There was a fascinating online panel discussion on Wednesday night on the Julian Assange case that I recommend everyone watch. The video is at the bottom of the page.  

But from all the outstanding contributions, I want to highlight a very important point made by Yanis Varoufakis that has significance for understanding current events well beyond the Assange case. 

Varoufakis is an academic who was savaged by the western political and media establishments when he served as Greece’s finance minister. Back in 2015 a popular leftwing Greek government was trying to oppose the imposition of severe loan conditions on Greece by European and international financial institutions that risked tipping the Greek economy into deeper bankruptcy and seemed chiefly intended to upend its socialist programme. The government Varoufakis served was effectively crushed into obedience through a campaign of economic intimidation by these institutions.

 Varoufakis describes here the way that leftwing dissidents who challenge or disrupt western establishment narratives – whether it be himself, Assange or Jeremy Corbyn – end up not only being subjected to character assassination, as was always the case, but nowadays find themselves being manipulated into colluding in their own character assassination.

 Here is a short transcript of Varoufakis’ much fuller comments – about 48 minutes in – highlighting his point about co-option:

 “The establishment, the Deep State, call it whatever you want, the oligarchy, they’ve become much, much better at it [character assassination] than they used to be. Because back in the 1960s and 1970s, you know, they would accuse you of being a Communist. They would accuse me of being a Marxist. Well, I am a Marxist. I’m really not going to suffer that much if you accuse me of being a left-winger. I am a left-winger!

 “Now what they do is something far worse. They accuse you of something that really hurts you. Calling somebody like us a racist, a bigot, an antisemite, a rapist. This is what really hurts because if anybody calls me a rapist today, right, even if it’s complete baloney, I feel as a feminist I have the need to give the woman, implied or involved somehow in this accusation, the opportunity to speak against me. Because that is what we left-wingers do.”

Varoufakis’ point is that when Assange was accused of being a rapist, as he was before the US made clear the real case against him – by trying to extradite him from the UK for exposing its war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan – he could not defend himself without alienating a significant constituency of his natural supporters, those on the left who identify as feminists. Which is exactly what happened.

 Similarly, as Varoufakis notes from earlier conversations he had with Assange, the Wikileaks founder was in no position to properly defend himself against accusations that he colluded with Russia and Donald Trump to help Trump win the 2016 US presidential election against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

 At the time, Assange’s supporters were able to point out that the leaked emails were true and that they were in the public interest because they showed deep corruption in the Democratic party establishment. But those arguments were drowned out by a narrative confected by the US media and security establishments that Wikileaks’ publication of the emails was political interference because the emails had supposedly been hacked by Russia to sway the election result.

 Because Assange was absolutely committed to the principle of non-disclosure of sources, he refused to defend himself in public by confirming that the emails had been leaked to him by a Democratic party insider, not the “Russians”. His silence allowed his vilification to go largely unchallenged. Having already been stripped of support from much of the feminist left, particularly in Europe, Assange now lost the support of a sizeable chunk of the left in the US too.

https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1347111574662770689

In these cases, the one who stands accused has to defend themselves with one hand tied behind their back. They cannot hit back without further antagonising a substantial section of their supporters, deepening divisions within the left’s ranks. The victim of this kind of character assassination is caught in the equivalent of reputational quicksand. The more they fight, the deeper they sink.

Which is, of course, exactly what happened to the UK’s former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn when he was accused of being a racist. If he or his supporters tried to challenge the claim that the party had become antisemitic overnight under his leadership – even if only by citing statistics that showed the party hadn’t – they were immediately denounced for supposed “antisemitism denial”, posited as the modern equivalent of Holocaust denial.

Notice Ken Loach, who was also on the panel, nodding in agreement as Varoufakis speaks. Because Loach, the noted leftwing, anti-racist film-maker who came to Corbyn’s defence against the confected media campaign smearing him as an antisemite, soon found himself similarly accused.

Jonathan Freedland, a senior columnist at the liberal Guardian, was among those using precisely the tactic described by Varoufakis. He tried to discredit Loach by accusing him of denying Jews the right to define their own experience of antisemitism.   

Freedland sought to manipulate Loach’s anti-racist credentials against him. Either agree with us that Corbyn is an antisemite, and that most of his supporters are too, or you are a hypocrite, disowning your own anti-racist principles – and solely in the case of antisemitism. And that, QED, would prove you too are motivated by antisemitism.

Loach found himself with a terrible binary choice: either he must collude with Freedland and the corporate media in smearing Corbyn, a long-standing political ally, or else he would be forced to collude in his own smearing as an antisemite.

It’s a deeply ugly, deeply illiberal, deeply manipulative, deeply dishonest tactic. But it is also brilliantly effective. Which is why nowadays rightists and centrists use it at every opportunity. The left, given its principles, rarely resorts to this kind of deceit. Which means it can only bring a peashooter to a gun fight.

https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/131348440736224870 

This is the left’s dilemma. It’s why we struggle to win the argument in a corporate media environment that not only denies us a hearing but also promotes the voices of those like Freedland trying to destroy us from the centre and those supposedly on the left like George Monbiot and Owen Jones who are too often destroying us from within.

As Varoufakis also says, the left needs urgently to go on the offensive.

We need to find ways to turn the tables on the war criminals who have been gaslighting us in demanding that Assange, who exposed their crimes, is the one who needs to be locked up.

We need to make clear that it is those who are so ready to smear anti-racists as antisemites – as Corbyn’s successor, Sir Keir Starmer, has done to swaths of Labour party members – who are the real racists.

And we need to unmask as war hawks those who accuse the anti-war left of serving as apologists for dictators when we try to stop western states conducting more illegal, resource-grab wars with such devastating results for local populations.

We must get much more sophisticated in our thinking and our strategies. There is no time to lose.

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuaohhDxIG4&feature=emb_title

This essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/ 

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

De um processo injusto – o de Londres referente a Julian Assange, fundador do WikiLeaks – resultou numa sentença que, à primeira vista, parece justa: a não extradição do jornalista para os Estados Unidos, onde o aguarda uma sentença de 175 anos de prisão, ao abrigo da Lei de Espionagem de 1917. Resta saber, no momento em que escrevemos, se e de que modo Assange será libertado, após sete anos de confinamento na Embaixada do Equador e quase dois anos de prisão desumana, em Londres.

Fala-se da sua libertação sob fiança, mas se Washington recorrer da sentença (como parece certo), o processo de extradição pode ser reaberto e Assange deve permanecer à disposição da magistratura na Grã-Bretanha. Há também o facto de que, no veredicto, a Juíza Vanessa Baraister ter dito estar convencida da “boa fé” das autoridades americanas e da regularidade de um possível julgamento nos Estados Unidos, motivando o veredicto apenas por “razões de saúde mental” que poderiam levar Assange ao suicídio.

O que é que, na realidade, determinou a não extradição de Julian Assange para os EUA, neste momento?

Por um lado, a campanha internacional pela sua libertação, que levou o caso Assange ao conhecimento da opinião pública. Por outro lado, o facto de que um julgamento público de Julian Assange nos EUA seria extremamente embaraçoso para o ‘establishment’ político-militar.

Como prova dos “crimes” de Assange, a acusação teria de mostrar os crimes de guerra dos EUA trazidos à luz pelo WikiLeaks. Por exemplo, quando em 2010 publicou mais de 250.000 documentos americanos, muitos deles rotulados como “confidenciais” ou “secretos”, sobre as guerras no Iraque e no Afeganistão.

Ou quando, em 2016, Assange já estava retido na Embaixada do Equador, em Londres, o WikiLeaks publicou mais de 30.000 emails e documentos enviados e recebidos entre 2010 e 2014 por Hillary Clinton, Secretária de Estado da Administração Obama. Entre eles encontra-se um email de 2011, que revela o verdadeiro objectivo da guerra da NATO contra a Líbia, concretizado em particular pelos EUA e pela França: impedir Gaddafi de utilizar as reservas de ouro da Líbia para criar uma moeda pan-africana alternativa ao dólar e ao franco CFA, a moeda imposta pela França a 14 antigas colónias.

Juntamente com dezenas de milhares de documentos, que trouxeram à luz os verdadeiros objectivos desta e de outras operações de guerra, o WikiLeaks publicou imagens em vídeo de massacres de civis no Iraque e noutros locais, mostrando a verdadeira face da guerra. Aquele que hoje em dia é escondido pelos grandes meios de comunicação social. Enquanto na Guerra do Vietname dos anos 60, relatos jornalísticos e imagens dos massacres desencadearam um vasto movimento contra a “guerra suja”, contribuindo para a derrota dos Estados Unidos, o jornalismo de guerra está hoje, cada vez mais regimentado: aos correspondentes embedded, seguindo as tropas, é mostrado apenas o que os comandos querem, os únicos autorizados a fornecer “informações” nos seus briefing.

Os raros jornalistas íntegros trabalham em condições cada vez mais difíceis e arriscadas, e as suas reportagens são frequentemente censuradas pelos principais meios de comunicação social, na qual domina a narrativa oficial dos acontecimentos. O jornalismo de investigação do WikiLeaks abriu fendas no muro do silêncio mediático que cobre os verdadeiros interesses das elites poderosas que, operando no “Estado Profundo”, continuam a jogar a carta da guerra, com a diferença de que hoje, com armas as nucleares, pode levar o mundo à catástrofe final.

Violar as salas secretas destes grupos de poder, trazendo à luz as suas estratégias e tramas, é uma acção extremamente arriscada tanto para os jornalistas como para aqueles que, rebelando-se contra o silêncio, os ajudam a descobrir a verdade.

É o caso emblemático de Chelsea Manning, a activista americana acusada de fornecer ao WikiLeaks documentos de que tomou conhecimento enquanto trabalhava como analista dos serviços secretos do exército americano durante a guerra do Iraque. Foi condenada a 37 anos de detenção numa prisão de segurança máxima e, libertada após 7 anos de prisão penosa, foi novamente presa por se recusar a testemunhar contra Assange e, após uma tentativa de suicídio, foi posta em liberdade condicional.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Dietro il verdetto di Londra su Julian Assange

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Donald Trump’s Legacy: Four Chaotic Years in the White House and a Tumultuous Departure

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, January 08 2021

During his four-year mandate, President Donald Trump did not rise to the challenge of being the competent head of a democratic state. He has instead attempted to install an autocratic rule in American politics.

Evidence Mounts of a Capitol Hill False Flag

By Stephen Lendman, January 08 2021

America’s road to hell is paved with diabolical intentions. 9/11 changed everything — followed last year by unleashing The Great Reset war on humanity (sponsored by the World Economic Forum) and Wednesday, January 6 orchestrated Capitol Hill violence.

Georgia Twin Runoff Election Results Fuel Right-wing Unrest

By Abayomi Azikiwe, January 08 2021

A highly contested presidential election on November 3 coupled with the outcome of the runoff poll in Georgia which is determining the power relations within the United States Senate, has undoubtedly prompted further desperate acts by the supporters of outgoing President Donald J. Trump.

“Forbidden Weapons” Used Against Gaza Strip Palestinians. Israel Deliberately Targets Palestinian Civilians

By Dr. Zuhair Sabbagh, January 08 2021

The following research article will explore three forbidden weapons that were and are still being used against the Palestinian civilians of the besieged Gaza Strip.

The US and UK May Not Will Assange’s Death, but Everything They Are Doing Makes It More Likely

By Jonathan Cook, January 08 2021

But the perversity of Baraitser’s decision runs deeper still. Her refusal to free him, or put him in house arrest with a GPS monitoring tag, flagrantly contradicts the expert assessments she concurred with during Monday’s extradition decision: that Assange is at high risk of suicide.

The Assange Saga: Practicing Real Journalism Is Criminally Insane

By Pepe Escobar, January 08 2021

Julian Assange was – at the last minute – discharged on theoretically humanitarian grounds. So the case had, in effect, ended. Not really. Two days later, he was sent back to Belmarsh, a squalid maximum security prison rife with Covid-19. So the case is ongoing.

Immunization with SARS [1] Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus

By Chien-Te Tseng, Elena Sbrana, and et al., January 08 2021

This article was originally published in April 2012. It pertains to Severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV (2002) which has, according to the WHO and the CDC similar features to SARS-CoV-2. This article is of relevance to the current debate and analysis pertaining to the Covid-19 vaccine.

The Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) Intrusion in Albania, Threatens Regional Stability in Middle East and Balkans

By Robert Fantina, January 08 2021

One can only imagine the risk when some citizens of a small country conceal hundreds of thousands of weapons and explosives. The nation becomes a powder keg, awaiting one small mistake to spark a deadly explosion. This is the situation currently in Albania.

What is the China Threat? America’s Ruling Ideology

By Dr. Richard Hanania, January 08 2021

If there was a major intellectual thread running through Trump’s foreign policy, or at least that of the people he appointed, it was that confronting China was the national security issue of our time. America during the Trump era was single-minded in its focus on turning up the pressure on Beijing.

More War by Other Means: Sanctioning the Wife of Syria’s President Makes No Sense to Anyone

By Philip Giraldi, January 08 2021

It is largely accepted that the most powerful advocate of the sanctions regime is Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who has been the driving force behind recent sanctions directed against both China and Iran. If that is so he might well be challenged on one of the most bizarre and basically pointless applications of sanctions in recent years.

GR Editor’s Note

With regard to the coverage of the Wednesday Capitol Event, Global Research will be publishing opposing and contradictory points of view by several of our authors.

We are dealing with a complex and far-reaching political process. We are at the crossroads of a major political, economic and social crisis which has bearing on the future of the United States. This crisis must be the object of debate and analysis rather than confrontation of opposing political narratives.

***

America’s road to hell is paved with diabolical intentions.

9/11 changed everything — followed last year by unleashing The Great Reset war on humanity (sponsored by the World Economic Forum) and Wednesday, January orchestrated Capitol Hill violence that climactically ended Trump’s challenge to stolen US Election 2020.

The above comprise America’s holy trinity of actions on a path toward full-blown tyranny.

Last year may have been a test to see how far US “dark forces” could push Americans to sacrifice fundamental freedoms voluntarily.

A year ago, whoever could have imagined what was about to unfold — based on Big Lies and mass deception.

Who would have thought we’d sacrifice our fundamental right of free movement and assembly, the right to work unobstructed, to travel, enjoy eating out, attend sporting events, the theater, movie theaters, and be involved in other public activities?

Imagine how much worse things may get in the new year.

Will its climax be voluntary acceptance of full-blown tyranny — masquerading as protecting and preserving health, well-being and safety to be lost if dark forces achieve their aims.

We’re lied to with headlines like the following on January 7:

“US counts record of almost 4,000 COVID-19 deaths in a day as virus continues to wreak havoc (sic).”

These deaths, if accurate in number, were from seasonal flu/influenza, perhaps pneumonia, and/or related illnesses — not covid.

Individuals succumbing are largely elderly, infirm, likely with other health issues, and weakened immune systems.

Headlines like the about are part of a diabolical, state-sponsored fear-mongering campaign.

They’re all about wanting us to voluntarily sacrifice vital freedoms to a higher power — hostile to our health and well-being at the same time.

Wednesday night Capitol Hill violence was likely orchestrated to elevate Biden/Harris to power by ending the Trump-led GOP challenge.

It had earmarks of a well-planned false flag by US dark forces.

It appears that hostile-to-Trump elements infiltrated largely nonviolent Trump protesters.

They got access to Capitol Hill after police and federal law enforcers opened barricades surrounding it, letting them storm the building to commit violence.

Wrongfully blaming Trump for what happened got him to pledge a smooth transition to Biden/Harris on January 20 — ending his hope for a second term.

It also intimidated most Republicans to go along with what came off with military precision by a superior force against an easily overwhelmed weak one.

Inside Capitol Hill, guards led hostile-to-Trump elements to designated areas.

