and that of the entire world.  The tensions that the American neoconservatives have created between the nuclear superpowers is not only a barrier to business and scientific cooperation but also a threat to the world because of the risk of war.

However, Russia is fooling herself if she thinks Washington has any real interest in normal relations.  The Kremiln needs to keep in mind that normalizing relations was President Trump’s goal.  It was this goal that caused the US military/security complex to orchestrate the Russiagate hoax in order to prevent any such normalization and to remove Trump by stealing his re-election.  By investigating Trump for three years as a Russian agent, Trump was unable to normalize relations without confirming the propaganda that he was acting in Russia’s interest.  The Kremlin needs to understand that the US military/security complex requires Russia as an enemy in order to justify its budget and power.  Therefore, there can be no normalization.

It is pointless to talk about something that cannot happen.  President Putin needs to realize that to pursue normalization with Washington would make him appear naive and gullible to Washington.  Consider the issues Biden raised with President Putin in their first telephone conversation.

Russian cyberattacks against America, Russian interference in American elections, alleged Kremlin bounties to the Taliban to kill US soldiers, and the never-ending portrayal of Vladimir Putin as a dictator—“the new Hitler”—and praise of US-financed Alexei Navalny against whom Washington alleges ongoing Putin plots. 

Washington understands that these are propaganda issues used as operations against Putin and Russia. How can Putin expect to find common cause with an enemy that operates against him? Putin should take a different approach. The Kremlin should make it clear to Washington that when Washington stops demonizing Russia and her leader and requests a better relationship, Russia will consider it at that time.  Putin should avoid behavior that makes him look weak to Russians as a person who accepts endless insults and false accusations from Americans.  The Russian people want to see Putin stand up for Russia.  Once Putin does, Washington will be more careful.

On the question of how the Kremlin might more successfully pursue a better relationship with Washington, Putin could consider a different approach. The problem is that Washington does not respect the Russian government. The evidence of Washington’s disrespect is abundant.  Washington sanctions members of the Russian government and Russian business enterprises.  Washington seized Russian consulates and property for no other reason than an intentional provocation. Endless derogatory remarks are made about President Putin. Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government and installed its own, causing Russia problems with the EU and Ukraine. Washington interfered in Belarus. Recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton said that Putin had ordered Trump to have his supporters storm the Capitol.  “All roads lead to Putin,” said the Speaker of the House. See this.

Until Washington respects the Russian government, Russia cannot negotiate on equal terms.  It is dangerous for Washington to disrespect the Russian government.  It could result in Washington miscalculating and provoking a war.  Russia could gain respect with more aggressive responses to Washington’s accusations and provocations.  It is Russia’s weak position to always be denying accusations. 

Alternatively, the Kremlin could just turn its back on Washington, cease responding to the accusations, and go about its business in the rest of the world. 

As long as Russia comes across as fixated on being part of the West, Russia is in the position of a suitor.  It is in the Kremlin’s interest to put Washington in the position of suitor. A very visible mutual defense treaty between Russia, China, and Iran would sober Washington and Israel considerably. By all means, the Kremlin should cease permitting Washington to finance a fifth column inside Russia. Alexei Navalny and his supporters are Washington’s agents.  They make propaganda inside Russia that Washington and NATO exploit outside Russia.

The Kremlin seems to think that it is just being democratic, but what the Kremlin is really doing is destroying the image everywhere in the West that Russia is democratic.  Instead, Russia is understood by most Americans and Europeans as a dictatorship that poisons the leader of the democratic forces. This propaganda is dangerous to Americans, Russians, and the entire world. Propaganda is the empoyment of lies to create a false reality.  False realities are dangerous. They can take on lives of their own and lead to wars. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

A less publicized Trump policy that actually killed children was the fulfilment of his campaign promises to “bomb the shit out of” America’s enemies and “take out their families.” Trump escalated Obama’s bombing campaigns against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and loosened U.S. rules of engagement regarding airstrikes that were predictably going to kill civilians.

But the killing of civilians in America’s post-9/11 wars did not begin with Trump. And it will not end, or even diminish, under Biden, unless the public demands that America’s systematic slaughter of children and other civilians must end.

Its 2020 report, Killed and Maimed: a generation of violations against children in conflict, reported 250,000 UN-documented human rights violations against children in war zones since 2005, including over 100,000 incidents in which children were killed or maimed. It found that a staggering 426,000,000 children now live in conflict zones, the second highest number ever, and that, “…the trends over recent years are of increasing violations, increasing numbers of children affected by conflict and increasingly protracted crises.”

In the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, U.S. and allied forces are armed with highly destructive explosive weapons and rely heavily on airstrikes, with the result that blast injuries account for nearly three-quarters of injuries to children, double the proportion found in other wars. The U.S. reliance on airstrikes also leads to widespread destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure, leaving children more exposed to all the humanitarian impacts of war, from hunger and starvation to otherwise preventable or curable diseases.

Image on the right: Iraqi children are seen in a town of Mosul after the village was retaken by Peshmerga forces from Daesh on 31 October, 2016 [Ahmet Izgi/Anadolu]

To prevent new U.S. wars, the Biden administration should commit to participate and comply with the rules of international law, which are supposed to be binding on all countries, even the most wealthy and powerful.

Despite U.S. non-participation and disdain, the rest of the world has continued to develop effective treaties to strengthen the rules of international law. For instance, treaties to ban land-mines and cluster munitions have successfully ended their use by the countries that have ratified them.

Americans should also support the International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW), which is calling for a UN declaration to outlaw the use of heavy explosive weapons in urban areas, where 90% of casualties are civilians and many are children. As Save the Children’s Blast Injuries report says, “Explosive weapons, including aircraft bombs, rockets and artillery, were designed for use in open battlefields, and are completely inappropriate for use in towns and cities and among the civilian population.”

Since the United States and Russia still possess 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world, the main onus for their elimination lies on Presidents Biden and Putin. The five-year extension to the New START Treaty that Biden and Putin have agreed on is welcome news. The United States and Russia should use the treaty extension and the NPT Review as catalysts for further reductions in their stockpiles and real diplomacy to explicitly move forward on abolition.

These sanctions are a brutal form of economic warfare and collective punishment that leave children dying from hunger and preventable diseases, especially during this pandemic. UN officials have called for the International Criminal Court to investigate unilateral U.S. sanctions as crimes against humanity. The Biden administration should immediately lift all unilateral economic sanctions.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and 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.

Featured image is from Syria News

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Team Biden is planning to hold on to what it apparently sees as its “Trump card”— the Trump administration’s sanctions against Iran oil exports that have gutted the Iranian economy.