Instead of preventing violence, Capitol Hill security facilitated it in what appears to have been the climax to a homeland color revolution to end Trump’s election challenge by violently quashing it.

It worked as planned when Congress began debating the GOP electoral fraud challenge, ending it violently.

There’s a made-in-the USA war ongoing that aims for transformational change to a ruler-serf society, what’s untenable if achieved.

It’s what the diabolical Great Reset is all about.

We can swim with the tide and lose all rights or resist all-out nonviolently to save them.

At stake is retaining governance as it once was, warts and all, or replacing it with what’s intolerable for anyone to accept.

I’m old school in my 9th decade to pass from the scene when my end time comes ahead, my future largely in the past.

Younger generations have most to lose, a land of opportunity I enjoyed growing up — eliminating in plain sight what’s fast slipping away.

The nation I grew up in no longer exists.

The one diabolical dark forces plan is a lower level of hell that Dante forgot.

Resist or lose everything, including hope.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Ted Eytan / Creative Commons

Across the political spectrum, there is widespread agreement that America must get serious about the threat posed by China. As the Trump administration comes to a close, the State Department has just released a document called ‘The Elements of the China Challenge’. A distillation of conventional wisdom among national security experts and government officials, it argues that the U.S. needs a concerted effort to push back against Beijing.

On its first page, the document tells us that “the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has triggered a new era of great-power competition.” If there was a major intellectual thread running through Trump’s foreign policy, or at least that of the people he appointed, it was that confronting China was the national security issue of our time. America during the Trump era was single-minded in its focus on turning up the pressure on Beijing, including unprecedented support for Taiwan, sending ships more often through the South China Sea, and attempting to stop the spread of the telecom giant Huawei.

The idea of the China threat will not end with the Trump administration. Michèle Flournoy, once thought to be the frontrunner to become Biden’s Secretary of Defense, argued in Foreign Affairs that the U.S. has not been steadfast enough in its military commitments in East Asia. Sometimes, great power competition is presented as an imperative of history; in the formulation of Graham Allison, a former Pentagon official and the current professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the two powers are involved in a “Thucydides Trap.” Looking at the last 500 years of world history, Allison believes that when the ambitions of a rising power conflict with those of an established power, war becomes likely.

But what are we afraid of China actually doing? Reading foreign policy analysis can often be frustrating to those who believe arguments should proceed in a straight line, with clearly defined terms, and logical connections between ends being sought and the means being recommended. One can read op-eds and government reports on “great power competition” or the “China challenge” and never understand clearly what the U.S. and China are actually competing for. ‘The Elements of the China Challenge’ from the State Department adopts a strategy of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, accusing China of everythingfrom being too successful in trade, to trying to dominate the world, and being racist against African migrants.

This kind of ambiguity about what a conflict is actually about has not existed throughout most of history. The two world wars nominally centered around rivalries between Germany and its neighbors over specific territories one could locate on a map, such as Alsace-Lorraine. The Cold War was a struggle between the capitalist and communist systems. But why, exactly, are the U.S. and China rivals? Beneath the comparisons to any number of classical or modern conflicts, the reality is very different. China is not a threat in the way traditionally understood. There is nothing vital to American security or prosperity that China threatens. While the U.S. will be less powerful in the coming decades in relative global terms, that is inevitable with the rise of the developing world more generally, a trend Washington has encouraged.

China’s true menace is neither military nor geopolitical, but rather ideological. Its continuing success, even if it in no way harms the prosperity or security of most Americans, poses a major threat to the American political establishment, how it justifies its own power, and its understanding of the U.S. role in the world.

What is the China Threat?

In the last three decades, China has experienced a rate of economic growth unprecedented in modern history. Between 1990 and 2019, GDP per capita increased 32 times. In terms of total GDP, China may become wealthier than the U.S. in the next two decades—and by some measures, already is. For the sake of comparison, in 1980 the Soviet Union had a GDP that was about 40% that of the U.S., with the trendlines actually favoring the West. Recently, when the economist Branko Milanovic suggested that the Nobel Prize in his field should go to scholars who study the most important questions out there, he pointed to Chinese growth as an example, calling it “40 years of the most extraordinary increase in income for the largest number of people ever.”

This would be frightening if the U.S. and China coveted territory from one another. Azerbaijan’s recent military victory over Armenia in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh can be attributed to the former growing economically, and therefore militarily, stronger than the latter over the last two decades. Yet the two modern superpowers are on opposite sides of the world and have no similar dispute between them. It is true that the U.S. seeks to preserve the territorial integrity of allies and partners, such as Taiwan and Japan, that may be threatened by Beijing. The incoming Biden administration will likely have a policy of willingness to defend the Senkaku Islands, an uninhabited five rocks and three reefs that the U.S. considers part of Japan. But why America should risk nuclear war over this issue is rarely explained. To the extent such objections are addressed, they are buried under appeals to morality that forgo any kind of cost-benefit analysis, and buzzwords such as preserving an undefined sense of American credibility or the broad goal of reinforcing deterrence.

Another idea, popular among pundits and the general public, is that Chinese growth is necessarily bad for the U.S. But in reality, Chinese growth has so far directly benefited U.S. consumers: it is undisputed among economists that trade with China made America better off by lowering the price of goods. Despite the temptation to political amnesia, the fact is that U.S. policy privileged these economic gains for many years, and its relationship with China was explicitly informed by these political decisions.

While this has undermined U.S. economic capacity in important ways, the cause wasn’t cheating, trickery, or even growth on the part of China. Instead, the cause was the success of American policy priorities. If there is a problem, it is most immediately that those priorities were misguided. The U.S. has the right to conduct trade on its own terms. It can choose what kind of strategy it wants in trade negotiations, and is free to deal with the downsides of neglecting domestic industry and increased competition for jobs through whatever means it considers appropriate. To see China as a civilizational enemy over such issues, however, is bizarre.

The same is true regarding IP theft. While the practice has been estimated to cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars a year, it is nonetheless normal for developing economies, with South Korea and Taiwan having had similarly bad records as their economies began to grow. No other state was considered a fundamental threat to the U.S. over the issue, with a mix of external pressure and internal incentives leading them to ultimately develop more rigorous patent laws and enforcement. Many corporations, the parties most directly affected, treat the problem as the price of doing business.

Perhaps, then, the threat is that China seeks to remake the world in its own image? This is a popular trope among the national security establishment. H.R. McMaster, perhaps the quintessential representative of this class, says China is “leading the development of new rules and a new international order that would make the world less free and less safe.” When one scratches the surface of these arguments, it is clear that most of the indictment against China involves things that every country does, but only looks frightening if you completely ignore American behavior. Chinese loans to poor countries are said to trap them in debt, but the evidence doesn’t bear this out. The same criticisms don’t often extend to the sorts of loan programs offered by the International Monetary Fund, even though these have often been as controversial as, and much more comprehensive than, any Chinese financial aid.

But despite the growth of this position among the American establishment, still others accuse it of strategically respecting the sovereignty of other states. In March, Daniel Tobin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies testified to Congress that China continues to promote the normative principles of “mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual nonaggression, mutual noninterference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and cooperation for mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.” Ted Piccione of the Brookings Institution writes of China under Xi putting forth “orthodox interpretations of national sovereignty and noninterference in internal affairs…”

While China is not blameless, one could reasonably make the argument that, from an international perspective, it has had easily the most peaceful rise to great power status of any nation of the last several hundred years. While China has carried out the re-annexation of Tibet, blockaded Taiwan diplomatically, and launched internal colonization of territories like Xinjiang, such actions always occur under the ideologically important claim that they are internal to China. The U.S., conversely, undertook external colonial ventures during its rise and still regularly sanctions unquestionably sovereign nations. China’s territorial claims are naturally controversial internationally, but are modest compared to those sought by other powers—not least the U.S. itself, which early in its history declared the entire Western Hemisphere as off limits to the nations of Europe. Its interventionist policies since then have led to the overthrow of governments, the killing of leaders, and the economic sanctioning of entire nations.

Perhaps, as the McMasters of the world claim, this is all because Beijing is biding its time in hopes of world domination. Alternatively, China may be an inwardly focused civilization that, while it may have disputes with its neighbors, is not on a mission to fundamentally remake the world. While it would naturally prefer rules that favor it and resists any principles that would legitimize regime change supported from abroad, Beijing does not seek to fundamentally replace the U.N. or rewrite international law. Its strategy has mostly sought stability and growth within the rules of the system developed by Western democracies in the aftermath of the Second World War. While its current position of strength is recent, it has not yet broken from this precedent.

This interpretation is most consistent with past behavior and, given the costs of American militarism abroad, with common sense about how a rational actor should be expected to act. It is also consistent with the arguments of the most honest kind of “China hawk,” who argues that the real problem with Beijing is not that it wants to dominate the world, but that it might stop the U.S. from doing so in a unipolar manner.

The Threat to the National Security Elite

Given the incoherence of these arguments, one must look below the surface to see what motivates political hysteria towards China. To understand the motivations of analysts, think tank fellows, and generals, one must comprehend how they see themselves and the American role in the world. For decades, the ideology of the American government in its dealings abroad has been based on the necessity of creating a liberal democratic world—a necessity which, as the Soviet model proved an ineffective threat and the Cold War ultimately ended, became seen as ever more natural. The assumptions supporting this view have, in various ways, driven American leaders since the post-WWII era.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall increased this confidence. While the possibility of nuclear war had to be managed, and it was assumed that communists might hold on to their captive populations indefinitely, the spread had been contained. During the entire Cold War, the trend was towards more democratic governance and the opening of markets.

The 1990s saw the U.S. engage in what can be described as mop-up operations against the few holdouts against the trend towards democratic capitalism like Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic. Academics even before Francis Fukuyama saw democratization as a natural consequence of people demanding more of a voice in their governments, as incomes rose, and as they became more educated. Countries like Chile, South Korea, and Taiwan seemed to validate this view.

None of this meant that the U.S. was to stand back and let history unfold. An expansive military presence abroad was necessary for all these projects, and even after the Cold War to address WMD proliferation and protect civilians abroad from human rights violations, and to stop Islamic terrorism after 9/11. The assumption was that, while the move towards democratic capitalism was natural and maybe even inevitable, it could be delayed by communists, terrorists, or Baathists if the U.S. did not lead.

The result was a paradox. The greater the inevitability of this grand historical arc, the more urgently it had to be backed up by force, and the more unreasonable and deviant all resistance seemed. Even the language of a “clash of civilizations” as the War on Terror commenced did not radically depart from the larger story. This justified a large military establishment with costs that dwarfed those of every other potential rival combined. American global leadership was pushing on an open door.

China Versus Western Political Science

China is something completely new. The Soviet Union had military power and appealed to Western intellectuals, but was clearly an economic basket case that could not deliver on its promise of rising standards of living. Islamic terrorists could kill Westerners and destabilize countries, but had little overall effect on American security, and did not threaten either U.S. hegemony or its justifications. Modern day Russia can seek to have an influence on our culture and politics, but nobody looks to it as a model, and it nominally accepts the legitimacy of competitive elections.

China, however, rejects liberal democracy—the idea that leaders should be chosen on a one-person, one-vote basis—even as an ideal or ultimate destination. As Daniel Bell explains in The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, Chinese leaders have implemented a system in which government officials are selected and promoted based on examinations, performance reviews, and the meeting of objective criteria at lower levels. Its political qualification is not electoral support, but party membership and loyalty. This system is not justified on the grounds simply that the Chinese people or their institutions are “not ready for democracy,” a line sometimes taken even by Middle Eastern dictators like Bashar al-Assad. Critiques of democracy certainly are not foreign to the West; Plato is possibly the most famous anti-democratic thinker in history, and today modern skeptics use the language of economics when they talk about concepts like the influence of interest groups and the “rational irrationality” of voters. Yet opposition to the principle of democracy as such is unthinkable for an American leader, and even for most prominent intellectuals.

What went wrong with political science models that generalized from a moderately large number of cases in which economic growth led to democratization? To see how they erred, one could imagine a social scientist at the end of the first millennium arguing that the whole globe would become Christian because princes across Europe had all adopted that religion. If statistical models existed then, one could have done a regression and “proved” this hypothesis. The most common statistical models used today rely on the assumed independence of observations. The logic of regression analysis and hypothesis testing as applied to political development says that if we see the same patterns across time and space, then we may be able to infer a causal chain of events.

But the spread of economic and social systems operates in the realm of path dependence and network dynamics. Under this view, the move towards democratization after the Second World War depended on the power and missionary zeal of the U.S. more than the laws of history. If American power declines, its focus on world affairs wanes, or democracy loses its luster due its perceived shortcomings, the connection between economic growth and democratization can break down.

China is not simply passing the U.S. in overall GDP. Other measures one might use to measure the health of society also indicate that leaders in Beijing have been doing a better job than those in Washington in recent years. Are dictatorships more conflict prone at home? China’s murder rate is a fraction of that of the U.S., and the country has practically none of the rioting and political violence Americans have gotten used to. Are dictatorships more likely to menace countries abroad? China has not been to war since 1979, while the U.S. has been at war almost every year since that date. Are dictatorships less innovative? In 2020, China passed the U.S. in publications in the natural sciences, and its children score higher than American students on IQ tests and international standardized exams. While in 2008, the U.S. recorded over 16 times as many international patents as China, already by 2018 the gap had shrunk to 2.4 times as many, with trend lines indicating that China could surpass the U.S. before long.

With the American post-war liberal consensus having staked much of its legitimacy on providing better results, China’s development is an ideological threat regardless of how benevolent its rulers might theoretically be. American elites can tolerate a more successful system on a smaller scale. Lee Kuan Yew, the founder and long-time leader of Singapore, was explicitly anti-democratic, and horrified American elites with stances like his belief in eugenics. Yet his nation’s population has never even approached that of the largest American cities, and Lee was happy to geopolitically align his country with the U.S.

China’s ideology, and the success it is achieving, is ultimately threatening because of its size. Of course, as a country moves from Third World status to the most powerful nation in the world, it should be expected to become more geopolitically confident. Recently, China has begun asserting its will in a century-old border dispute with Bhutan, a country of 800,000 people, after 24 rounds of previous talks. Such results in this dispute and others like it are inevitable.

So, what question should American leaders be asking? It is not whether China will become more powerful, which it certainly will, or whether it will democratize, which is out of American hands and not relevant to its security anyway. Rather, it’s whether China has ambitions beyond what the U.S. can live with. All else equal, a few rocks in the South China Sea are not worth the possibility of war, or even worth forgoing the benefits of trade and potential collaboration on issues of global importance like climate change and containing pandemics.

In that case, what about Chinese financing? What about IP theft? What about Taiwan? Rather than invoking concerns about ethereal leadership or precedent, it would behoove American leaders well to explicitly set out their red lines, and tie their arguments for action to why crossing them threatens America’s fundamental interests. This also requires honesty about why certain actions are provoking concern. If the real worry is ideological, it should not be cloaked in rumors about predatory debt.

The answer to the China question would therefore be easier if American leaders were simply looking after the economic or security interests of the nation, or even the concrete concerns of a formalized alliance. Unfortunately, they also have financial, bureaucratic, and ideological reasons for being opposed to China’s rise. If universal democratization is not the ultimate endpoint of history—or even an imperative for development, peace, and prosperity—how can the American role in the world be justified? What will it say about the American system if the U.S. is no longer the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, having been surpassed by a country that became the dominant power in East Asia without even paying lip service to democratic ideals?

Ultimately, Americans themselves might begin asking themselves difficult questions about how well they have been served by their own system, including the sacrifices in blood and treasure they are regularly asked to make abroad.

How Will the U.S. Manage Its Decline?

The rise of China is based on long-term economic trends. Washington can no more stop or contain it than European powers in the mid-twentieth century could hope to hold on to their colonies in the midst of population growth in Asia and Africa, the rise of mass media, and their national declines relative to the U.S. and the Soviet Union. American leaders debate questions such as whether to reduce trade with China, call Beijing out on human rights violations, ban apps like TikTok, or undertake more naval missions through the South China Sea. Even if the hawks get their way on each of these issues—like they did under Trump and are unlikely to under Biden—none of these policies are going to significantly impede the rise of China.

At present, Beijing has demonstrated no desire for territory far from its borders; nor does it seem to want veto power over what governments do in distant lands, as the U.S. has exercised over large swaths of the world. Chinese leaders have always reasonably acted as if such entanglements are not worth the cost. While we cannot predict what future opportunists may attempt, it would be a mistake to craft our approach to the Chinese relationship as if this was not the case.

Understanding this, perhaps the most important question becomes the extent to which the U.S. is to play a game of chicken in the South China Sea. This is the real Thucydides Trap, though the concept only applies if both sides consider hegemony in an area important. China has built an impressive collection of fortified artificial islands in the South China Sea that will be useful in any dispute in Taiwan. Nonetheless, an all-out invasion is unlikely. Rather, Chinese economic strength should be enough to make most countries of the region take its side in any disputes and isolate Taiwan. At that point, various scenarios are imaginable, from an indefinite continuation of the status quo, to overwhelming economic pressure and attempts to force the island nation into submission, to a blockade or invasion. Only the very last of these risks war with the U.S. Assuming we avoid such a scenario, American leaders can be expected to easily forget about Taiwanese independence and democracy and move on.

Recent events in Hong Kong and Belarus demonstrate the limited nature of U.S. commitments to faraway nations most Americans know little about. Over the last two years, both of these places have seen pro-democracy protests that were given rhetorical support by the United States. In both situations, authoritarian governments were able to reassert authority and hold on to power. In the aftermath, the U.S. puts sanctions on the guilty parties, but the issue recedes from the headlines, and things go back to normal. Just as America lost interest in Tibet, it will eventually lose interest in Hong Kong and the Uighurs.

This quiet decline in the Asia-Pacific influence is the most likely scenario, even if the same military commitments remain. The U.S. can keep troops in Japan and South Korea as long as those two countries agree to host them, especially since China is unlikely to force this issue in the near future. Despite relying on the U.S. for defense, South Korea already aligns with China over the U.S. on a host of important geopolitical issues, from welcoming Huawei as a 5G provider to accepting the view of Hong Kong as an internal manner. Should political winds change direction in Japan, U.S. bases will not do anything to prevent better relations between Tokyo and Beijing. Just last month, China and Japan joined 13 other nations to sign the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a free trade agreement that will expand trade and cooperation throughout the Asia-Pacific. Nothing about the American military presence prevents the region from resisting any attempts to isolate China.

Ultimately, the danger for American elites is not that the U.S. may become less able to accomplish geopolitical objectives. Rather, it is that more Americans might begin to question the logic of U.S. global hegemony. Perhaps not every state is destined to become a liberal democracy, and nations with very different political systems can coexist peacefully, as many countries in East Asia do. Maybe the U.S. will not always be at the frontier of military and economic power, and the country that overtakes it may have completely different attitudes about the nature of the relationship between government and its citizens.

While most Americans will never experience a ride on a Chinese bullet train and remain oblivious in differences in areas like infrastructure quality, major accomplishments in highly visible frontiers like space travel or cancer treatment could drive home the extent to which the U.S. has fallen behind. Under such conditions, the best case scenario for most Americans would be a nightmare for many national security and bureaucratic elites: for the U.S. to give up on policing the world and instead turn inward and focus on finding out where exactly our institutions have gone wrong.

*

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.

Speech, media and academic freedoms are too precious to lose.

Without them, all other rights are threatened — totalitarian rule replacing them, enforced by police state harshness.

What happened on Capitol Hill Wednesday has clear earmarks of an orchestrated false flag — a coup to assure unelected Biden/Harris replace Trump on January 20.

Or sooner if removed from office by impeachment or invoking and distorting the 25th Amendment.

Worse still, what happened may be prelude to restricting free expression — blatant censorship to silence views not conforming to the official narrative.

Twitter silenced Trump’s speech for 12 hours, deleting several tweets.

Facebook and Instagram banned his posts indefinitely.

So did Snapchat, Shopify and Twitch.

Will these and other platforms silence him permanently?

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — in cahoots with US dark forces — unjustifiably justified his constitutional breach, saying:

“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great (sic),” adding:

“Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on (Trump’s) Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete (sic).”

Breaching the US Constitution is a criminal offense — accountability never following when in pursuit of Washington’s diabolical agenda.

You Tube announced that it will temporarily restrict video postings that contain alleged “misinformation” — aka views contesting the official narrative.

Thousands of posted videos were removed. Temporary restrictions will be permanent in cases of continued content a higher authority wants suppressed.

If social media deny a US president his First Amendment rights, will state approved censorship on everyone diverging from the official narrative become the new abnormal?

Will truth-telling on vital issues be criminalized? Will independent voices be mistreated like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and other heroic whistleblowers?

Will full-blown tyranny become the new abnormal ahead to permit no challenges to the diabolical agenda of US dark forces ahead?

Surrender by most Republicans to acceptance of unlawful transition of power from Trump to Biden/Harris is an ominous sign for what may lie ahead.

So is undemocratic Dem Senator Mark Warner’s support to unacceptable social media actions against Trump.

He welcomed “long-belated steps to address (DJT’s) sustained misuse of their platforms to sow discord and violence (sic),” adding:

These “actions are both too late and not nearly enough.”

“Disinformation and extremism researchers (sic) have for years pointed to broader network-based exploitation of these platforms (sic).”

In less than so many words, he supports censorship as the new abnormal, and he’s not alone.

Many others in Washington and corporate boardrooms support the same thing.

Trump has over 100 million Twitter and Facebook followers.

His postings ahead, if permitted, will be monitored and censored if dark forces find them unacceptable.

How he’s treated may be followed by similar actions against everyone.

It this lies ahead, it’ll be a diabolical deep state plot to abolish an open, free and fair society, according to the rule of law.

Big Media sticks to the official narrative with disturbing regularity, operating as press agents for wealth, power and privileged interests.

Remarks below by the NYT show support for social media censorship, saying:

“(S)ocial media sites (promote) a false rumor that Antifa…was responsible for committing violence at the protests (sic).”

These cites “have been lackadaisical” by not blocking what the Times and other Big Media consider unacceptable content.

“Freedom of expression is not the freedom to incite violence. That is not protected speech.”

The above claim followed criticism of tweets by Trump for nonviolence on Capitol Hill, not the other way around as the Times and other Big Media falsely reported.

In its latest edition, the Times — to its disgrace — called for shutting down Trump’s social media sites.

“(C)anel him,” said the Times — falsely blaming him again for inciting Capitol Hill violence he had nothing to do with.

Establishment media, Google, Facebook, and other social media are guardians of power, operating as gatekeepers to censor and eliminate truth-telling content that diverges from the official narrative — falsely calling it “extremist.”

You Tube CEO Susan Wojcicki earlier said the following:

“(B)ad actors are exploiting” the Internet to “mislead, manipulate, harass or even harm” — referring to truth-telling views dark forces want banned.

Google, You Tube, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media are technologically able to identify and remove unwanted content.

They’re powerful tools for what power brokers want disseminated, restricted, blocked or censored.

The Internet is the last frontier of digital democracy, the only reliable independent space for real news, information and analysis.

It lets everyone freely express views on any topics – unless corporate gatekeepers undermine the public interest by blocking them.

That’s where things are heading, greatly boosted by false flag events on Capitol Hill Wednesday night.

If dark forces triumph of constitutionally guaranteed rights — including unrestricted free and open expression — digital democracy in America no longer will exist.

Content in this and other articles I write may be criminalized. The same goes for others like me.

Tyranny in America will become the new abnormal — the law of the land.

That’s what lies ahead if not challenged and stopped before all fundamental rights are lost.

A Final Comment

Among others and yours truly, Edward Snowden sounded the alarm tweeting what may be deleted:

“Facebook officially silences the President of the United States.”

This unacceptable action “will be remembered as a turning point in the battle for control over digital speech.”

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

All artworks in this article are from Massoud Nayeri

I am a recipient of regular, usual weekly, emails from the Department of the Treasury providing an “Update to OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) and Blocked Persons.” OFAC is the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is tasked with both identifying and managing the financial punishments meted out to those individuals and groups that have been sanctioned by the United States government.

A recent update, on November 10^th, included “Non-Proliferation Designations; Iran-related Designations.” There were ten items on the list, names of Chinese and Iranian individuals and companies. Those who are “Specially Designated” on the list are subject to having their assets blocked if located in the United States and are also not allowed to engage in any financial transactions that go through U.S. banking channels. As many international banks respect U.S. Treasury “designations” lest they themselves be subjected to secondary sanctions that often means in effect that the individual or group cannot move money in a large part of the global financial marketplace.

The complete SDN list is hundreds of pages long. The Treasury Department defines and justifies OFAC’s mission “As part of its enforcement efforts, OFAC publishes a list of individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific. Collectively, such individuals and companies are called ‘Specially Designated Nationals’ or ‘SDNs.’ Their assets are blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them.”

In reality, of course, OFAC’s sanctions are highly political. They are clearly a form of economic warfare, particularly when entire sectors of a nation’s economy are blocked or a part of a government itself is listed as has been the case with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Force. Wave after wave of “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran have made it difficult for the country to sell its only major marketable resource, oil, and it has been locked out of most normal financial networks, making it difficult or even impossible to buy food and medicines.

In many cases sanctions have no practical effect but are rather intended to send a message. There have been new sanctions directed against Moscow and Russian government officials have been sanctioned due to their alleged involvement in activities that the United States does not approve of. The sanctions are imposed even though those “specially designated” have no assets in the U.S. and do not engage in any international financial transactions that could be blocked or disrupted. In those cases, the federal government is sending a message to whomever has been sanctioned to warn them that they are being watched and their behavior has become a matter of record. It is basically a form of intimidation.

Whether sanctions actually work is debatable. The example of Cuba, which was sanctioned by the U.S. for nearly sixty years, would suggest not. Some would argue that on the contrary countries with totalitarian regimes would actually improve their behavior if their citizens could travel freely and welcome visitors, providing evidence that foreigners do not pose a threat justifying a police state.

Within the United States government, it is largely accepted that the most powerful advocate of the sanctions regime is Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who has been the driving force behind recent sanctions directed against both China and Iran. If that is so he might well be challenged on one of the most bizarre and basically pointless applications of sanctions in recent years, targeting Asma the wife of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as well as her family that lives in London and are British citizens. Per Pompeo’s statement on the new sanctions “The Department of State today is imposing sanctions on Asma al-Assad, the wife of Bashar al-Assad, for impeding efforts to promote a political resolution of the Syrian conflict pursuant to Section 2(a)(i)(D) of Executive Order 13894… Asma al-Assad has spearheaded efforts on behalf of the regime to consolidate economic and political power, including by using her so-called charities and civil society organizations.”

But the real kicker is Pompeo’s condemnation of Asma, of Syrian origin but English born and raised, is how he involves her family. Her father-in-law Fawaz is a renowned cardiologist at Cromwell Hospital in South Kensington who was educated in England and has lived there for decades. “In addition, we are sanctioning several members of Asma al-Assad’s immediate family, including Fawaz Akhras, Sahar Otri Akhras, Firas al Akhras, and Eyad Akhras as per Section 2(a)(ii) of EO 13894. The Assad and Akhras families have accumulated their ill-gotten riches at the expense of the Syrian people through their control over an extensive, illicit network with links in Europe, the Gulf, and elsewhere.”

Inevitably, no evidence is provided to support any of the allegations about Asma al-Assad and her English family. Asma’s charities are for real in her war-torn country and she is highly respected and admired by those who know her and are not influenced by U.S. and Israeli propaganda.

In reality, the United States has been trying hard to overthrow the Syrian government since 2004 when the Syria Accountability Act was passed. Much of the heat in Congress behind the passage of the act was generated by the Israel Lobby, which wanted to weaken the regime and reduce its ability to represent a viable military force possibly capable of regaining the occupied Golan Heights. Be that as it may, the United States has been hostile to the country’s government and has frequently called for regime change. To bring that about, the U.S. supported al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups operating against Damascus and American soldiers continue to occupy Syrian oil fields in the southeast portion of the country. The Syrians have also been subjected to waves of sanctions that have done grave damage to their economy. American and Israeli concerns have sometimes been linked to the presence of Damascus’ allies Hezbollah and Iran, both of whom have military units based inside Syria, but the simple fact is that neither Iranians nor Lebanese in any way threaten the vastly superior American and Israeli forces present in the region.

One has to ask why, given the realpolitik playing out in the Middle East, Washington and Pompeo feel compelled to go after Asma al-Assad and her family, apparently to include absurdly blaming relatives living for many years outside of Syria for fueling the war. More sanctions, by all means. More grief and suffering and more people around the world wondering what exactly the United States is doing.

*

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.

Synchronicity is definitely fond of mirror wonderwalls. The Julian Assange saga seemed to have entered a new chapter as he was, in thesis, on his way to – conditional – freedom this past Monday, only one day after the first anniversary of the start of the Raging Twenties: the assassination of Maj Gen Qassem Soleimani.

The fate of the journalist the Empire seeks to terminate was just juxtaposed to the fate of the warrior/diplomat the empire already terminated.

Two days later, Julian Assange was de facto re-incarcerated exactly as the Empire was hit by an “insurrection” which, whenever instigated in that distant “Third World”, is celebrated in Exceptionalistan as “people power”.

The invaluable Craig Murray, from inside Westminster Magistrates Court No. 1 in London, meticulously presented the full contours  of the insanity this Wednesday.

Read it in conjunction with the positively terrifying judgment delivered on Monday in the United States government case against Julian Assange.

The defining issue, for all those who practice real journalism all across the world, is that the judgment affirms, conclusively, that any journalist can be prosecuted under the US Espionage Act. Since a 1961 amendment, the Espionage Act carries universal jurisdiction.

The great John Pilger memorably describes “judge” Vanessa Baraitser as “that Gothic woman”. She is in fact an obscure public servant, not a jurist. Her judgment walks and talks like it was written by a mediocre rookie hack. Or, better yet, entirely lifted from the US Department of Justice indictment.

Julian Assange was – at the last minute – discharged on theoretically humanitarian grounds. So the case had, in effect, ended. Not really. Two days later, he was sent back to Belmarsh, a squalid maximum security prison rife with Covid-19. So the case is ongoing.

WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnnson correctly noted,

“It is unjust and unfair and illogical when you consider her ruling of two days ago about Julian’s health in large part because he is in Belmarsh prison (…) To send him back there doesn’t make any sense.”

It does when one considers the real role of Baraitser – at a loss to juggle between the imperatives of the imperial agenda and the necessity of saving the face of British justice.

Baraitser is a mere, lowly foot soldier punching way above her weight. The real power in the Assange case is Lady Emma Arbuthnot, forced out of a visible role because of very compromising, direct ties she and her husband Lord Arbuthnot maintain with British intelligence and military, first revealed by – who else – WikiLeaks.

It was Arbuthnot who picked up obscure Baraitser – who dutifully follows her road map. In court, as Murray has detailed in a series of searing reports, Baraitser essentially covers her incompetence with glaring vindictiveness Baraitser discharged Julian Assange, according to her own reasoning, because she was not convinced the appalling American gulag would prevent him from committing suicide.

But the key issue is that before reaching this conclusion, she agreed and reinforced virtually every point of the US indictment.

So at this point, on Monday, the “Gothic woman” was performing a contortion to save the US from the profound global embarrassment of prosecuting a de facto journalist and publisher for revealing imperial war crimes, not United States government secrets.