A close analysis of recent statements by members of President Joseph Biden’s foreign policy team indicates his administration has already signaled its intention to treat negotiations with Iran as an exercise in diplomatic coercion aimed at forcing major new concessions extending well beyond the 2105 nuclear agreement. The policy could trigger a renewed US-Iran crisis as serious as any provocation engineered by the Trump administration.

Although the Biden team is claiming that it is ready to bring the United States back into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) if Iran comes into full compliance first, it is actually planning to demand that Iran give up its main source of political leverage. Thus, it will require Iran to cease its uranium enrichment to 20 percent and give up its accumulated stockpile of uranium already enriched to that level before the United States has withdrawn the economic sanctions that are now illegal under the JCPOA deal.

Meanwhile, the Biden team is planning to hold on to what it apparently sees as its “Trump card”— the Trump administration’s sanctions against Iran oil exports that have gutted the Iranian economy.

But the Biden strategy faces a serious problem: Iran has already demanded all sanctions imposed after the JCPOA took effect must be ended before Iran would return to compliance. Iran expects the United States, as the party which initially broke the agreement, to come into compliance first.

The new Biden coercive strategy

The Biden administration is banking on a scenario in which Iran agrees to cease its enrichment to 20% and reverse other  major concessions Iran made as part of the 2015 agreement.

The Biden team then states it would start a new set of negotiations with Iran, in which the United States would use its leverage to pressure Iran into extending the timeline of its major commitments under the deal. Further, Tehran will be required to accept a modification in its missile program, as European allies have urged.

The Biden team’s Iran strategy was not hastily cobbled together just before inauguration.  National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan outlined it in an interview last June with Jon Alterman, the Middle East program direct at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “You can get some early wins on the nuclear program but tie long-term sanctions relief to progress on both [nuclear and other issues] files,” Sullivan explained.

Sullivan made it clear the primary goal of his proposed strategy was to constrain Iran by imposing extended restraints on its nuclear program. The idea, he explained, was “to see, is it possible to get a short term win on the nuclear file to basically get Iran back into compliance with the JCPOA and to then put the longer term disposition of Iran’s nuclear program on a negotiating track.”

Biden’s future NSC director implied that US sanctions would be exploited to draw Iran into talks with Israel and Saudi Arabia on missiles and other issues, but not at the expense of U.S. aims on the nuclear issue. The assumption that the US would maintain its coercive leverage on Iran is at the center of the policy. As Sullivan said, summarizing an article he co-authored for Foreign Affairs, “the U.S. should say, ‘We are going to be here applying various forms of leverage, including economic leverage as well as military dimensions, apart from whether we have 20,000 more troops or 10,000 less troops there’.”

At the heart of Biden’s strategy is the demand for Iran to return immediately to full compliance with the nuclear agreement. Before Iran rejoins the pact, the new administration expects it to reverse the moves it made to increase the level and the speed of enrichment in response to Trump’s withdrawal.

The Biden administration’s demand ignores the fact Iran scrupulously observed all of the JCPOA’s provisions for two years after the Trump administration had withdrawn from the agreement. It was only after the Trump administration reintroduced old sanctions outlawed by the agreement and introduced crushing new sanctions aimed at preventing Iran from exporting oil that Iran began enriching uranium at higher levels.

By piling up onerous demands while offering few concessions of its own, the new administration conveys the clear message that it is in no hurry to return to the JCPOA. Secretary of State of Tony Blinken stated in his confirmation testimony that the Biden administration was “a long way” from returning to the deal and said nothing about reversing any of the sanctions that were introduced or reintroduced by the Trump administration after it quit the agreement.

Robert J. Einhorn, a key Obama policymaker on the Iran nuclear issue as State Department Special Adviser on Arms Control and Proliferation who has maintained contacts with Biden insiders, has provided an explanation for that ambiguous message. He suggested that the Biden administration aims to press Iran for a deal falling well short of full restoration of the JCPOA — an “interim agreement” involving “rollback” of part of Iran’s current enrichment activities and going beyond the JCPOA in return for “partial sanctions relief.”

That relief would include “some” of the revenues from oil sales that have been blocked in foreign bank accounts.  Einhorn appeared to confirm that the new Biden strategy would be based in holding on to the leverage conferred by Trump sanctions against Iran’s oil and banking sectors, which have crippled the country/s economy.

Learning the wrong lesson from Obama’scoercive diplomacy

Biden’s foreign policy team is comprised largely of Obama administration officials who either initiated nuclear deal talks in 2012-2013 or who were involved in the later stages of the negotiations. NSC Director Sullivan and CIA Director William Burns were key figures in the early talks with Iran; Blinken oversaw the later phase of the negotiations as Deputy Secretary of State, and Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman was in charge of day-to-day negotiations with Iran on the JCPOA until the final round in Vienna in 2015.

So it should be no surprise that the Biden team is pursuing an Iran strategy similar to the one that the Obama administration followed in its negotiations with Iran on the JCPOA itself. The Obama administration proudly claimed success in increasing Iran’s “breakout time” for obtaining enough enriched uranium for a single bomb from two or three months to a year through the pressure of heavy sanctions. It believed it had secured a winning diplomatic hand in 2012 when it got European allies to buy into its coercive strategy of oil and banking sanctions that would cut deeply into Iran’s foreign currency earnings.

But Iran’s enrichment efforts before negotiations on the nuclear deal began in 2012 tell a very different story. As the IAEA reported at the time, between late 2011 and February 2013, Iran enriched 280 kg of uranium to 20 percent, which would have placed it well over the level regarded as sufficient for “breakout” to a bomb. Meanwhile, Iran roughly doubled the number of centrifuges capable of 20 percent enrichment at its Fordow enrichment facility.

Instead of storing the total amount of uranium enriched to 20 percent for a possible bomb, however, Iran did exactly the opposite: it immediately converted 40 percent of its total capacity of enriched uranium to power Iran’s reactor. What’s more, it did not take steps to make the new centrifuges at Fordow capable of enrichment.

Iran was clearly amassing its stockpile and enrichment capability as bargaining chips for future negotiations. During a September 2012 meeting with EU officials in Istanbul, Iran confirmed the strategy by offering to suspend its 20 percent enrichment in return for significant easing of Western sanctions.

The Obama administration believed its sanctions weapon would prevail over Iran’s diplomatic chips. But Iran persisted in asserting its right to more than a token enrichment program. In the very last days of the negotiations in 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry sought to retain language that would allow the United States to reimpose sanctions deep into the implementation of the agreement, as an Iranian official told this writer in Vienna.  But Iran held fast, and Obama needed to get an agreement. Kerry ultimately gave up his demand.

Blinken, Sullivan and the other Biden administration officials who worked on Iran during the Obama administration seem to have forgotten how Iran used 20 percent enrichment to get the United States to drop its sanctions. In any case, they are so enamored with the Trump sanctions and their role in stifling Iranian oil sales that they believe they will have the upper hand this time around.

In its bid to coerce a state that is fighting for its most basic national rights into submission, the Biden administration has exhibited a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the limits of U.S. power. The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign has already prompted Iran to establish military capabilities that it previously lacked.

If the Biden administration refuses to relent on its coercive diplomacy and provokes a crisis, Iran can now inflict serious costs on the United States and its allies in the region. Yet Biden’s foreign policy team appears so far to be oblivious to the serious risks inherent in its current path.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

Featured image is from OneWorld

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

A new animal study by a group of European researchers has found that low levels of the weed killing chemical glyphosate and the glyphosate-based Roundup product can alter the composition of the gut microbiome in ways that may be linked to adverse health outcomes.

The paper, published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, is authored by 13 researchers, including study lead Dr. Michael Antoniou, head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group within the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics at King’s College in London, and Dr. Robin Mesnage, a research associate in computational toxicology within the same group.  Scientists from the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy, participated in the study as did scientists from France and the Netherlands.

The effects of glyphosate on the gut microbiome were found to be caused by the same mechanism of action by which glyphosate acts to kill weeds and other plants, the researchers said.

The microbes in the human gut include a variety of bacteria and fungi that impact immune functions and other important processes, and a disruption of that system can contribute to a range of diseases, the researchers said.

“Both the glyphosate and the Roundup did have an effect on gut bacterial population composition,” Antoniou said in an interview. “We know that our gut is inhabited by thousands of different types of bacteria and a balance in their composition, and more important in their function, is crucial for our health. So anything that disturbs, negatively disturbs, the gut microbiome… has the potential of causing ill health because we go from balanced functioning that is conducive to health to imbalanced functioning that may lead to a whole spectrum of different diseases.”

The authors of the new paper said they determined that, contrary to some assertions by critics of glyphosate use, glyphosate did not act as an antibiotic, killing off necessary bacteria in the gut.

Instead, they found – for the first time, they said – that the pesticide interfered in a potentially worrisome way with the shikimate biochemical pathway of the gut bacteria of the animals used in the experiment. That interference was highlighted by changes in specific substances in the gut. Analysis of  gut and blood biochemistry revealed evidence that the animals were under oxidative stress, a condition associated with DNA damage and cancer.

The researchers said it was not clear if the disturbance within the gut microbiome influenced the metabolic stress.

The indication of oxidative stress was more pronounced in experiments using a glyphosate-based herbicide called Roundup BioFlow, a product of Monsanto owner Bayer AG, the scientists said.

The study authors said they were conducting more studies to try to decipher if the oxidative stress they observed was also damaging DNA, which would raise the risk of cancer.

The authors said more research is needed to truly understand the health implications of glyphosate inhibition of the shikimate pathway and other metabolic disturbances in the gut microbiome and blood but the early findings could be used in the development of bio-markers for epidemiological studies and to understand if glyphosate herbicides can have biological effects in people.

In the study, female rats were given glyphosate and the Roundup product. The doses were delivered through the drinking water provided to the animals and were given at levels representing the acceptable daily intakes considered safe by European and U.S. regulators.

Antoniou said the study results build on other research that makes it clear regulators are relying on outdated methods when determining what constitutes “safe” levels of glyphosate and other pesticides in food and water. Residues of pesticides used in agriculture are commonly found in a range of regularly consumed foods.

“Regulators need to come into the twenty-first century, stop dragging their feet… and embrace the types of analyses that we have done in this study,” Antoniou said. He said molecular profiling, part of a branch of science known as “OMICS,” is revolutionizing the base of knowledge about the impacts chemical exposures have on health.

The rat study is but the latest in a series of scientific experiments aimed at determining if glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides – including Roundup – can be harmful to humans, even at levels of exposure regulators assert are safe.

Several such studies have found an array of concerns, including one published in November  by researchers from the University of Turku in Finland who said that they were able to determine, in a “conservative estimate,” that approximately 54 percent of species in the core of the human gut microbiome are “potentially sensitive” to glyphosate.

As researchers increasingly look to understand the human microbiome and the role it plays in our health, questions about potential glyphosate impacts on the gut microbiome have been the subject not only of debate in scientific circles, but also of litigation.

Last year, Bayer agreed to pay $39.5 million to settle claims that Monsanto ran misleading advertisements asserting glyphosate only effected an enzyme in plants and could not similarly impact pets and people. The plaintiffs in the case alleged glyphosate targeted an enzyme found in humans and animals that bolsters the immune system, digestion and brain function.

Bayer, which inherited Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide brand and its glyphosate-tolerant genetically engineered seed portfolio when it bought the company in 2018, maintains that an abundance of scientific study over decades confirms that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and many other international regulatory bodies also do not consider glyphosate products to be carcinogenic.

But the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 said a review of scientific research found ample evidence that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

Since that time, Bayer has lost three out of three trials brought by people who blame their cancers on exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides, and Bayer last year said it would pay roughly  $11 billion to settle more than 100,000 similar claims.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Yann Avril/Pixavril – stock.adobe.com

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

While it is well known that international treaties and agreements signed are not a personal contract between political leaders, but rather certain obligations between states, the United States has repeatedly shown the world that it does not care about such norms of international law. Hence the entire structure of the international legal framework, be it the international agreements limiting the arms race, the nuclear deal with Iran, or other agreements to resolve recent armed conflicts, is collapsing through the USA’s fault. The activity of international organizations suffers as well, with Washington giving notice of withdrawal from UNESCO, WHO or some other international institution only at its whim, thereby openly blackmailing them.

All of Washington’s policies in recent years are evidence that the United States has long ceased to be a treaty-minded country.

Therefore, international efforts, in which the United States participates, to resolve conflicts, to reduce armed confrontation in different regions or to establish denuclearization zones, in particular on the Korean Peninsula, have ceased to bring results. Not believing the official signatures of one of the main international actors — the US — countries continue arms race, accumulating a dangerous potential of various weapons, creating their own military alliances, increasing the level of danger of another war in one region or another.

A good example of this is the development of the situation in Afghanistan, where, during “Trump’s short era,” certain steps were taken to end the armed conflict in the country and to reduce the foreign military presence there, as one of the main conditions for resolving the situation. Recall, in particular, how on October 7, 2020, Donald Trump wrote on his Twitter page that all US troops still remaining there should return from Afghanistan by the end of 2020. This was due to the peace agreement signed on February 29, 2020 in Doha between the US administration and the radical Taliban movement (an organization banned in Russia), under which the United States, its allies and the coalition declared their intention to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan within 14 months. Then, in mid-January, the United States announced a partial, though not total, reduction of its military contingent in Afghanistan to 2,500 people. Nevertheless, there was still time for the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan at the end of April this year, as stipulated in the Doha agreement…

To say the least, the process of the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, where they have been for 19 years, wasted $2 trillion of US taxpayers’ money, lost over 2,300 soldiers, and more than 20,000 soldiers and officers of the US army paid for this adventure of American politicians with their health and injuries, was not easy.