Two days later, the full picture became crystal clear. There was nothing “humanitarian” about that judgment. Political dissent was equaled with mental illness. Julian Assange was branded as criminally insane. Once again, practicing journalism was criminalized.

There are reasons to believe though, that a United States government appeal may fail. A British High Court would be reluctant to overturn a judgment where Baraitser actually established findings of fact: a direct correlation between the state of the American gulag, and the extreme danger to Assange’s health if he’s thrown inside this system.

As it stands, it didn’t even matter that Assange’s defense offered a full package to obtain bail, from home arrest to the use of an ankle bracelet. Baraitser’s notion that the British security state would not be able to prevent his “escape” wearing an ankle bracelet in the middle of a total, police state-style lockdown does not even qualify as a joke.

So Julian Assange is back to suffering a perverse, interminable rewrite of Poe’s The Pit and the Pendulum.

The US government’s legal strategy before the High Court convenes in April is basically to try to prove its American gulag is competent enough to prevent a suicide – even though the ultimate aim of this post-truth Inquisition seems to be the termination of Julian Assange inside the penal system. That goal doesn’t even require a supermax prison in Colorado. Belmarsh will do.

*

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

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 is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Elekhh – CC BY-SA 3.0

One can only imagine the risk when some citizens of a small country conceal hundreds of thousands of weapons and explosives. The nation becomes a powder keg, awaiting one small mistake to spark a deadly explosion.

This is the situation currently in Albania. During the civil war of 1997, military depots were looted, and more than 650,000 guns, 1.5 billion bullets, 3.5 million grenades and 1 million landmines were stolen from military warehouses by various criminal groups and the Kosovo Liberation Army.

The government has attempted to resolve, or at least reduce, this serious problem. Since 1997, it has announced three amnesty orders for the delivery of looted weapons (a fourth is currently proposed). Yet, only about 40% of the weapons have been returned (exact numbers are impossible to determine), and it is estimated that between 300,000 and 325,000 weapons are still in private possession, many of them possessed by criminals. Albanian media previously reported that some of the illegal weapons imported into Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Greece and Italy may have been from this stockpile, and they believe that even after more than two decades, these weapons are still being found and used in Albania’s neighboring countries such as Greece and Italy.

The Albanian people experienced war and violence in their country 20 years ago, which led to the deaths of over 2,000 people and left thousands more homeless. Citizens of that country, have no inclination to, once again, become a centre for crisis in the region and bear the political and security consequences which would result. This, of course, would negatively impact their goal of joining the European Union.

And now an Albanian journalist, Ebi Spahiu, an independent analyst on Central Asian and Western Balkan Affairs has sounded the alarm about weapons being in possession of anti-Iranian terrorists. This journalist expressed her concern about the possibility of Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization’s (MKO; sometimes referred to as MEK) having access to these weapons and the danger of rearming themselves.

The MKO is a terrorist organization that seeks to overthrow the government of Iran and replace it with one that would certainly bow to any and all U.S. demands. The MKO is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iranians over the years. Now based in Albania, it was formerly headquartered in Iraq.

Members of the Mujahedin, believed to be in possession of some of the weapons looted from Albania in 1997, also stole arms from Iran. After the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, they carried out numerous attacks on barracks, police stations and military bases and stole a large number of weapons, which they used to increase their assassinations of Iranian citizens and officials.

It took at least three years, from 2013 – 2016, for the Iraqi government and political-social activists to oust the Mujahedin from Iraq. Few countries were willing to shelter the Mujahedin. However, with the support of the United States, they relocated to Albania. This was an interesting development, because the MKO is a semi-militant organization which was forcibly disarmed by the United States in 2003 after the occupation of Iraq. In addition, 16 military bases and heavy weapons such as tanks which were previously provided to the MKO by the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein were all recaptured and handed over to the Iraqi military. The U.S. only began supporting the group as its hostility to Iran increased.

In addition, the MKO was housed in a military camp called Ashraf after 2003, in the Diyala province of Iraq, which was one of the main strongholds of the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization. The Mujahedin were able to establish close contact with foreign extremist terrorists who had entered Iraq and provided them with a great deal of intelligence. They also used part of Camp Ashraf as a site for military and combat training for terrorists.

With so many weapons in the hands of Albanians, there is a high risks that the MKO, with its long history of conducting military operations, could gain access to illegal weapons in that country and use them in pursuit of their goals. While their ability to achieve those goals is slim, they could still cause tremendous suffering as they attempt to reach them.

Adding to the risk is the fact that Albania is a center of arms smuggling in the Balkans; thus, buying large quantities of weapons is not difficult for the MKO since the organization is now headquartered in that country.

The MKO’s interference in Iraq during the period of Saddam Hussein, and then intervening in post-Saddam Iraqi political tensions, indicates the threat that it can be, and therefore it must be carefully controlled by any country where MKO members have a presence. Any violent actions by the group could have a negative impact on the security of this region of the world.

Indications of future violence are in clear evidence; even Twitter briefly restricted the group’s activities, and suspended the leader.

Beyond the MKO, the presence of jihadist extremists, especially in southeastern Albania, bring widespread activities of arms and drug trafficking. Adding the presence of the Mujahedin-e Khalq into this already-deadly mix further jeopardizes the safety of the citizens in this country and further destabilizes the entire region.

The support that the United States currently offers to the MKO must end. Without that support, the MKO would be unable to continue its operations in Albania, and the risk of further terrorist activities by its members would decrease significantly.

*

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 study was originally published in April 2012.

It pertains to the Severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV (2002) which has, according to the WHO and the CDC similar features to SARS-CoV-2.

A vaccine was envisaged in relation to SARS-1. The authors document the impacts of the SARS-1 vaccine, focussing on the results of  the mice and ferret lab tests.

“An early concern for application of a SARS-CoV vaccine was the experience with other coronavirus infections which induced enhanced disease and immunopathology in animals when challenged with infectious virus”.

The conclusion of the study is as follows:

“These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced.  Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.”

This study is of relevance to the current debate and analysis pertaining to the Covid-19 vaccine (SARs-CoV-2)

***

Abstract

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) emerged in China in 2002 and spread to other countries before brought under control. Because of a concern for reemergence or a deliberate release of the SARS coronavirus, vaccine development was initiated. Evaluations of an inactivated whole virus vaccine in ferrets and nonhuman primates and a virus-like-particle vaccine in mice induced protection against infection but challenged animals exhibited an immunopathologic-type lung disease.

Design

Four candidate vaccines for humans with or without alum adjuvant were evaluated in a mouse model of SARS, a VLP vaccine, the vaccine given to ferrets and NHP, another whole virus vaccine and an rDNA-produced S protein. Balb/c or C57BL/6 mice were vaccinated IM on day 0 and 28 and sacrificed for serum antibody measurements or challenged with live virus on day 56. On day 58, challenged mice were sacrificed and lungs obtained for virus and histopathology.

Results

All vaccines induced serum neutralizing antibody with increasing dosages and/or alum significantly increasing responses. Significant reductions of SARS-CoV two days after challenge was seen for all vaccines and prior live SARS-CoV. All mice exhibited histopathologic changes in lungs two days after challenge including all animals vaccinated (Balb/C and C57BL/6) or given live virus, influenza vaccine, or PBS suggesting infection occurred in all. Histopathology seen in animals given one of the SARS-CoV vaccines was uniformly a Th2-type immunopathology with prominent eosinophil infiltration, confirmed with special eosinophil stains. The pathologic changes seen in all control groups lacked the eosinophil prominence.

Conclusions

These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) emerged in Guangdong, People’s Republic of China, in late 2002, and spread to other countries in Asia and to Canada in the ensuing months [1]–[3]. Infection control efforts brought the infection under control by mid-2003 [4]. More than 8000 cases, including almost 800 deaths, were reported during the outbreak period [4]. Increasing age and comorbidity were risk factors for severe disease and death [5], [6], [7]. Since 2003, only sporadic cases have been reported; however, the possibility that SARS outbreaks could reemerge naturally or be deliberately released is a public health concern.

SARS is caused by a Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) [8], [9]. Limited data are available about the ecology of SARS-CoV, but bats are thought to be the animal reservoir for the virus which may be transmitted to small mammals with exposure to these small animals as the source of human infections [10]. The clinical disease is similar to other severe acute respiratory infections, including influenza; the SARS case definition includes clinical, epidemiologic, and laboratory criteria [11], [12]. A number of therapeutic efforts were employed for the disease in Asia and in Canada; however, no treatment of clear value was identified. Animal models were developed using mice, hamsters, ferrets and nonhuman primates, and efforts to identify useful treatments and effective vaccines are ongoing.

Vaccine candidates for preventing SARS have been developed by various groups and include inactivated whole virus, spike (S) protein preparations, virus-like particles (VLPs), plasmid DNA and a number of vectors containing genes for SARS-CoV proteins [13]–[28]. Phase I studies in humans have been conducted with a whole virus vaccine and a DNA vaccine [29]–[30].

An early concern for application of a SARS-CoV vaccine was the experience with other coronavirus infections which induced enhanced disease and immunopathology in animals when challenged with infectious virus [31], a concern reinforced by the report that animals given an alum adjuvanted SARS vaccine and subsequently challenged with SARS-CoV exhibited an immunopathologic lung reaction reminiscent of that described for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants and in animal models given RSV vaccine and challenged naturally (infants) or artificially (animals) with RSV [32], [33]. We and others described a similar immunopathologic reaction in mice vaccinated with a SARS-CoV vaccine and subsequently challenged with SARS-CoV [18], [20], [21], [28]. It has been proposed that the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV is the antigen to which the immunopathologic reaction is directed [18], [21]. Thus, concern for proceeding to humans with candidate SARS-CoV vaccines emerged from these various observations.

The studies reported here were conducted to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of different SARS-CoV vaccines in a murine model of SARS.

Read full article here.

also available 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.

There was a hope in some quarters after Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled on Monday against an application to extradite Julian Assange to the US, where he faced being locked away for the rest of his life, that she might finally be changing tack.

Washington has wanted Assange permanently silenced and made an example of – by demonstrating to other journalists its terrifying reach and powers of retaliation – ever since the Wikileaks founder exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago.

There were reasons, however, to be suspicious of what Baraitser was really up to even as she made her ruling in Assange’s favour. This district judge has a record of nodding through extradition cases, including several that have recently been overturned on appeal by a higher court.

Tomorrow, District Judge Vanessa Baraister will rule on Assange's US extradition.

The Ministry of Justice blocked our FOI request for a list of cases on which she's ruled since being appointed a DJ in 2011.

So we used Westlaw + Factiva to construct her extradition case list👇 pic.twitter.com/ViCuMHhe6i

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) January 3, 2021

During the hearings back in September, Baraitser had endlessly indulged lawyers representing the US while showing absolute disdain for Assange’s legal team, obstructing them at every turn. Her contempt for Assange and his political and moral worldview was on show throughout the proceedings. She often arrived in court with a prepared script she read from, barely feigning a pretence that she had listened to the legal arguments presented in court.

Her script always favoured Washington’s line, apart from on those occasions when she took an even more hostile position towards Assange than requested by the US. That included sealing him off from the rest of the court in an impregnable perspex box, treating him more like Hannibal Lecter than a publisher and journalist fighting for press freedom.

Much of the time, Baraitser sounded unnervingly like a prosecution barrister rather than the judge.

First, a dangerous ruling 

My latest: The last decade has been about discrediting, disgracing and demonising Julian Assange. Today's court ruling denying his extradition to the US – though hugely welcome – should be seen as a continuation of that process https://t.co/FtrDGyHwF2

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) January 4, 2021

So it was barely surprising, as I explained in my last post, that, while denying the extradition claim, she supported all the arguments advanced by the US accruing to itself the right to prosecute Assange – and any other journalist – for the crime of doing journalism. She ignored the facts, the expert testimony presented in court and the legal arguments – all of which favoured Assange – and backed instead what amounted to a purely political case made by the US.

She disregarded warnings from Assange’s legal team that acceptance of the political rationale for extradition amounted to an all-out attack on fundamental journalistic freedoms. She established a terrifying legal precedent for the US to seize foreign journalists and prosecute them for “espionage” if they expose Washington’s crimes. Her ruling will inevitably have a profoundly chilling effect on any publication trying to dig out the truth about the US national-security state, with terrifying consequences for us all.

But while she enthusiastically backed the political case for Assange’s extradition and trial, Baraitser at the same time got the Wikileaks founder off the hook by accepting the humanitarian concerns raised by medical and prison experts. They had counselled that extradition to the US could be expected to lead to Assange spending the rest of his life in a barbaric US super-max prison, exacerbating mental health problems and the risk of suicide.

Then, a perverse ruling 

Her ruling, while deeply disturbing in its political and legal implications, did at least suggest that Baraitser was ready to take a compassionate approach in regard to Assange’s health, even if not his journalistic exposure of western war crimes. He should have walked free there and then, had the US not immediately said it would appeal her decision.

Given Assange’s discharge by Baraitser, his team hoped that bail – his release from a high-security prison while the lengthy appeals process unfolds – would prove a formality. They hurried to make such an application after the extradition ruling on Monday, assuming that the legal logic of her decision dictated his release. Baraitser demurred, suggesting that they prepare their case and make it to her more fully on Wednesday.

It now seems clear the judge manipulated Assange’s defence team. Apparently like Assange’s lawyers, former British ambassador Craig Murray, who has attended and reported on the hearings in detail, was lulled by Baraitser into assuming that she wanted a cast-iron case from the defence to justify a decision to release Assange on bail.

There were good reasons for their confidence. Any move to prevent his release would look perverse given that she had decided Assange should not be extradited or stand trial in the US.

Suicide danger 

They were deceived. Baraitser denied bail, effectively signalling that she thinks her ruling might be wrong and overturned in a higher court. That is extraordinary. It suggests that she has no confidence in her own judgment of the facts of the case. As Murray has noted: “There was little or no precedent for the High Court overturning any ruling against extradition on Section 91 health grounds.”

Any appeal by the US against Baraitser’s ruling to discharge Assange will be hard to win. Its lawyers will have to prove that she was wrong not on her interpretation of the law, but in assessing verifiable facts. They will have to show that she was deceived by prison experts who warned – based on submissions made by the US itself – that Assange would be subjected to permanent, inhuman solitary confinement in a US super-max jail or that she was misled by medical experts who warned that in these conditions Assange would be at significant risk of suicide.

Julian Assange is one of just two inmates at Belmarsh maximum security prison—which houses 797 prisoners—being held for violating bail conditions, according to figures released to me last year.

Over 20% of the Belmarsh prison population is held for murderhttps://t.co/W1RT5s48oJ

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) January 6, 2021

But the perversity of Baraitser’s decision runs deeper still. Her ruling keeps him locked up in Belmarsh, a high-security prison in London that is Britain’s version of a super-max jail. Her refusal to free him, or put him in house arrest with a GPS monitoring tag, flagrantly contradicts the expert assessments she concurred with during Monday’s extradition decision: that Assange is at high risk of suicide. Those expert evaluations are based on his current state – caused by his incarceration in Belmarsh.

Unlike Assange, most of Belmarsh’s inmates have been convicted or charged with major crimes. But while Assange long ago served out his only offence, a minor violation of the UK’s bail regulations, he has been routinely held in even worse conditions than the other prisoners.

If Assange’s mental health is in such poor shape and he is so likely to commit suicide, it is because of the horrifying regime of abuse he has already faced in Belmarsh over the past nearly two years – a regime classified as torture by the UN’s expert on the subject, Nils Melzer. Raising Assange’s hopes of release and then shutting him back in his cell, denying him the chance to see his partner and two young children for the first time since March, risks tipping him over the edge – an edge Baraitser herself is only too aware of and on which she based her decision to deny extradition.