There have been periodic disputes and incidents between the signatories to the Doha Agreement. In an attempt to substitute the withdrawal of US troops and to prevent its actual reduction of military presence in the country, Washington has been actively replacing US soldiers by PMCs, which have recently been actively increasing in number, and this was very critically perceived by the Taliban, to the point of escalating armed clashes.

Trump’s plans to reduce the US military presence in Afghanistan were also opposed by Democrat-supported political forces, not only in the United States but also in Western Europe. And a clear manifestation of this was the statement of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in mid-November 2020 about the “concern” of the North Atlantic bloc about such intentions of Trump, because, according to Stoltenberg, in such a development NATO, whose contingent in Afghanistan is 50% composed of American troops, will have to make “a difficult decision.” The NATO countries have decided to take the decision on the continued presence in Afghanistan in February 2021, after the inauguration of US President-elect Joe Biden, to orient themselves to the new course of Washington, Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on December 1.

And now, the new US President Joe Biden has already begun his duties, starting “his era” with a fundamental review of the policies of the previous US president, in the first hours after his inauguration repealing five of Trump’s executive orders. As part of “adjusting” Trump’s policy, the new president will certainly make some changes to the US strategy in Afghanistan, which, despite Joe Biden’s multiple campaign declarations, is not yet clear.

For instance, Joe Biden has said that his first priority after winning the presidential election would be to get US troops back from Afghanistan and negotiate with the Taliban, leaving only a small contingent of special forces in the Central Asian country “to counter potential threats” – in case the United States cannot come to “a sufficiently acceptable agreement on combating terrorism.” However, Trump’s decision to completely withdraw US troops from Afghanistan was critically received not only in US political circles, but also in Europe. In this regard, through Afghan lawmakers — supporters of US policy — a call has already been prepared for Biden to reconsider the agreement made by the Trump administration with the Taliban, including the clause requiring the full withdrawal of coalition troops. However, this would mean that the US would not only have to break the Doha Agreement, but would also have to resume the war.

This position on the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is actively promoted by the US industrial circles, given the fact that the country occupies an important geostrategic position, and in addition to the United States, a number of countries, including China, Iran, Russia and Pakistan are interested in it. In particular, China is already demonstrating its willingness to fill the vacuum after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, to monopolize commodities and rare earth elements, and to invest in Afghanistan, something the US has never done. Back in 2008, Beijing signed an agreement with the Afghan authorities to develop the Aynak copper deposit, the value of the non-ferrous metal reserves in which can be up to $50 billion, and also obtained the right to develop oil deposits in the Amu Darya River basin, which was suspended in 2013.

Under these circumstances, and clearly unwilling to let go of Afghanistan’s natural wealth, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan held telephone conversations with his Afghan counterpart Hamdullah Mohib on January 23 and made it clear that the United States intends to revise the 2020 Doha agreement with the Taliban. This includes assessing whether the Taliban (a movement banned in the Russian Federation) are fulfilling their commitments to sever ties with terrorist groups, reduce violence in Afghanistan, and engage in constructive negotiations with the Afghan government and other stakeholders. In general, he made it clear that if Biden’s concerns about Taliban links with other terrorist groups are not resolved, the US will insist on maintaining a limited US military contingent on Afghan territory.

But this will certainly cause serious disagreements in US relations with the Taliban, who will continue to push for a full withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, including by escalating the armed confrontation in that country…

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from TheFreeThoughtProject.com

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Below is the Executive Summary of the Children’s Defense Fund Report entitled

“Protecting Individual Rights in the Era of COVID-19”

Read full Report 

• Compulsory vaccination violates fundamental human rights, notably the right to prior, free and informed consent for medical interventions. Com- mon law, state and federal statutes, the Nuremberg Code (1947), and the 2005 UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights establish the necessity of informed consent.
• COVID-19 must not become a pretext for forced vaccination.
• The legal edifice shoring up compulsory vaccination rests on a Supreme Court decision that is more than a century old. Subsequent lower court decisions about vaccine mandates differ radically from what the Supreme Court envisioned and have led to results that fail to safeguard health and individual rights.
• Twentieth-century progress in sanitation, hygiene, refrigeration, and the provision of clean water produced dramatic declines in infectious disease. The decline in infectious disease had little to do with vaccination.
• Vaccines cause injuries and death that are far from “rare” or “one in a million.” A 2010 study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reports at least one vaccine injury for every 39 vac- cines given.
• The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) does an extremely poor job of capturing adverse events, with fewer than 1% reported. The CDC refuses to take recommended steps to strengthen VAERS data.
• A flawed and corrupt regulatory process enables vaccine safety shortcuts and fraud. No clinical trial for vaccines given to babies and toddlers has used an inert placebo control group, and most trials have followed young recipients for only a few days or weeks.
• Under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers cannot be held liable for vaccine injuries from federally recommended vaccines. The Act allows companies to escape scrutiny and the document discovery associated with litigation.
• Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, manufacturers, healthcare providers, and government officials will be immune from liability for potential COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths. Compensation through its Countermeasures Injury Compensation Pro- gram is likely to be minuscule.
• HHS has a statutory obligation to study vaccine injuries, improve vaccine safety, and report biannually to Congress—but it has never once done so in over 30 years.
• The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, also created in 1986, pits vaccine-injured claimants against HHS in an adversarial and usually unsuccessful process. In over three decades, the program has compen- sated only a third of the petitions filed. Even so, compensation awarded to date exceeds $4.4 billion.
• Vaccine-induced immunity—if it occurs at all—wanes over time, some- times rapidly. Outbreaks of conditions such as measles, mumps, pertussis, and chickenpox in highly vaccinated populations are not uncommon. Herd immunity and disease eradication cannot be reliably achieved through vaccination.
• American children have never been sicker. The passage of the NCVIA enabled an explosion of liability-free vaccines and one of the most aggres- sive childhood vaccine schedules in the world. Over half (54%) of American children now develop at least one chronic health condition, and many have multiple health challenges.
• COVID-19 vaccines include gene-altering and inflammation-promoting technologies that may create genetic changes that may pass to future gen- erations. Lawyers must not provide cover for liability-free medical inter- ventions that carry profound unknown, de facto experimental risks.

Read full report here.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In 2018, the hashtag #ThankGodIGraduatedAlready began trending on China’s Weibo social media platform.  The tag reflected concerns among Chinese students that schools had begun to install the ‘Class Care System’, developed by the Chinese technology company Hanwang.  Cameras monitor pupils’ facial expressions with deep learning algorithms identifying each student, and then classifying their behaviour into various categories – “focused”, “listening”, “writing”, “answering questions”, “distracted”, or “sleeping”. Even in a country where mass surveillance is common, students reacted with outrage.

There are many technological, legal, and ethical barriers to overcome before machine learning can be widely deployed in such ways but China, in its push to overtake the US as world’s leader in artificial intelligence (AI), is racing ahead to introduce such technology before addressing these concerns.  And China is not the only culprit.

Frank Pasquale’s book ‘The New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI’ investigates the rapidly advancing use of AI and intelligent machines in an era of automation, and uses a wide range of examples – among which the ‘Class Care System’ is far from the most sinister – to highlight the threats that the rush to robotics poses for human societies.  In a world dominated by corporations and governments with a disposition for centralising control, the adoption of AI is being driven by the dictates of neoliberal capitalism, with the twin aims of increasing profit for the private sector and cutting costs in the public sector. 

Pasquale’s book vividly demonstrates how the use of immature technology and crude algorithms for these purposes is shattering privacy rights, undermining workplace protections, ignoring diversity, and reinforcing discrimination, power imbalances, and wealth differences.

A modern panopticon: Hanwang’s ‘Class Care System’ uses AI and facial recognition technology to constantly monitor Chinese school students. Image credit: Sixth Tone.

Pasquale argues that another future is possible, and that AI can be adopted for the benefit of humanity – promoting prosperity and providing meaningful work – by striking a balance between the ingenuity and creativity of humans and the precision and analytical capacity of machines. To do this, he proposes four new laws of robotics, extending the influential laws of robotics outlined by Isaac Asimov in his ‘I Robot’ science fiction stories.  Pasquale’s four laws are:

• Robotic systems and AI should complement professionals, not replace them.
• Robotic systems and AI should not counterfeit humanity.
• Robotic systems and AI should not intensity zero-sum arms races.
• Robotic systems and AI must always indicate the identity of their creator(s), controller(s), and owner(s).

The book identifies how these laws can be applied in areas where the use of AI is rapidly expanding: health and social care, education, automated media, the legal and judicial system, and warfare, and applies them to real-life ethical dilemmas which the egregious application of AI has exposed.   In places the writing is sometimes a little prosaic, but the book draws on a wealth of examples to show the risks which arise from poorly thought-out applications of AI and out-of-control robots – which Pasquale describes as “as dangerous as unregulated bioengineering of viruses”.  He is not afraid to call out the tech giants as serial offenders in this respect: Facebook for peddling fake news and conspiracy theories and failing to regulate user content to safeguard its users, and Google for failing to moderate un-transparent search algorithms which have at times promoted racist and anti-Semitic content and flagged disturbing spoof videos of cartoon characters abusing each other as ‘child friendly’.

‘New Laws of Robotics’ is not, however, a mere horror-show, cataloguing irresponsible technical decisions: it is firmly focused on providing solutions intended to harness the algorithm and design a future where humans and machines work together and the use of machines will enrich and enlighten humanity.

Frank Pasquale is a Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, specialising in the law of AI, algorithms, and machine learning, so it’s perhaps not surprising that his solutions for delivering algorithmic accountability are based on regulation and legal measures.  However, in the current neoliberal political climate, how likely are his ideas to gain momentum?  In the United Kingdom, where the Johnson government is keen to exploit the economic benefits of AI but uninterested in regulation, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation has been set up to advise on the governance of AI and data-driven technology.  To date, the Centre’s work has had limited impact and Ministers have yet to take forward any of its recommendations.  At the same time, senior military figures are rushing to embrace the prospect of ‘robot soldiers’ before the UK has fully considered the ethical and practical implications of this – unlike the US Department of Defence, which has published a set of ethical principles to guide its use of military AI.  Many would argue that in less liberal countries such as Russia and China the likelihood of an ethical approach to the adoption of AI is even less likely than in the UK.

Among the measures that Pasquale suggests to keep algorithms under control is putting an end to decision-making on the adoption of AI and robotics by technologists and mangers – “tech evangelists”, as Pasquale describes them – and instead democratising decisions in this field.  He gives a number of suggestions on how to increase public engagement to do this.  He also proclaims the need for a sea-change in what he calls ‘the political economy of automation’ – a move away from the mindset that automation should be pursued as an end in itself, and instead advocates an approach which aims for ‘better AI’ rather than ‘more AI’.

What would perhaps also be welcome in Pasquale’s manifesto for the future is a louder wake-up call to those who have not yet appreciated the changes and risks that society is facing as a result of advances in AI and robotics.  Civil society, the press, and activists have a duty to help educate the public in this respect.  Perhaps the first place to start is in the trade union movement, by working with unions to force managers to introduce automated systems which genuinely improve conditions in the workplace and services to the public, rather than just improve the bottom line on the balance sheet.  This might empower us to deliver the much-needed controls on the technologies of the future which Pasquale has elegantly articulated.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Despite deep divisions plaguing American politics, the Republican pushback against President Joe Biden’s cabinet nominees has been relatively quiet. 

Days into the new administration, the Senate confirmed Biden’s secretaries of state, treasury and defence, as well as intelligence chief with bipartisan support as other nominees undergo routine hearings.

A fight may be looming, however, over the potential nomination of Robert Malley, an outspoken proponent of diplomacy, as the administration’s envoy for Iran.

Malley, an Obama-era diplomat, leads the International Crisis Group think tank, which focuses on preventing and resolving violent conflicts. His possible appointment has faced an early backlash from conservatives and earned the praise of advocates of the Iran nuclear deal.

Sina Toossi, a senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said a well-funded and coordinated “network” of anti-Iran hawks that has been smearing advocates of diplomacy with Tehran has “drawn the line” on Malley.

“Rob Malley was the Obama administration’s chief nuclear negotiator – someone has experience negotiating with the Iranians, who is an actual diplomat,” Toossi told MEE.

“These attacks are part of a broader effort against diplomacy with Iran, against reversing Trump’s disastrous approach towards Iran.”

Backlash

The chatter, opposition and praise for Malley started last week when Jewish Insider reported that he was being considered for the position of special envoy for Iran.

“It’s deeply troubling that President Biden would consider appointing Rob Malley to direct Iran policy,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote on Twitter last week.

“Malley has a long track record of sympathy for the Iranian regime & animus towards Israel. The ayatollahs wouldn’t believe their luck if he is selected.”

The post from Cotton, a staunchly conservative foreign policy hawk, prompted many to leap to Malley’s defence.