Nils Melzer, the UN expert on torture: 'Julian Assange has been brought to breaking point by 10 years of joint persecution for political reasons by Sweden, by the UK, by the US, by Ecuador.. He should not have been brought to the point where he is suicidal' https://t.co/GFArFyhrRt

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) January 4, 2021

No ‘flight risk’

In fact, the judge was up to something else entirely in delaying the bail hearing till Wednesday, two days later. She wanted – as presumably did those who have been supervising her behind the scenes – to refashion the image of her court, which for months has given every appearance of being entirely beholden to the US administration. 

As the corporate media briefly raised its head from its slumber to meaningfully acknowledge for the first time the Assange hearings, she wanted to ensure those reports noted how independent her court was. For two days, commentators could crow about British legal sovereignty and humanitarian values, even as most tacitly accepted her dangerous premise that the US has a justified claim to extradite Assange.

When Baraitser slammed the cell door shut once again on Assange, leaving him exactly where he was before she discharged him, her decision was presented as little more than a technical ruling based on a reasonable assessment of Assange’s “flight risk”.

In fact, Assange is no flight risk, and never was. He didn’t “jump bail” in 2012 by heading into the Ecuadorean embassy. He sought political asylum there to escape the very real threat of being extradited to the US for his journalism. He was accepted by the Ecuadorean authorities because they believed his fears were genuine.

Back then, a Swedish prosecutor had revived demands Assange return to Sweden for questioning over flimsy sexual assault allegations – allegations that had been dismissed by a previous prosecutor. That investigation, we now know, was kept alive at British insistence. Nonetheless, Sweden refused to give assurances that they would not extradite Assange on to the US, where a grand jury was drawing up charges against him.

Illicit collusion 

Assange’s decision to seek asylum in the embassy has, of course, been entirely vindicated by the fact that the US did indeed seek his extradition – as soon as they could get their hands on him.

Baraitser even let the cat out of the bag herself at the bail hearing, disrupting her own narrative that he had “absconded” in 2012, when she stated – as evidence against Assange! – that he entered the embassy to evade the threat of extradition to the US.

In doing so, she undermined the narrative promoted for years by every corporate media outlet in the UK that Assange had “holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy to flee the Swedish investigation”. (In fact, that statement was typically corrupted even further by the media, including notably the Guardian, which repeatedly referred not to an investigation, one going nowhere, but to entirely imaginary “rape charges”.)

Baraitser exploited and accentuated Assange’s suffering to make her court look good, to add a veneer of credibility to her deeply flawed political ruling, and to create the impression that she was making her judgment based on the facts rather than illicit collusion with US authorities denying Assange his rights.

Where next? 

Where does the case head now?

Assange’s only immediate hope is that his legal team can appeal the bail decision and win, or that the US throws in the towel and decides not to submit its own appeal on the extradition ruling within the next couple of weeks.

If Washington does press for an appeal, as still seems likely, Assange faces many more months in Belmarsh high-security jail, in declining health in Covid-infested conditions he may not survive if he catches the disease. As experts have warned, the toll taken by nearly two years of almost no contact with other humans, no mental stimulation, no prospect of release – his case ignored by most of his peers and the public – will intensify his sense of despair, his deep depression, and the danger that he tries to take his own life.

His death looks increasingly like an outcome Britain and the US desire, and possibly one that they have been striving towards. That is certainly the conclusion of Yanis Varoufakis, a public intellectual and former Greek finance minister who has seen up close himself how ready European and US elites are to ruthlessly crush dissent.

"They are not trying to extradite him. They are trying to kill him."@yanisvaroufakis explains why he thinks the US State Department wants Julian Assange dead.#Downstream pic.twitter.com/wPDeMyd9EW

— Novara Media (@novaramedia) January 6, 2021

But even if Assange’s death is not the goal of the US and UK authorities, they have recklessly ensured that possibility grows ever more likely, and will continue to do so until they swiftly bring his incarceration and torture to an end.

*

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 essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/ 

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Lawyers for Assange

The following research article will explore three forbidden weapons that were and are still being used against the Palestinian civilians of the besieged Gaza Strip. These weapons are the DIME, the Flechette Shells and the Vacuum Bomb. Furthermore, this research article will attempt to answer an important question: Why does Israel deliberately target Palestinian civilians?

The DIME Components

DIME shell stands for Dense Inert Metal Explosives, is supposedly a “low collateral damage” weapon that was developed by the US Air Force.[1] Already in 2006, the DIME weapon has been used by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip. It has been dropped by Israeli drone aircraft.[2]

It should be pointed out that the chemical components of the DIME shell could not have become known to Palestinian physicians because Israel had destroyed Gaza’s only criminal laboratory on June 27, 2006, the first day of the siege.[3] This is indicative of the Zionist sinister future plans to use forbidden weapons against the Palestinian civilians and to keep the world in the dark including the Palestinians. However, after acquiring help from a group of Italian scientists and investigators, Palestinian physicians became aware of the chemical structure of the DIME shell whose extreme dangerous toxicity Israel was trying to conceal.

On October 19, 2006, a group of

“… Italian investigators had tissue samples from the victims in Gaza analyzed by Dr. Carmela Vaccaio at University Parma. Dr. Vaccaio reportedly found “a very high concentration of carbon and the presence of unusual materials, such as copper, aluminum and tungsten.” The doctor concluded that her “findings could be in line with the hypothesis that the weapon in question is DIME.”[4]

According to the spectrometry analyses of biopsies taken from amputation injuries of Palestinian patients from the Gaza Strip, and carried out by a group of Italian scientists affiliated with the New Weapons Research Committee (NWRC), the DIME shell included a combination of the following seventeen metals: “…aluminum, titanium, copper, strontium, barium, cobalt, mercury, vanadium, caesium, tin, arsenic, manganese, rubidium, cadmium, chromium, zinc and nickel…”[5] The combination of that many metals, including heavy metals, makes the DIME shell an extremely toxic chemical weapon and a highly dangerous one.

It should be pointed out that the “DIME weapons consist of a carbon fiber casing filled with a mixture of explosives and very dense microshrapnel, consisting of very small particles (1–2 mm) or powder of a heavy metal…”[6] When it explodes, DIME bombs blast a superheated “micro-shrapnel” of powdered heavy metal tungsten alloy.[7]

The DIME Health Hazards

The initial reports on the health hazards of the DIME bomb came out few months after Israel began to use it in the summer of 2006.  Dr. Jom’a Al-Saqqa, chief of the emergency unit at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza, observed that the DIME was “a new ‘chemical’ weapon” and Israeli siege was “a live exercise on a new ammunition that, so far, has resulted in killing 50 Palestinians and injuring 200.” He added that, “despite the damage in internal soft tissue in the bodies of injured people, the fragments were not detected by X-ray. In other words, they had disappeared or dissolved inside the body.”[8]

Dr. Al-Saqqa, a surgeon by profession, continued his observation by adding that “There were usually entry and exit wounds. When the wounds were explored no foreign material was found. There was tissue death, the extent of which was difficult to determine. … A higher deep infection rate resulted with subsequent amputation. In spite of amputation there was a higher mortality.”[9]

Moreover, Dr. Al-Saqqa, added the following observation on the death-causing health impact of the DIME weapon.

“When the shrapnel hit[s] the body, it causes very strong burns that destroy the tissues around the bones…it burns and destroys internal organs, like the liver, kidneys, and the spleen and other organs and makes saving the wounded almost impossible. As a surgeon, I have seen thousands of wounds during the Intifada, but nothing was like this weapon.”[10]

Dr Joma Al-Saqqa, chief of the emergency unit at Gaza’s largest hospital, Al-Shifa added that, “despite the damage in internal soft tissue in the bodies of injured people, the fragments were not detected by X-ray. In other words, they had disappeared or dissolved inside the body.”[11]

Another witnessing surgeon is Dr. Habas al-Wahid, the Palestinian head of the Emergency Unit at Gaza’s Shuhada al-Aqsa hospital. He made the following shocking observation. “Israel’s new weapon “slices” off its victims’ legs, leaving “signs of heat and burns near the point of the amputation”. It’s “as if a saw was used to cut through the bone…”[12]

Due to the penetration of the body by a number of heavy metals, this situation produces “[m]ultiple syndromes of heavy metal poisoning …” in addition it produces “…polycythemia, which can be induced by cobalt overdose.”[13] Polycythemia is “… a type of blood cancer that causes the bone marrow to make too many red blood cells, a health case that thickens the blood, slowing its flow, and a development which may cause serious problems, such as blood clots. Furthermore, Polycythemia produces cancer of the blood and bone marrow, namely acute leukemia.[14]

It should be pointed out that “[t]he whole Gaza population and their environment, including generations yet to be conceived, have been put at risk of serious long-term injury from heavy metal pollution of the air, soil and groundwater (and possibly the seawater too), while the causal pollution is likely to cross state borders into Egypt and even into Israel…”[15]

As a direct result of use by Israel of forbidden chemical weapons, all sorts of cancer cases have increased in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Ministry of Health has revealed that in the beginning of 2019, there were 8,515 cancer patients inside the Gaza Strip, including 4,705 women and 608 children. Cancer “Patients’ in the Gaza Strip suffer from the permanent shortage of equipment, drugs and medical supplies as a result of Israel’s stifling 12-year siege of  the enclave.”[16] They also suffer from denial of exit permits to children cancer patients and their companions for treatment abroad.[17] Other cancer patients are denied any medical treatment. According to the World Health Organization “Getting a permit to access the health care needed outside can be a stressful and unpredictable process, and many apply multiple times before being able to exit. Even then, some patients are never able to secure the permits they need to access care”[18]

These health hazards caused by the use of DIME shells by Israel constitute war crimes. The Israeli generals who were responsible for them are among others, Beni Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi, the leaders of the Blue White Israeli party. Ex-prime minister Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, his defense minister are also war criminals. Due to the fact that these war crimes have continued to take place also under the present Israeli government, Benyamin Netanyahu and his defense minister Beni Gantz are also war criminals.

The Flechette Shell Components

The Flechette shell is “…made out of steel and had a very sharp pointy end… For increased aerodynamics, they featured fins on their other end – most likely to increase the speed of descent.”[19] It explodes in the air and releasesapproximately 2,200 flechettes.[20] The metal darts disperse in a conical arch three hundred meters long and about ninety meters wide. It is considered an anti-personnel weapon that is generally fired from a tank.[21] On impact, the Flechette darts are “… capable of penetrating a combatant from head to foot and creating an instantly incapacitating wound…”[22]

One of the hazardous developments that take place is that the “… head of the dart is designed to break away. Having penetrated inside a person, this breakage inflicts a second wound per single dart entry, multiplying the amount of internal damage done by the razor-like darts…”[23]

The Health Hazards of the Flechette Shell

Israel has, numerously, used the Flechette shells in the Gaza Strip. During the war of 2008-2009, Israeli tanks assaulted Palestinian civilians with Flechette shells. There were a number of Palestinian victims of the Flechette shells. The following is the story of two Palestinian medics who were victims of the Flechette shell.

… In the initial shelling that day, Hammad lost his foot when Israeli tanks fired at, according to Hammad, a region filled with terrified civilians fleeing Israeli bombing. His friend Ali was shot in the head while trying to evacuate Hammad. The medics then arrived. Abd al-Dayem and Sarhan had loaded Hammad into the ambulance and were going to retrieve Ali’s body when the flechette shell was fired at the medics and fleeing civilians. Ali was decapitated…[24]

According to Palestinian traditions, parents and relatives of a deceased person usually hold two mourning houses, one for men and another for women. These mourning ceremonies are held outside the house so they can accommodate the largest possible gathering of mourners.

The Palestinian medic Jamal Abd al-Dayem explained what happened at the mourning ceremonies that were held for his late cousin Arafa Abd al-Dayem, the 35-year-old paramedic who died as a result “… of slashes to his lungs, limbs and internal organs.”[25]

After my cousin Arafa was martyred on 4 January, we immediately opened mourning houses, with separate areas for men and women. The next day, at 9:30am the Israelis struck the mourning area where the men were. It was clearly a mourning house, on the road, open and visible. Immediately after the first strike, the Israelis hit the women’s mourning area.” Two strikes within 1.5 minutes, he reported.[26]

The former four Flechette shelling incidents clearly show that the Israeli army is systematically and deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians. They cannot be dismissed as misguided targeting or mistakes. These are repetitive similar shellings of Flechettes that targeted civilians. We should pose the following question. If the Israeli army have on numerous occasions, deliberately targeted civilians, there should be reasons for that.

According to Dr. Bassam al-Masari, a surgeon at Beit Lahiya’s Kamal Adwan hospital, Flechette darts have caused “… more injuries than other bombs precisely because they spread in a larger area. And while the darts appear innocuously small, their velocity and design enable them to bore through cement and bones and “cut everything internal…”[27] Al-Masri added that “… their velocity and design enable them to bore through cement and bones and “cut everything internal…” Accordingly, the prime cause of death is severe internal bleeding from slashed organs, particularly the heart, liver and brain. Brain injuries are the most fatal…[28]

They Target Schools, don’t they?

It is noticeable that, during the past twelve years, Israeli air raids and shelling have targeted a number of civilian facilities inside the Gaza Strip. These facilities included schools, universities, hospitals, medical clinics, mosques, markets, shopping centers, factories, farms, banks, mourning cites, warehouses, a power station, and other essential civilian infrastructure. The following is a partial review of actual incidents.

Hundreds of Palestinian civilians who were forced out from their apartments and houses by the Zionist army, sought refuge inside UNRWA schools thinking that they would be in a safe haven. Nevertheless, Zionist criminal generals thought otherwise.

Author Mike Head reported that, “At least 20 Palestinians were killed and about 90 injured early on Wednesday, including UN workers, when Jabalia Elementary Girls School in Gaza City, which was sheltering 3,300 families, was hit by three artillery shells.”[29] Was it a mistake?

What happened to one UNRWA school was revealed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who reported that “… the exact location of this elementary school has been communicated to the Israeli military authorities 17 times…”[30] yet the Israeli army attacked the school and a number of Palestinians were killed and wounded.

Despite this evidence and during the 2014 war, US President Barak Obama claimed to be “extremely concerned” about the killing of people in UN designated shelters. At the same time Obama accused Hamas of hiding weapons in UN facilities.[31] By accusing Hamas of “hiding weapons in UN facilities” he reiterated Zionist lies and provided a justification for Zionist criminal bombing of UNRWA schools.

Author Vincent Di Stefano reported that until Dec 2010, “Seven schools in Gaza were totally destroyed, and 135 were substantially damaged. The Al-Azhar University of Gaza was reduced to rubble. Hospitals, medical clinics and Red Crescent warehouses were all targeted…”[32]

The author added that

“It was the second attack, and the sixth strike, on a UN school since Israel’s military offensive in Gaza began on July 8. Last week, 15 people died and about 200 were wounded when another UN school, in Beit Hanoun, was hit as the playground was filled with families awaiting evacuation.”[33]

Author Vincent Di Stefano concluded that “…By deliberately targeting UN schools, [Israel] is sending a chilling message: no one in Gaza is safe from ‘Operation Protective Edge.’…”[34]

In another criminal incident, “… three air strikes killed 15 people and injured 150 in a market area on the outskirts of Shujaiyah. As smoke billowed from the initial air strike, witnesses said emergency services and civilians rushed to help the victims, only to be hit by a further two air strikes minutes later.[35] Was this incident a mistake?

In another criminal assault that was reported by the British Guardian, we quote the following.