Palestinian-American analyst Yousef Munayyer said Cotton’s opposition was an additional reason to tap Malley for the job.

“President Biden shouldn’t hesitate to pick someone like Malley, and if he had any doubt, the fact that a sociopath like Tom Bomb Everything Cotton opposes it should make it a slam dunk,” Munayyer wrote on Twitter.

Some of Malley’s former colleagues have also lauded the former diplomat.

“Rob Malley is an extraordinary diplomat, a brilliant strategist, and a profoundly decent human being,” said Ben Rhodes, who served as deputy national security adviser under former President Barack Obama.

“While his critics were supporting and enabling authoritarianism these last few years, Rob was fighting it and standing up for human rights around the world.”

Who is Rob Malley?

Malley served in various senior capacities at the Obama White House, including as advisor to the campaign to defeat the Islamic State group, Middle East coordinator at the National Security Council and special assistant to the president.

He was the lead US negotiator in the talks that led to the Iran nuclear deal. The multilateral pact, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy.

Former President Donald Trump nixed the deal in 2018, but Biden has signalled that he plans to bring back the agreement and use it to launch negotiations over broader issues with Tehran.

Malley started his government service during the administration of former President Bill Clinton, where he served as senior aide on Arab-Israeli affairs and director of Near East and South Asian affairs at the National Security Council.

Malley’s father, who was born in Egypt to a Jewish family of Syrian descent, was a leftist journalist who wrote extensively about the anti-colonial struggle in Africa.

The former diplomat has been critical of Israeli policies against Palestinians.

In a Foreign Policy column he co-authored in April, Malley urged Biden to warn the Israeli government against plans to annex parts of the West Bank, including by pledging to allow international criticism of Israeli actions and using US aid as leverage.

“Even as the United States continues to support Israel’s security, a President Biden could explore ways of deducting any money spent on the annexed territories from generous US assistance, consistent with the long-standing US policy of deducting spending on Israeli settlements in the West Bank from US loan guarantees,” the article reads.

“If such a policy were made clear, any decision by Israel’s government to nonetheless go forward with annexation would be a sign that it felt secure enough to forgo a portion of US assistance.”

Later in 2020, Malley appeared sceptical about the normalisation agreement between the UAE and Israel, which halted Israel’s formal annexation scheme – at least temporarily.

“Those most strongly [against] deal oppose annexation not [because] it’s new but bc it isn’t – bc it merely formalizes existing reality. See only harm in rewarding Israel for keeping hidden policies annexation [would] have brought to light. They oppose annexation because it is the status quo,” Malley wrote on Twitter.

The post, part of a series of tweets on the normalisation deal, does not necessarily convey Malley’s own views, but rather what he thinks critics of the agreement are saying. Nonetheless, it demonstrated understanding of Palestinians’ grievances beyond the bipartisan consensus in support of Israel.

Late in 2020, Malley criticised Trump’s efforts to reward Arab states who formalise relations with Israel, including weapons deals to the UAE and recognising Morocco’s claims to Western Sahara.

“All diplomacy is transactional, but these transactions are mixing things that ought not to have been mixed,” Malley told the New York Times.

Last week, the Zionist Organization of America, a right-wing pro-Israel group, slammed Malley’s rumoured appointment, calling his views “extremely dangerous for the United States and our allies”.

Iran deal

If Malley gets nominated to the post of special envoy for Iran, he would be able to play an instrumental role in reviving diplomacy with the Islamic Republic.

The US and Iran do not have formal diplomatic ties. Malley would be based in Washington, not Tehran. The envoy would be the public face and spearhead of America’s policy towards Iran.

For example, former Iran envoy Brian Hook toured the world to promote Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, of which he was one of the leading architects.

When Hook quit last year, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called him “my point person on Iran” and credited him for “historic results countering the Iranian regime”.

Malley’s mission would be to unroll a lot of what Hook did.

Biden is already facing calls to delay the return to the JCPOA in order to secure a more comprehensive agreement that would address Tehran’s regional activities and ballistic missile programme.

So far, the president and his top aides have maintained that Washington will abide by the deal if Tehran also returns to full compliance. Iran had loosened its commitments to the deal, increasing uranium enrichment levels in response to US sanctions.

Secretary of State Tony Blinken told lawmakers last week that the administration would return to the JCPOA and use it as a “platform – with our allies and partners, who would once again be on the same side with us – to seek a longer and stronger agreement”.

Appointing Malley, Toossi said, would signal that Biden is serious about reviving the Iran deal.

“The personnel are reflective of what the policy is going to be… Choosing people like Rob Malley, this shows that the policy that Biden wants to pursue towards Iran is going to be a diplomatically-driven policy. It is going to be seriously aimed at getting a deal, not just rhetoric,” Toossi said.

Malley, who has personally met with top Iranian officials, would also help establish a communication channel with the Iranians to address broader issues or incidents that may arise in the region, Toossi added.

Still, conservatives argue that Malley’s possible appointment would be a gift to the Iranian government and a disservice to the Iranian people who oppose the regime in Tehran.

“Malley is widely seen as one of Tehran’s premier apologists in Washington; in November 2019 he went so far as to suggest that massive public protests in Iran justified Tehran’s paranoia about an Israeli-Saudi-US plot,” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote on Tuesday.

“A Malley appointment would signal that, on the things that matter most, Biden’s foreign policy will be coldly transactional.”

Critics of Stephens, a conservative columnist with frequent controversial takes, were quick to point out that Malley was describing the way the Iranian government views events in the region, not justifying the crackdown on protests.

Malley’s possible appointment will be a telling indicator of how Biden will deal with Tehran. Foreign policy progressives are already rallying around Malley and backing him for the job.

“Rob Malley is an extremely knowledgeable expert with great experience in promoting US security through diplomacy rather than war,” Senator Bernie Sanders wrote on Twitter last Friday. “He would be an excellent choice for the role of Iran envoy.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is CC BY 2.0

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

North East Syria is the scene of a stand-off between the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), based in Damascus, and the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF), who are militarily led by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a Kurdish militia founded in October 2015, and supported by the US.

The North East corner of Syria has become like a patchwork-quilt, with patches of soil controlled by opposing sides, and various international players in the proxy war in Syria.  The Syrian conflict is approaching 10 years, and was a US-NATO attack on Syria for ‘regime change’. Their plan failed, but succeeded in destroying the country and infrastructure, and scattering millions around the world as refugees and economic migrants.

Some in the west have rooted for the Kurds to establish a ‘homeland’ in North East Syria, but they fail to acknowledge that the region is not inhabited by only Kurds.  While the Syrian Kurds represent some 10% of the population, they are a sizeable minority; but in a democracy the majority rules.