During the 2009 war, Mounir a Palestinian from the Gaza Strip reported the following story. While he was sitting around with his family drinking tea in their small courtyard, he heard the loud buzzing of an Israeli drone, clearly visible in the sky above. “He went inside for a moment and, as he returned, he saw a ball of light hurtling down toward him. There was a loud explosion and he was thrown backward. He gathered himself and stumbled out into the courtyard, where he saw the scene he says will never leave him.”[36] In his own words, Mounir described what happened to members of his family by saying: “We found Mohammed lying there, cut in half. Ahmed was in three pieces; Wahid was totally burnt – his eyes were gone. Wahid’s father was dead. Nour had been decapitated. We couldn’t see her head anywhere.”[37] Mounir continued by relating. “You cannot imagine the scene: a family all sitting around together and then, in a matter of seconds, they were cut to pieces. Even the next day we found limbs and body parts on the roof, feet and hands,” Mounir says.[38] Was this incident a mistake?

Despite these deliberate criminal incidents, the Israeli colonial army, as well as, Israeli colonial politicians claim that “… the IDF … intensively trained its personnel on the requirements of the Law of Armed Conflict. It delayed, diverted, or refrained from attacks to spare civilian life. It provided numerous and varied types of concrete warnings before launching attacks.”[39] As reported earlier, concrete evidence points to the contrary.

In addition to schools, Israeli military strikes targeted residential and public structures thus producing utter destruction. Author, Patrick O’Conner reported that “…At least 5,000 homes have been destroyed and more than 20,000 damaged, with many urban centers reduced to nothing more than rubble…”[40]

Moreover, Israeli military assaults targeted public structures. “… The parliament and cabinet buildings in Gaza City were destroyed, as was the city’s police headquarters, the Bank of Palestine building, the main university, several mosques…”[41], and six major water wells were damaged or destroyed.[42] In addition, Gaza’s water and electricity networks were destroyed by the Israeli army.[43]

Israeli war crimes that took place in the Gaza Strip during the last three wars was an election issue adopted by former Israeli army chief, Benny Gantz. He produced an election video for his party in which he bragged about killing 1,364 Palestinians and returning parts of the Gaza Strip to the stone ages.[44] Gantz admits responsibility for these war crimes but is ready to use his crimes as means to win the votes of racist Israelis.

Moreover, on Thursday, August 9, 2018 the Said al-Mishal Centre, a cultural center in Gaza housing the region’s second-largest theater, was bombed by Israeli military forces. The five-floor edifice housed a library, an Egyptian community center, offices for cultural associations, and a theater for arts and dabkeh.[45]

As usual, the Zionist army claimed that the center “… was being used by “the Hamas terror organization for military purposes”[46], an evidence that has never been proved.

Moreover, during the war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Zionist President Shimon Peres met with a delegation from AIPAC, the American Zionist lobby. In his speech to the delegation, Peres admitted that “… Israel’s aim, … was to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel…”[47] That was a clear admission that the Zionist army deliberately and systematically targets Palestinian civilians.

One here should pause and ask the following question: Why the Israeli military, target Palestinian civilians in its aggressive wars? This is an attempted answer.

In the last three Israeli wars against the Gaza Strip, Israeli shelling deliberately targeted schools including UNRWA schools, market places, mourning houses and packed houses. This policy has been also implemented in Lebanon, and in Egypt during the Israeli bombardments in the seventies. The Israeli sinister logic behind this criminal policy is this: if you maximize civilian losses, civilians will stop backing Hamas or Hizballah. This faulty logic produced a systematic and deliberate policy of “mini” Zionist massacres. The shelling of civilian structures that are fully packed with people cannot be dismissed as mistakes nor as acted out in self-defense. So, the final aim of the Zionist aggressive colonial policy of choosing these targets, is to maximize civilian killings and terrorize the civilian population in order to force civilians to submit to Zionist colonial policies.

Components of the Vacuum Bomb

The Vacuum Bomb, named also the fuel–air explosive (FAE) is a type of explosive that depends on the use of two highly toxic fuels ethylene oxide and propylene oxide.[48] Once they detonate, they use the oxygen from the “… surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion. In practice, the blast wave typically produced by such a weapon is of a significantly longer duration than that produced by a conventional condensed explosive…”[49]

Once the Vacuum Bomb explodes,

“… the area around the explosion becomes overpressurized, resulting in highly compressed air particles that travel faster than the speed of sound. This wave will dissipate over time and distance and will exist only for a matter of milliseconds. This initial blast wave inflicts the most damage…”[50]

After explosion,

“… the bomb casing, as well as any additional shrapnel (nails, screws or other items included in the bomb), will be violently thrown outward and away from the explosion. When these fragments strike buildings, concrete, masonry, glass and even people, they may fragment even further — and cause even more damage…”[51]

The developments that immediately take place after the explosion are extremely dangerous because of the intensity in the creation of the vacuum and its immediate refill by the surrounding atmosphere. They were described by the author Tom Scheve in the following manner:

At the explosion site, a vacuum is created by the rapid outward movement of the blast. This vacuum will almost immediately refill itself with the surrounding atmosphere. This creates a very strong pull on any nearby person or structural surface after the initial push effect of the blast has been delivered. As this void is refilled, it creates a high-intensity wind that causes fragmented objects, glass and debris to be drawn back in toward the source of the explosion.[52]

It should be pointed out that chemical structure, the explosions, the consumption of the surrounding oxygen, and the vacuum creation, all lead to a number of health hazards.

Health Hazards of Vacuum Bombs

When it explodes, the Vacuum Bomb, “… predominantly affects the pulmonary, cardiovascular, auditory, gastrointestinal, and central nervous systems…”[53]

Moreover, there are a number of internal injuries that are caused by the health hazards of the vacuum bomb explosion. They could be showed as follows:

…”the effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense. Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness.”[54]

In short, Vacuum Bombs are highly dangerous weapons that should be treated as forbidden weapons that should not be dropped on highly populated localities like the Gaza Strip. Despite this, the consecutive Israeli governments have been using these dangerous weapons against the Palestinian civilians since 2006.

Could It Be Genocide?

Al-Dameer, a Palestinian human rights organization, had published on 20 December 2009  “… another paper in Arabic on the increase in the number of babies born in Gaza with birth defects, thought to be the result of radioactive and toxic materials from Operation Cast Lead. The birth defects included incomplete hearts and malformations of the brain…”[55]

The conglomeration of Zionist war crimes caused by the use of forbidden weapons, the colonial siege of the Gaza Strip, the deliberate undernourishment of the Gazan Palestinians to the point of severe hunger, the criminal colonial Israeli policy of denying medical permits and restricting the importation of medicines to Gaza, the policy of shoot to kill at Gaza’s borders with the Zionist entity – all these policies and war crimes might very likely lead to genocide. But what is genocide according to International Law?

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements[56]:

1. • 1. A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”; and
     2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
2. Killing members of the group;
3. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
4. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
5. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
6. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Throughout this research article, we have clearly encountered evidence of war crimes in the first four categories. However, the fifth category has not been so far committed by Israel. So, based on this evidence, the Palestinian civilian authorities can submit a demand to the United Nations relevant bodies to force Israel to become accountable for committing these war crimes.

Israel has violated a number of international laws and has violated a number of UN conventions, and resolutions. Due to American hegemony on the Security Council and the use of the veto power Israel was not held accountable for its violations. The Israelis actually admit these violations but they have a criminal way of looking at them. According to the Israeli violators:

If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries. … International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal molds. Eight years later, it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy.[57]

This is the sick logic of settler colonialists that are armed and supported by Western imperialism. The American imperialists not only do that but they obstruct the work of the Security Council to prevent it from holding Israel accountable for its war crimes. However, this misconduct does not make Israel innocent because its war crimes cannot be hidden, forgotten, permitted or deleted. Israeli war crimes are strongly imprinted in the black annals of human history.

*

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. Zuhair Sabbagh teaches sociology at Birzeit University in the colonized West Bank. He is a resident of Nazareth, Palestine. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Manchester and is author of a number of books and research articles.

Notes

[1] As quoted by Brooks, James “Starve Them; Shoot Them; then Give Them Cancer: An Inquiry into Israel’s use of DIME weaponry in of the Gaza Strip”, Vermonters for a Just Peace, https://vtjp.org, 22-1-2009

[2] Ma’an News, “Palestinian injuries suggest Israel is using chemical weapons in Gaza”, http://www.maannews.net 7-10-2006 and Shaoul, Jean, “Israel used chemical weapons in Lebanon and Gaza”, Centre for Research on Globalization, http://wsws.org, 24-110-2006. As quoted by Brooks, James, “US and Israel targeting DNA in Gaza? The DIME Bomb: Yet another genotoxic weapon”, Media Monitors Network, http://cosmos.ucc.ie, 4-12-2006

[3] Centre for Research on Globalization/Gulf News, “Israel ’is using chemical ammunition’ in Gaza”, http://www.globalresearch.ca, 13-6-2006. As quoted by Brooks, James “US and Israel targeting DNA in Gaza? The DIME Bomb: Yet another genotoxic weapon”, Media Monitors Network, http://cosmos.ucc.ie, 4-12-2006

[4] Brooks, James, “US and Israel targeting DNA in Gaza? The DIME Bomb: Yet another genotoxic weapon”, Media Monitors Network, http://cosmos.ucc.ie, 4-12-2006

[5] Halpin, David, “Are New weapons Being Used in Gaza and Lebanon”, Electronic Intifada, http://electronicintifada.net, 14-8-2006. As quoted by Lightbown, Richard,  “Israel’s Weapons: A Crime on Humanity”, https://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com, 1-5-2011.

[6] Wikipedia,” Dense Inert Metal Explosive”, https://en.wikipedia.org. Accessed 5-12-2020

[7] Brooks, James, op. cit.

[8] Al Baik, Duraid, “Israel ’is using chemical ammunition’ in Gaza”, Centre for Research on Globalization/Gulf News, http://www.globalresearch.ca, 13-6-2006. As quoted by Brooks, James, “US and Israel targeting DNA in Gaza? The DIME Bomb: Yet another genotoxic weapon”, Media Monitors Network, http://cosmos.ucc.ie, 4-12-2006

[9] Halpin, David, Are New Weapons Being Used In Gaza and Lebanon, Electronic Intifada, http://electronicintifada.net, 14-8-2006 and Palestine News Network, Ministry of Health report on toxic Israeli weapons confirmed by Gaza City medical sources, http://www.pnn.ps, 13-7-2006. As quoted by Brooks, James, “US and Israel targeting DNA in Gaza? The DIME Bomb: Yet another genotoxic weapon”, Media Monitors Network, http://cosmos.ucc.ie, 4-12-2006

[10] “Doctors Report Unusual Weapon Used in Gaza”, Pacifica/Free Speech Radio News,  http://www.pacifica.org, 11-7-2006. As quoted by Brooks, James, “US and Israel targeting DNA in Gaza? The DIME Bomb: Yet another genotoxic weapon”, Media Monitors Network, http://cosmos.ucc.ie, 4-12-2006

[11] Ibid.

[12] “Italian TV: Israel used new weapon prototype in Gaza Strip”, Israeli daily Ha’aretz, 10/19/2006 http://www.haaretz.com, 19-10-2006. As quoted by Brooks, James, “US and Israel targeting DNA in Gaza? The DIME Bomb: Yet another genotoxic weapon”, Media Monitors Network, http://cosmos.ucc.ie, 4-12-2006

[13] Kalinich et al, “Embedded Weapons-Grade Tungsten Alloy Shrapnel Rapidly Induces Metastatic High-Grade Rhabdomyosarcomas in F344 Rats”, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 113, Number 6, June 2005, http://www.ehponline.org. As quoted by Brooks, James, “US and Israel targeting DNA in Gaza? The DIME Bomb: Yet another genotoxic weapon”, Media Monitors Network, http://cosmos.ucc.ie, 4-12-2006

[14] Mayo Clinic Staff, “Polycythemia vera”, https://www.mayoclinic.org. Accessed on: 1-1-2021

[15] Lightbown, Richard,  “Israel’s Weapons: A Crime on Humanity”, https://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com, 1-5-2011

[16] Middle East Monitor, “8,515 cancer patients in Gaza “https://www.middleeastmonitor.com, 5-2-2019

[17] Nedaa Alabadla, King-Hadduck, and Kevin, Edward, TEAM FUNDRAISER, “Cancer Patients in the Gaza”, https://www.gofundme.com. ACCESSED 12-12-2020

[18] WHO, “Palestinian cancer patients in Gaza wait months for Israel permits”,  https://www.middleeastmonitor.com, 6-2-2019

[19] Chambers, Jay, “Meet the Flechette – the Deadliest Weapon of World War I?”, https://www.historyandheadlines.com, 22-1-2020

[20] Centaurs in Vietnam, “Rockets”, http://centaursinvietnam.org. Accessed 8-12-2020

[21] Btselem, “Firing of Flechette shell that killed Reuters cameraman violates laws of war”, https://www.btselem.org, 17-4-2008

[22] Sabot Designs LLC, “Flechette Shotgun Amunition”, http://www.sabotdesigns.com. Accessed 8-12-2020

[23] Bartlett, Eva, “Ensuring maximum casualties in Gaza”, The Electronic Intifada, http://electronicintifada.net, 16-3-2009

[24] Bartlett, Eva, “Ensuring maximum casualties in Gaza”, The Electronic Intifada, http://electronicintifada.net, 16-3-2009

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Head, Mike, “US rearms Israel as its war crimes mount in Gaza”, https://www.wsws.org, 31-7-2014

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Di Stefano, Vincent, “And What Rough Beast Slouches Towards Gaza”, https://www.commondreams.org, 25-12-2010

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Chassay, Clancy, “Cut to pieces: the Palestinian family drinking tea in their courtyard”, https://www.theguardian.com, 23-3-2009

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Cook, William A., Now Israel Is Free to Declare Its Innocence before the International Court of Justice”, http://salem-news.com, 15-4-2011

[40] O’Connor, Patrick , “Reports reveal devastation wreaked by Israeli military in Gaza”, https://www.wsws.org, 20-1-2009

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Abunimah, Ali, “Israeli election ad boasts Gaza bombed back to stone ages”, https://electronicintifada.net, 21-1-2019

[45] Weber, Jasmine,  “Palestinian Cultural Center Destroyed by Israeli Military in Recent Attacks”, https://hyperallergic.com, 10-8-2018.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Fay Cashman, Greer, “’Solidarity during war is Israel’s finest hour’”, https://www.jpost.com, 14-1-2009

[48] Wikipedia, “Thermobaric weapon”,  https://en.wikipedia.org. Accessed 9-12-2020

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Andr, David, “MUNITIONS – Thermobaric Munitions and their Medical Effects”, https://jmvh.org. Accessed 4-1-2021

[54] Wikipedia, “Thermobaric weapon”,  https://en.wikipedia.org. Accessed 9-12-2020

[55] Salam, Kawther, “Abortions, Cancer, Diseases and…in Gaza”,  http://www.intifada-palestine.com, 29 December 2009. As quoted by Lightbown, Richard,  “Israel’s Weapons: A Crime on Humanity”, https://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com, 1-5-2011

[56] United Nations, “Genocide”, https://www.un.org, 2-1-2021

[57] “Israel: Transforming International Law by Violating It”, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/4/09. As quoted by Di Stefano, Vincent, “And What Rough Beast Slouches Towards Gaza”, https://www.commondreams.org, 25-12-2010

“Make New Mistakes. Make glorious, amazing mistakes. Make mistakes nobody’s ever made before. Don’t freeze, don’t stop, don’t worry that it isn’t good enough, or it isn’t perfect, whatever it is: art, or love, or work or family or life.

Whatever it is you’re scared of doing, Do it.

Make your mistakes, next year and forever.”

– Neil Gaiman [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

So what was the biggest story of 2020?

I don’t think a lot of our listener audience will disagree with the view that a little coronavirus which goes by the name SARS-CoV-2 could be the star performer in the world’s ‘plaque of the year’ drama!