The Russian military recently sent reinforcements to the Qamishli airport in an effort to stabilize the tense situation in the area. The Russian military was invited to Syria by the Damascus government in 2015, and since then the government has regained control over the majority of the Syrian territory, with the exception of Idlib, which is under occupation by an Al Qaeda affiliate, HTS, and the North East region which is a conflict zone including the US, Russia, Turkey, the Kurdish militia YPG and the SAA. The Russians have continued negotiating with the Kurds for a peaceful resolution.

The Turkish Army invaded Syria in 2020 and recently shut down the Alouk water station, which supplies the city of Hasaka. After a one-week siege on the city residents, the Turks reopened the water on January 23.

The Internal Security Forces, a division of the YPG, sent reinforcements to the battle zone at Qamishli, in the neighborhood of Halko, where pitched battles erupted between the YPG and the SAA on January 23.

Previously, the YPG had prevented Syrian civil servants of the Hasaka water department in Al Azizia neighborhood from going to their office, and had kidnapped three of its staff.

The YPG had prevented doctors and staff from entering the Al-Qamishli National Hospital, a Syrian government hospital, for several days.

Yesterday, large reinforcements were set to the area by both sides. The YPG are surrounding Qamishli neighborhoods and the airport. The area is populated by Syrians, who are not ethnically Kurds, is controlled by Damascus, and the YPG cut off bread supplies and water to them.

The Kurds have been blamed for starving non-Kurds, such as the indigenous Syrian Christian population, which is a sizeable group referred to as Syriani.

Wheat, other grains, and crude oil have been smuggled to Turkey from Syria by the SDF/YPG and sold on the black market in Turkey, which is controlled by Turkish President Erdogan’s son and his relatives.

Rojava, which translates to ‘west’ in Kurdish, is the name given to the North East region of Syria, by the Communist revolutionaries of the SDF.

The YPG and affiliated groups are designated as terrorist organizations by Turkey and Qatar. Both Turkey and the United States consider the PKK to be a terrorist organization, and yet the SDF and YPG are aligned with the PKK, who was led by the jailed Abdullah Ocalan. On June 4, 2020 Turkey asked the US to designate the YPG as a terrorist organization.

Residents recently fled from areas near Hasaka for fear of expected clashes after reports surfaced the SDF were storming the security zone in Hasaka city, which spurred people to flee from the market.

Some families living near the frontlines between the cities of Hasaka and Qamishli, started to leave their homes for fear of expected clashes between the SAA and the YPG, and the ongoing siege imposed by YPG.

The YPG has continued to prevent food and goods from entering the security zone in Hasaka city and has extorted money from violators.

Dozens of civil servants of the Syrian government staged a demonstration outside the justice building in the city of Hasaka, in protest against the continued siege imposed by YPG for the fifth day in a row on the neighborhoods controlled by Damascus, which prevent the entry of goods and food.

The current tensions may be tied back to January 10, when the YPG and the SAA stationed at the airport of Qamishli city, after the YPG kidnapped three senior SAA officers and some soldiers. Residents in the city were informed to stay away security checkpoints and windows, and the market of Qamishli city was closed due to the escalating security tensions and clashes which left four SAA soldiers injured, while YPG snipers were stationed on roof-tops.

Qamishli is mostly under the control of the SDF, and the YPG, that has been a major US partner. The Syrian government forces; however, have a significant military presence on the southern outskirts of the city and control its international airport.

“A few weeks ago, the YPG arrested a major Syrian government intelligence official and his son while they were coming to Qamishli from the city of Hasaka,” said Ivan Hasib, a reporter based in Qamishli.

“(Syrian) Government troops at the time responded by arresting several YPG officers,” he told Voice of America, adding that, “the Russians swiftly mediated between the two sides and for a while an informal truce was largely holding.”

A US military convoy of 40 trucks and armor vehicles entered Syria from Iraq on December 17, in Hasaka province, near the border with Turkey, and was followed up with some 200 US troops who arrived on helicopters. The troops deployed to the nearby oilfields. Trump had ordered the US military to guard the oil fields, while allowing the plundered oil revenues to support the SDF and YPG.

The Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) is the political-wing of the SDF and YPG. Their media outlets have detailed kidnappings, murder, abuse and arbitrary arrests in the region by the mercenaries under the control of the Turkish occupation forces.

These mercenaries are called the Syrian National Army (SNA) and they are terrorists following Radical Islam, which is a political ideology. Erdogan of Turkey leads a Muslim Brotherhood party, the AKP. The SNA were brought into Syria by the Turkish military invasion, which was green-lighted by Trump. The terrorists are responsible for massacres, abuse of human rights and overall oppression in the region, and consist of groups like the Sultan Murad division, the Hamza division, Jaysh-al Islam, Ahrar al-Sham and are often described as ‘moderate rebels’ in the US media, which tries to clean the image of these terrorists to sell regime change.

The patchwork quilt of North East Syria is fraying on the edges, and coming unstitched altogether. Opposing sides, and opposing international players are holding the Syrian people hostage. Now more than ever, the peace talks need to result in some changes on the ground.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from South Front

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Perfect love casteth out fear — King James Bible, 1 John 4:18

— Thomas Ken, The Book of Common Praise

I must confess I am not entirely clear what such a sacrifice would entail. Perhaps climbing out of a warm bed, to tiptoe across a cold floor, fumbling to light the fire to chase the chill? For myself, I like to get up in the morning, and also to go to bed at night. Simple but satisfying. 

Now in a time of crowning idiocy, perhaps we may, amidst what often seems an unmitigated disaster, grasp the nettle, seize the day, grab the chimeric crisis and make it holler uncle.

The advice to “be in the moment” is all very well, but hard to do when one is paralyzed with fear. The best things in life may be free, and certainly it is good to appreciate the “simple things” but sometimes it is not so easy, and anything but simple, far less “dead easy” as the late lamented James Barber crowed in delight as he whipped up another culinary triumph for his salivating TV audience.

Perfect love does seem a likely candidate with which to cast off fear. And dull sloth, too, as a bonus. But until we reach perfection, perhaps a good belly laugh can be a saving grace. It is harder to be frightened when clutching one’s aching sides.

What makes us laugh? Famously, Norman Cousins laughed himself out of illness watching Charlie Chaplin and the Marx Brothers.  Chaplin’s antics, as he is mechanically force-fed at the factory conveyor belt by a bevy of efficiency experts, are hilarious in their absurdity. Surprise makes us laugh, irony makes us chuckle, non sequiturs provoke giggles.

Certainly there is no dearth of absurdity in our present circumstances, with the current cast of clowns strutting their stuff to their captive audience in this cockamamie circus. Certainly the emperors presiding over the Roman circus did it better. But what a golden opportunity to see the funny side.