As it turns out, the germ which is responsible for COVID-19 is replacing all other contenders for the role of Humanity’s number one threat. Not only does this tiny menace get a daily mention in city newspaper’s death toll, we mark the number of people who tested positive.

In fact, for the first time in history, many, many cities and countries are shutting right down, masking themselves, social distancing and eagerly waiting for the magic elixir, the COVID vaccine, to come to their rescue.

Who or what can possibly top that?

The story is about more than citizens of every country getting sick. It has altered how children are educated. It deflated early on the popularity of Donald Trump. It forced nations into debt as they coped with the situation. And in a recent report, according to Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), America’s 651 billionaires combined saw their wealth collectively grow from $1 Trillion from the beginning of the outbreak to roughly $4 Trillion as of December 7, 2020!

On this week’s Global Research News Hour, we are going to take a look, not only at COVID, but how it impacts our lives in so many new ways.

Our first guest, Patrick Henningsen, takes a look at how COVID altered journalism, internet research and shut down our society, while looking ahead to where this will lead us in 2021. A little later, the Global Research News Hour reads a section of Dmitry Orlov’s latest article which assesses where the US has a chance of waging a war.

For our second half hour, Andy Lee Roth joins us for his annual review of Project Censored’s latest publication and a list of the most censored stories of 2020. Following that, the Global Research News Hour mentions a brief assessment of the horrific events on Capitol Hill on Wednesday January 6 in the context of the previous discussions.

Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, occasional co-host of UK Column and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq.

Dmitry Orlov is a Russian-American writer, blogger and geopolitical analyst based in Moscow. He has degrees in Computer Engineering and Linguistics and has worked in the fields of high energy physics, internet commerce, advertising and network security. He is the author of Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects and Shrinking the Technosphere: Getting a Grip on the Technologies that Limit our Autonomy, Self-sufficiency and Freedom. His blog site is cluborlov.com.

Andy Lee Roth, is the Associate Director of Project Censored, a media research program which fosters student development of media literacy and critical thinking skills as applied to news media censorship in the United States.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 301)

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. Neil Gaiman’s Journal: My New Year Wish; journal.neilgaiman.com/2011/12/my-new-year-wish.html

GR Editor’s Note

With regard to the coverage of the Wednesday Capitol Event, Global Research will be publishing opposing and contradictory points of view by several of our authors.

We are dealing with a complex and far-reaching political process. We are at the crossroads of a major political, economic and social crisis which has bearing on the future of the United States. This crisis much be the object of debate and analysis rather than confrontation of opposing political narratives.

***

A highly contested presidential election on November 3 coupled with the outcome of the runoff poll in Georgia which is determining the power relations within the United States Senate, has undoubtedly prompted further desperate acts by the supporters of outgoing President Donald J. Trump.

In Georgia, both Democratic candidates, Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock, won the elections against Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, sending the firsts African American and Jewish American to the Senate from the southern state.

Official results indicate that the elections were extremely close leaving less than one percent differences between the contending candidates. Such a narrow margin of victory was predictable considering the significance of the race to the overall political character of the administrative and legislative branches of the U.S.

The Georgia senatorial race was a focus of attention both nationally and internationally. When the two elected officials are sworn in the composition of the body will be 50-50, divided evenly between Republicans, Democrats and at least one Independent, Bernie Sanders, who typically votes with the Democratic bloc, while running for president twice on the Democratic ticket.

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris would serve as president of the Senate and would be in a position to break any numerical ties over legislation within the structure. With this set of circumstances, many people believe that measures needed to provide relief to millions impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and working families in general, could be adopted. For example, The Heroes’ Act, passed last year by the Democratic-dominated House of Representatives, would allocate much larger stimulus packages for the working class and small business interests.

Legal challenges aimed at defeating voter suppression efforts in Georgia were key to the victories of Ossoff and Warnock. The turnout among African Americans was critical to the defeat of both Republican candidates as they refused to denounce the Trump administration and its attacks on the electoral process in the state, which is administered by officials belonging to the same party as the president.

Two organizations behind the record turnout among African American and other members of the electorate in Georgia were Black Voters Matter (BVM) and the New Georgia Project (NGP). Black Voters Matter was formed in 2016 by Latosha Brown and Cliff Albright who waged a struggle to ensure that African Americans previously stripped from electoral rolls got an opportunity to cast their ballots. (See this and this)

The organization says that it is not an electoral group. They say that BVM is a power-building organization which views the electoral process as one of many mechanisms utilized to build political strength within the African American communities long ignored and disenfranchised.

In addition, BVM notes that the pursuit of political offices is inadequate absent of economic power. The group targets existing organizational structures within the community to promote voter registration and long-term political participation. BVM goes directly into urban, suburban and rural areas to advance its program of political education and empowerment.

2020 was a conjunctural period for African Americans and other oppressed peoples in the U.S. The failure to convict Trump after he was impeached by the House of Representatives emboldened the president and his supporters. The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted the African American and Latin American communities while many were left jobless, without health insurance and facing foreclosure and eviction. During subsequent months, the country erupted in protests and civil unrest against racism and police brutality.

In a recent interview with Latosha Brown, she noted that:

“I think it’s quite simple. I mean, I think the name of my organization says it all. It’s three words: Black Voters Matter. And I think that after we saw a state like Georgia, that had been solid Republican, flip in November, I think it opened up an avenue for people to see what was possible, that it was no longer a question or a debate whether Black voters, in fact, matter. People felt a sense of momentum, that part of that win opened up this space around what would be possible. … We wanted people, we wanted Black voters in particular, to feel a sense of their power and their agency, and in spite of all odds, what we could do in pushing this country forward.” (See this)

Right-wing Zealots Storm Capitol in Washington Attempting to Overturn Presidential Election Results

On the same day that it was announced that Ossoff and Warnock were winners in the Georgia senate races, thousands of supporters of Trump were already in Washington, D.C. in a failed attempt to force the House and Senate to nullify the votes of millions of people across several key states in the U.S. From its inception the rally and march were designed to stifle the democratic process and to literally deny the legitimacy of African American and other members of the electorate.

A rally at the White House addressed by Trump, members of his family and his chief legal representative Rudolph Giuliani, incited the crowd to march on the Capitol. Trump then returned to the White House while his supporters headed to the Capitol breaking through police barricades and storming the building.

The Senate was undergoing what is considered a ceremonial process of certifying the votes of the Electoral College. Soon enough the chambers of the House and Senate were ordered evacuated while neo-fascists agitators broke down doors, assaulted security and law-enforcement personnel, ripped down entrances to Congressional offices and stole federal property.

Four people were reported killed in the melee which lasted for hours. One woman was shot to death reportedly in an attempt to break into the House of Representative chambers. The circumstances involving the other three deaths were not immediately clear and attributed to medical issues.

Many people within progressive communities throughout the country, corporate media anchors and commentators, members of law-enforcement agencies outside the Capitol, former U.S. military officials, among others, asked important questions about events on January 6 in Washington. Where were the Capitol police, federal law-enforcement agencies, the National Guard and intelligence officers who were warned weeks in advance that Trump supporters, many of whom have a propensity for racist and neo-fascist violence, while stating emphatically that they were committed to descending on the nation’s capital to stage a coup against the electorate and members of Congress, when these same groupings attempted to carry out such a putsch?

It has been the reality of U.S. political culture that right-wing racists and neo-fascist groups overlap with law-enforcement. Trump has empowered police agencies across the country to ruthlessly suppress anti-racist demonstrations which swept the U.S. during the last few months in the aftermath of the brutal police and vigilante killings of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and many others. Over two dozen people were killed during the mass demonstrations and rebellions during the spring, summer and fall. Thousands of others were injured and arrested while federal forces were ordered into municipalities throughout the U.S.

Numerous state and federal courts dismissed the false claims of the outgoing Trump administration that the elections were rigged in favor of the Biden-Harris ticket. Nonetheless, the baseless claims of systematic voter fraud are still being perpetuated by Trump and an assortment of right-wing news agencies and social media outlets.

Implications for a Post-Trump U.S. Society

At present it appears as if the attempted coup by the right-wing elements has failed leading up to the inauguration of the incoming administration on January 20. However, the threat of the organized racists and neo-fascists remains while the U.S. is facing the worst public health crisis in more than a century.

The public health crisis has spawned a precipitous economic downturn for millions of working class and oppressed peoples within the U.S. Notwithstanding the performance of the stock markets on Wall Street which are yielding huge profits for the top echelons of the ruling class, many people are left without funds for housing, food, healthcare, and other essentials required in a modern capitalist society.

Of course, the masses of working people and the nationally oppressed will have to organize independently to ensure their future amid the existing calamitous situation. The majority of people in the U.S. cannot rely on the Democratic Party leadership to carry out the necessary reforms needed to stabilize their lives.

Questions related to the pressing basic economic and social needs of the people within a capitalist system are without definitive answers under the status quo. The role of the police, military and intelligence forces in the perpetuation of class exploitation and national oppression cannot be effectively addressed by the incoming administration since the Biden-Harris ticket rejected the demands of the Black Lives Matter Movement in regard to the defunding, dismantling and restructuring of law-enforcement in the U.S.

The only real solution lies within the capacity of the masses to organize in their own interests. There is no future for the majority of people in the U.S. under capitalism. The transformation to a socialist system provides the only possibility for an end to economic exploitation, national oppression, institutional racism, political repression and for the realization of economic justice and social emancipation.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Even though I thought I had answered these questions, smart people whom I respect keep asking if the virus is real.  So here is another stab at answering this.

Yes, the virus is real.  A misleading CDC/FDA document originally written in February but reposted months later stated there was no quantifiable sample of SARS-CoV-2 available.  That is not true.  Here, CDC tells you how they cultured it and how you can get some–as long as your institution satisfies stringent criteria. CDC’s discussion of its culture technique was published in its own journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases.  The artice concludes:

We have deposited information on the SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 viral strain described here into the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research Resources Repository, ATCC and the World Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses, University of Texas Medical Branch, to serve as the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain for the United States. The SARS-CoV-2 fourth passage virus has been sequenced and maintains a nucleotide sequence identical to that of the original clinical strain from the United States. These deposits make this virus strain available to the domestic and international public health, academic, and pharmaceutical sectors for basic research, diagnostic development, antiviral testing, and vaccine development. We hope broad access will expedite countermeasure development and testing and enable a better understanding of the transmissibility and pathogenesis of this novel emerging virus.

This virus has been isolated and fully sequenced 125,000 times in countries around the world, both by poor countries such as Nepal, as well as by richer countries such as South Korea and Australia.

A large number of people who don’t know a lot about viruses, but were cognizant of the nonsense the public is being fed about most other aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic, understandably concluded there was no virus. Perhaps the government agencies that supplied the information from which they drew this conclusion did so cunningly, with the hope to entrap the unwary.

Thankfully, a New Zealand microbiology professor explains what took place as a result of poor wording in requests for information.

Some people still clamour that Koch’s Postulates have not been met wrt SARS-CoV-2–but they were met, as closely as possible, in animal models like the Golden Syrian hamster.  [Why are the Syrians always getting slammed?] You can’t infect a human to test Koch’s postulates, and then publish it, and not be arrested.

What about photomicrographs of SARS-CoV-2?  It turns out that some of the early photographs were misinterpretations by their authors and did NOT, in fact, provide reliable pictures of the virus. See this Correspondence in the Lancet about published photomicrographs that mistook endoplasmic reticulum for virus, for instance.  (Strangely enough, two of the coauthors of the fabricated Lancet paper damning chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were coauthors of a Lancet article and response that got photos of the virus wrong:  Mandeep Mehra and Frank Ruschitzka. They admitted no mistakes either time.)

But it seems that good pictures of the virus have been taken.  For instance, see figure 2 in this paper.

Please look at the links before dismissing the virus.  We have been given misinformation about masks, lockdowns, tests, case numbers, deaths, asymptomatic spread, proper treatment, etc.  But there truly is a mean new virus out there.  It looks like some nasty features were engineered in.

We have vitamins, minerals, and drugs that can effectively manage the infection, particularly when treated early.  I don’t doubt that environmental toxins and electromagnetic fields may increase our susceptibility to infection.  But there truly is a new coronavirus out there.  Our governments and health officials have simply done every single thing wrong to manage it, greatly prolonging and worsening the situation.

*

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 the author’s blog site, Anthrax Vaccine.

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

GR Editor’s Note

With regard to the coverage of the Wednesday Capitol Event, Global Research will be publishing opposing and contradictory points of view by several of our authors.

We are dealing with a complex and far-reaching political process. We are at the crossroads of a major political, economic and social crisis which has bearing on the future of the United States. This crisis must be the object of debate and analysis rather than confrontation of opposing political narratives.

***

“Demagogue: one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), American journalist and essayist, (in ‘Minority Report’, 1956, p. 207).

“Fascism: a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, which is characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.” Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, 2005 p. 32)

[Democracy] “…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth”. Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th President of the United States, 1861-1865, in the Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19, 1863.

On Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the ugly face of fascism in action was seen in Washington D.C., when an unruly pro-Trump mob, incited and inflamed by an angry speech by outgoing President Donald Trump, stormed and rampaged through the U.S. Capitol, in an obvious attempted coup. This marked the lowest point in Mr. Trump’s chaotic presidency, a presidency ending with an attempt to stoke the fires of insurrection in the vain hope of remaining in power.

Let us get some perspective.

Just a few weeks after his inauguration, here is what I wrote about Mr. Donald Trump and about what to expect from his presidency, in an article titled ‘The Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump: A Threat to American Democracy and an Agent of Chaos in the World?:

“When 46.1% of Americans voted for Trump in November (2016) they did not know precisely ‘what they were buying’. They did not expect that the promised ‘change’ the Republican presidential candidate envisioned and promised was going to be, in fact, chaos’ and ‘turmoil’ in the U.S. government.”

President Donald Trump and his administration did turn out to be a threat to American democracy and a source of chaos in the world.

In 2019-20, the U.S. Republican-controlled Senate could have convicted Donald Trump, after the House had impeached him. The numerous examples of abuse of power and of obstruction of justice, which were outlined in the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report were undisputable. But, for obvious partisan expediency, the GOP-controlled Senate chose instead to acquit him in February 2020. In so doing, they shamed themselves in placing their party’s interests above their nation’s interests. It was left to the American electorate to complete the impeachment process of the sitting president, the third time an American president has been impeached, and they did just that on November 3rd 2020.

And presently, in his disgraceful way of leaving office, megalomaniac Donald Trump is as obnoxious and destabilizing as he was when he unexpectedly got into the White House. For weeks now, he has been focusing on trying to overturn Vice President Joe Biden’s election with false voter fraud claims, even though Biden won the popular vote by more than seven million ballots and the Electoral College with a margin of 306-232—a 56,9% majority. This incredible show is now over, and President-elect Joe Biden will be the 46th president of the United States.

During his four-year mandate, President Donald Trump did not rise to the challenge of being the competent head of a democratic state. He has instead attempted to install an autocratic rule in American politics. If he had been reelected for a second term, it’s a sure bet that it would have been impossible to constrain him, and American institutions would have been seriously threatened. That he has not succeeded in his quest for autocratic power is something to be appreciated by anyone who values democracy.

What will Donald Trump the politician be remembered for?

In his last days in office, President Donald Trump has left the U.S. government in a state of semi-paralysis

Just before Christmas 2020, lame duck President Trump decided to play the Grinch. Senate Republicans had reached a compromise with Democratic senators on a $900 billion Relief bill for 14 million American families whose jobless benefits were running out. Seemingly out of pure spite against his fellow Republicans, Trump refused to sign the measure, thus creating a major humanitarian crisis. Then abruptly, after Christmas, he signed the bill, ending the damaging situation he had just created.

All the while, Donald Trump was playing swamp politics in dishing out close to 100 presidential pardons, (94 as of Dec. 25, 2020), to well-connected convicted friends, political allies and relatives, and even to some convicted murderers.

Donald Trump has done more to divide the American people than anyone else in a century and a half

Under Donald Trump, the United States has been weakened and is more polarized than it has been for decades. Such a deep division is fostered by new technologies, which allow people to isolate themselves in their own information universes. But Mr. Trump’s rhetoric of setting one group against another has also intensified such polarization and disintegration.

Donald Trump pushed the American justice system to the extreme by appointing hundreds of far right judges

It has been observed that Donald Trump’s appointees to the bench stand out from other judges for their ultra-conservative views, even compared to those named by other Republican presidents. This could have a lasting effect on the judiciary for generations.

Far from reducing corruption, Donald Trump has intensified it

In 2016, candidate Trump promised to ‘drain the swamp’ of corruption in American politics. Not only did he not fulfill that promise, he made things worse. Some analysts even conclude that he has been the “most corrupt” president in U.S. history.

Faced with the worst pandemic in a century, Donald Trump stumbled

As far as the Trump administration’s management of the Covid-19 crisis is concerned, the most that can be said is that it was not the work of a competent government. The President himself began by denying that there even was a crisis. In his words, it was only a ‘normal flu’. Then, when it became impossible to negate reality, Mr. Trump claimed that the pandemic crises was a ‘hoax’ engineered by the Democrats. Even when a vaccine became available, the vaccination program fell short and was widely criticized.

Donald Trump pushed income and wealth inequalities in the United States to record levels

The Trump administration, through deregulation and huge tax cuts for the rich, has done much to exacerbate income and wealth inequalities in the United States. Official data indicate that income inequality is the highest on record. It’s also higher than in any other advanced economy.

Similarly, the United States has wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed country. Today, wealth ownership in the United States is as heavily concentrated in the hands of a small minority of the population as it has ever been.

The record of the Trump administration’s policies on the environment is dismal

On June 1, 2017, when Donald Trump officially pulled the United States from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, he placed the U.S. government squarely on the wrong side of history. This could be the most irresponsible decision that Mr. Trump made during his term in office. However, President-elect Joe Biden has promised to rejoin the Paris Agreement on the first day of his presidency.

Mr. Trump adopted a host of other measures detrimental to the environment. As of mid-2020, the Trump administration had rolled back 64 environmental rules and regulations.

Trump’s foreign policies have been isolationist, militaristic, destructive and divisive

In international relations, Donald Trump succeeded in antagonizing allies and foes alike. According to Pew Research, the image of the United States under the Trump administration has been tarnished around the world, reaching a record low in 2020.

President Trump unilaterally pulled the United States from major treaties negotiated by previous administrations, most often without consulting Congress or allies: besides the Paris climate change treaty, the Trump administration pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement. It also pulled out of the Inter-Nuclear Forces (INF) arms control treaty with Russia. Mr. Trump often bypassed the United Nations, thus weakening the role of that institution in maintaining peace around the world.

It’s true that a major war against Iran, Venezuela or China has so far been avoided; but through provocations and increased animosity between nations, Donald Trump has sown the seeds for such a major war in the future, especially a war with China over Taiwan.

Donald Trump’s chaotic and scandalous departure from the White House is an attempt to sabotage the incoming Biden presidency

For many weeks, in a display of deranged behavior worthy of a banana republic, and in open violation of his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, President Donald Trump has refused to publicly concede the 2020 election to former Vice President Joe Biden. This undignified and petty attitude has shown how much the man can be mean-spirited and a sore loser.

This was amply demonstrated on January 2, when unbelievably, President Trump openly begged, pressured and threatened Georgia’s secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, into ‘finding him 11,780 votes’ in order to overturn the official electoral result in that state. (N.B.: Mr. Trump initially lost the presidential race in Georgia to President-elect Joe Biden by 11,779 votes; however, the result, after a final recounting, is that he lost by 12,670 votes.)

Such a quixotic request to an official in exercise to cheat and to invent votes was made during an hour-long recorded phone call made by the President, in a mob-style tone, and published by the Washington Post. It was a desperate last-ditch attempt, and possibly also an illegal one, to subvert the electoral process and to strong-arm a change in the outcome of the Nov. 3 election in his favor. Luckily, Mr. Raffensperger didn’t buckle.

U.S. courts have roundly dismissed Trump’s legal challenges to the November election results. His last attempt in the state of Georgia was even seen by most as absurd and a manufactured crisis.

If Donald Trump had intentionally wanted to sabotage and undermine the Biden presidency by not accepting the official results of the November election, he would not have acted differently. In so doing, however, Mr. Trump has created a dangerous precedent. His temper tantrums and his numerous court challenges of the election results have demeaned and done a lot to delegitimize the American electoral process. It has damaged the reputation of the United States around the world, and it has cast a long shadow on the future of American democracy.

On Monday Dec. 28, 2020, even as staunch a supporter of Donald Trump as the New York Post headlined an editorial with a clear message to Donald Trump: “Mr. President… STOP THE INSANITY.

That says it all!

Conclusion

The conclusion is inescapable. President Donald Trump’s legacy is a pile of rubble.

The American people were more than justified in voting Mr. Trump out in November 2020. In 2016, he didn’t really deserve to be elected in the first place, since he received 3 million fewer votes than his democratic rival, Ms. Hillary Clinton.

The pathetic display that Donald Trump demonstrated after his electoral defeat by openly clinging to power indicates that he went into politics not to serve but merely to please his ego. That’s not the type of politician a democracy needs. Probably Donald Trump’s worst political crime has been to promote violence in American politics for his own narrow personal advantage.

If Mr. Trump had known any history, he might have imitated outgoing President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908). Indeed, in the 1888 election, after winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College to Republican Sen. Benjamin Harrison (1833-1901), Cleveland wrote a personal letter to president-elect Harrison “to assure you of my readiness to do all in my power to make your accession to office easy and agreeable.”

Now the damage is done. Donald Trump’s name will forever be associated with demagoguery, violence and anarchy.

*

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.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book “The New American Empire“, and the recent book , in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University.

GR Editor’s Note

With regard to the coverage of the Wednesday Capitol Event, Global Research will be publishing opposing and contradictory points of view by several of our authors.

We are dealing with a complex and far-reaching political process. We are at the crossroads of a major political, economic and social crisis which has bearing on the future of the United States. This crisis must be the object of debate and analysis rather than confrontation of opposing political narratives.

***

A week before 1933 German general elections, a strategically timed Reichstag fire was falsely blamed on communists. 

In response to what happened, President Paul von Hindenburg signed an emergency decree. 

Civil liberties were suspended. Weimar Republic democracy died, and Hitler assumed power after enough Nazis were elected to assure it.

As the saying goes, the rest is history.

The fullness of time will tell what’s unclear now about Wednesday’s Capitol Hill violence while Congress was debating whether or not to certify November’s stolen election for Biden/Harris over Trump.

Make no mistake. The evidence showed that he won. Dem challengers lost, but things didn’t turn out that way.

Was Wednesday’s Capitol Hill riot an orchestrated scheme  to undermine congressional debate to elevate Biden/Harris to power, case closed?

Was what happened Wednesday an American Reichstag fire — a false flag — or an incident staged by over-the-top Trump supporters?

Note the unacceptable aftermath so far.

Twitter locked Trump’s account for 12 hours, threatening permanent blockage if his “offending” tweets aren’t removed.

Its unprecedented action against a head of state — perhaps urged by hostile-to-Trump dark forces — is a flagrant First Amendment right to free expression breach, without which all other rights are threatened.

Voltaire understood, saying: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Will the aftermath of what happened on Capitol Hill Wednesday one day be remembered as the beginning of the end of speech, media and academic freedom in the US?

What Trump tweets did Twitter consider offensive and remove? Here they are, saying:

“I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace. I know you’re in pain. I know you’re hurt.”

“We had an election that was stolen from us.”

“It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side.”

“But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order.”

“We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt.”

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”

“Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Facebook acted in unison with Twitter, removing Trump’s video and blocking him from posting for 24 hours — based on a Big Lie, claiming:

It was for “inciting violence” — polar opposite what Trump said in a videotaped message and tweets.

Instagram — owned by Facebook — responded the same way, instituting a 24-hour ban on postings by Trump.

Three of America’s most popular social media acted in cahoots to unconstitutionally silence Trump short-term, perhaps with longer-term aims in mind for others.

The anti-Trump NYT falsely accused him of “publish(ing) a string of inaccurate and inflammatory messages on a day of violence in the nation’s capital.”

Calls are growing to ban Trump from tweeting permanently. Notably he has 88.7 million followers.

With two weeks remaining in his tenure, over two dozen undemocratic Dems on Wednesday called for impeaching him again for reasons as unjustifiable as a year ago December.

Rep. Illhan Omar tweeted:

“Donald J. Trump should be impeached by the House of Representatives & removed from office by the United States Senate.”

“I am drawing up articles of impeachment.”

“Donald J. Trump should be impeached by the House of Representatives & removed from office by the United States Senate.”

“We can’t allow him to remain in office. It’s a matter of preserving our republic and we need to fulfill our oath (sic).”

Did she unwittingly call for destroying the republic to save it?

Along with Omar, the following House Dems also support impeachment:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Kai Kahele, David Cicilline, Seth Moulton, Jamaal Bowman, Mark Takano, Mondaire Jones, Bonnie Coleman, Earl Blumenauer, Steve Cohen, Pramila Jayapal, and Jennifer Wexton.

Dem Reps. Ted Lieu, Mark Pocan, and others called for invoking the 25th Amendment that states:

“In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.”

The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 states that “(t)he President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Were Trump’s Wednesday tweets and video message against Capitol Hill violence an impeachable offense?

Clearly not! Will he be impeached again with days remaining in his term and become the first sitting US president to be removed from office this way?

John Adams once said that impeaching and removing a US president from office would cause a national convulsion.

Trump impeachment 2.0, if occurs, is highly likely to fail like the year-ago attempt for invented reasons.

What’s most important is the threat of where things may be heading.

Already an increasingly totalitarian police state, will full-blown tyranny follow?

Challenging a US president’s constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression threatens it for all Americans.

Will speech, media, and academic free expression that US ruling authorities find offensive henceforth be declared unlawful?

According to the Constitution, publicly stated views on all issues aren’t impeachable offenses — no matter how extreme, offensive or different from most others in government.

Will that standard be abolished ahead?

Were pro-Trump supporters on Capitol Hill Wednesday infiltrated by disruptive rioters to blame Trump for what happened, smoothing the was for Biden/Harris to assume power unobstructed by a legitimate GOP congressional challenge?

In response to what happened, establishment media blamed Trump and his supporters for attempting to destroy American values.

Unverified reports suggested that anti-Trump elements infiltrated Capitol Hill to incite violence for this purpose.

According to Real Clear Investigations reporter Paul Sperry, an unnamed former FBI special agent texted him to say that at least one “bus load” of anti-Trump elements were sent to Capitol Hill Wednesday as part of a planned false flag that unfolded.

One America News correspondent Jack Posobiec reported what he called eyewitness accounts of anti-government chants by elements, inciting the crowd of at least largely nonviolent Trump supporters.

False flags are a US tradition since the mid-19th century.

9/11 was the mother of them all until events of last year — what I call 9/11 2.0.

Seasonal flu/influenza renamed covid last year and what followed was responsible for economic collapse — the Greatest US Main Street Depression.

It caused unprecedented unemployment, under-employment, food insecurity, hunger, and overall deprivation with no end of it in prospect.

It’s part of a new millennium New World Order Great Reset, aiming to create ruler-serf societies in the US and worldwide if successful.

Trump apparantly was considered an obstacle to what dark forces have in mind so he had to go.

What may have been orchestrated Capitol Hill violence appears to have been the coup de grace to his tenure.

Anti-Trump NYT editors blamed him for Wednesday’s violence.

They falsely accused him of “incit(ing) his followers (sic),” adding:

“There must be consequences (sic)…(He) needs to be held accountable (sic) — through impeachment proceedings or criminal prosecution (sic).”

The Times and other hostile-to-Trump media — along with Dems — ignored the message his tweets and video urging nonviolence, reinventing his remarks.

After Dems Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff were declared winners of Georgia’s US Senate run-off elections — giving the party White House, Senate and House control later this month, Biden said the following:

Wednesday’s Capitol Hill violence “borders on sedition (sic)…It’s not protest (sic). It’s insurrection (sic)” — demand(ing) (Trump) end” what he didn’t incite.

What may have been orchestrated violence on Wednesday perhaps indeed was a coup de grace to make Trump a one-term president.

As of now, it’s virtually certain — even though he legitimately won. Biden/Harris lost.

Yet on January 20, he’ll return to private life after they’re illegitimately inaugurated to replace him.

It’s further evidence of fantasy US democracy, never the real thing from inception.

A Final Comment

Overnight, Election 2020 officially ended after Congress “certified” Biden/Harris’ win (sic).

Over half of Republicans joined with Dems.

Events on Capitol Hill Wednesday shifted uncertainty to there never was any doubt.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

Howard Lichtman joins us today to introduce ThickRedLine.org, an effort to restore respect for law enforcement by abolishing victimless crime.

ThickRedLine seeks to upend the narrative that keeps the public afraid of breaking the unlawful orders of the politicians and prevents officers from following their own conscience.

*

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 a screenshot from the video above

Mike Pence’s Letter on the Issue of Certification

scroll down

COVID-19: “Virus Isolation”. Does the Virus Exist?

By Dr. Saeed A. Qureshi, January 07 2021

This is a controversial issue which has been raised by several prominent scientists. On January 7, 2020 the Chinese authorities “identify a new type of virus” which was “isolated”. The CDC also confirmed that the virus had been isolated. But no specific details were released.

Assange Denied Bail. Campaigning For Freedom and Justice

By May Ayres, January 07 2021

It didn’t take very long to confirm that we are truly in the final stage of a police state. The euphoria on Monday when Assange’s extradition was denied (a wonderful interlude of laughs, smiles and hugs) was short lived.

Video: What No One Is Saying About the Lockdowns

By James Corbett, January 07 2021

If you are advocating for lockdowns, you are complicit in tearing families apart. You are complicit in inflicting untold suffering on millions of people around the world.

9/11 and WTC Building 7: “Good Science” vs “Bad Science” and Propaganda: A Review of “Seven”

By Professor Piers Robinson, January 07 2021

Among the many controversies surrounding the events of 9/11 one of the most prominent has been the question of how, many hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers, the 47-storey WTC7 building suffered a total collapse, all in a matter of seconds.

A Pandemic of Insanity

By Arthur Firstenberg, January 07 2021

We have a pandemic, all right, but it is a pandemic of insanity, not COVID-19. The world — the entire world, not just a few people or a few countries or a few cultures — has forgotten what life is. Life is community.

France Grants Citizenship to Immigrant Essential Workers as Protests Against Racist “Security” Laws Grow

By Danica Jorden, January 07 2021

The new move comes at a time of increasing popular criticism of the government. Beginning two years ago with the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Jackets) fight against new consumer fuel taxes, the movement has grown to embrace protest of two impending laws seen to curtail civil rights.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing and State Surveillance

By Tracy Rosenberg and Ann Garrison, January 07 2021

The US remains wholly incapable of tracing Covid-19 contagion, but if it tried, we might wind up with “the worst of both worlds” – a horror of coercion and confusion that still failed to stop the epidemic.

Qatar and GCC Detente? In the Wake of a Three Year Blockade Imposed by Saudi Arabia

By Andrew Korybko, January 07 2021

The unexpected detente between Qatar and its GCC partners saw the full restoration of political ties between them following the end of the over three-year-long blockade against the peninsular nation, but speculation remain about the future of