Central Casting’s own Klaus Schwab has been cited most often by the observant, for his very creditable homage to Ian Fleming’s arch-villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld. As has been pointed out, he only lacks the white Persian cat. Personally I prefer Donald Pleasance in the role, but everyone to his own taste. And lest we forget, Herr Schwab has showed promise for future sci-fi portrayals, in his Neo-Klingon outfit. One wonders where he gets his wardrobe, now that Edith Head is sadly no longer with us.

As we feverishly chase elusive white bunny tails down labyrinthine underground warrens, trying to understand what is happening to us, we can be forgiven any fleeting desire to see the Red Queen pop up, screeching: “Off with their heads!”

Charles Dodson certainly saw humour in the darker elements of absurdity; there is no lack in the fate of the innocent little oysters, being slyly seduced to their inevitable doom by the slick verbal blandishments of the Walrus:(1)

‘It seems a shame,’ the Walrus said,

      ‘To play them such a trick,

After we’ve brought them out so far,

       And made them trot so quick!’

The Carpenter said nothing but

       ‘The butter’s spread too thick!’

‘I weep for you,’ the Walrus said:

       ‘I deeply sympathize.’

With sobs and tears he sorted out

       Those of the largest size,

Holding his pocket-handkerchief

       Before his streaming eyes.

‘O Oysters,’ said the Carpenter,

       You’ve had a pleasant run!

Shall we be trotting home again?’

       But answer came there none —

And this was scarcely odd, because

       They’d eaten every one.

“Normal” may have been anathema to a generation reading Paul Goodman’s Growing Up Absurd, but it is doubtful many could even begin to imagine the bizarre level of “new normal” absurdity we have now achieved. And in such a short time. Warp speed. Shades of Star Trek, or in Ben Hur, the mallet-wielding pausarius’ command to the galley-slaves toiling at the oars: “Ramming speed!“

Might not we, from time to time, as comic relief, pop out of the box of our normal mentality—old or new—taking advantage of our sense of the absurd, of the potential for risible explosion at incongruence. Even “cognitive dissonance” could serve as grist for the humour mill and not an invitation to follow latter-day walruses out onto the sands.

Some daring and athletic souls use the terror of imminent destruction, climbing sheer rock faces, to pop them out of their everyday mind-sets, to be truly present—as the greater fear ousts the lesser. But for those who lack opportunity and inclination perhaps humour is the better method. A sense of the ridiculous is something all people share, along with the love of good food, song and dance, and the love of others of their kind. And I believe we were all born with a sense of wonder, of appreciation for all creation, of a sense that all of it is a gift. 

Some of us have been robbed of this gift at an early age. Others have retained this wondrous sense, only to be confronted by those who would tear it from them. We might take a cue from Sandy, formerly so “reliable,” as she confronts her Mussolini admiring teacher, Miss Brodie: “You really are a ridiculous woman.” Or from the “Boggart-Banishing Spell” used to cast away fear in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: “Riddikulus!”

Perhaps we could try enchanting the present moment’s boogiemen, those “ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties” infecting our minds, and infesting the body politic. Perhaps, after all, laughter truly is the best medicine.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The situation in the Middle East is slowly, but steadily moving towards critical mass.

An advent of ISIS is being observed in central Syria where the terrorists have carried out over 40 attacks on various targets since the start of the year. Most recently, on January 24, ISIS cells ambushed a bus carrying Syrian Army troops on the Homs-Deir Ezzor highway. 3 soldiers were killed and at least 10 others were injured. Pro-government sources say that the ISIS units came from the area of al-Tanf.

This coincides with the increase of activity of radical militant groups hiding in Idlib. The terrorist threat has been spreading out of this Turkish-protected jihadi paradise and Idlib groups have already started carrying out terrorist attacks across the country. Recently, Huras al-Din released a video of a suicide bombing attack on a checkpoint of the Russian Military Police near the town of Ain Issa in the province of Raqqa. The attack took place overnight on January 1, but the released video confirms that it was carried out by the Idlib-based group. The usage of Idlib-based terrorists against Russian troops based in the north of the country may become a new trend in the Turkish strategy in the region.

Feeling a sense of urgency, Russia is also bolstering its positions. Several cargo planes delivered reinforcements to northern Syria, and more ships were sent on patrol off Syria’s coast. The Russian ‘readiness’ is likely a symptom of the “unknowns” represented by the presidential transition in Washington.

Washington’s stance on the situation appears to be taking a turn compared to the Trump presidency, with the US military once again openly boosting its presence in the country. A major US deployment was carried out on January 24th, after Joe Biden came into office. A convoy of at least 40 trucks loaded with weapons and logistical materials entered Syria. According to local media reports, it is moving towards US bases in the Hasakah countryside. US heavy equipment was observed going toward building up US positions at the Conoco oil and gas field. The troop withdrawal proclamations seem to have vanished from the White House agenda.

However, there is a permanent factor in the US policy – the confrontation with Iran and support to Israel and the Gulf monarchies. Washington is expected to deploy recently procured Israeli-made Iron Dome missile defense systems to the Persian Gulf states to reinforce the defense of its positions in Bahrain and the UAE.

Back in December 2020, Israel also signaled that it was ready to skip the middleman in the face of the US and deal directly with its supposed enemies in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.

On the Israeli side, there appears to be permanent activity that includes regular drills simulating wars with Lebanon and Syria, public threats against members of the Axis of Resistance and strikes on Syria. The most recent strike took place on January 22nd killing a family in Hama. On January 25th, for the first time ever an Israeli fighter jet – a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was seen in the skies above Lebanon.

The IDF frequently encroach on Lebanese airspace and use it to launch airstrikes on various targets in Syria. Israel is concerned that the U.S. will be softer against Iran, but it appears dead set on improving its grip on Syria’s oil resources.

Saudi Arabia is likely to begin feeling a sense of urgency soon, as well. A missile was intercepted above Riyadh on January 23rd and another one on January 26th. The Kingdom immediately pointed its finger at the Iran-aligned Houthi movement. Responsibility, however, was assumed by a brand-new Iraqi group – the Righteous Promise Brigades [Alwiyat Al Wa’ad Al Haq]. The group, potentially affiliated with Iran, said that it is just beginning its actions against Riyadh and its coalition. According to a recent report by Kuwait’s al-Qbas, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps deployed precision-guided rockets and drones in southern Iraq. Iran may opt to use these weapons against its regional advisories by other hands.

These developments came as more and more US convoys in Iraq are being attacked by the various pro-Iranian groups.

The situation is nearing a fully chaotic state, in which one wrong movement can send the entire region spiraling. The tension can be cut with a knife and every side is bolstering its positions and holding tight. When a misstep is made, which leads to a catastrophic escalation, every party will look to further its interests in the ensuing madness.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront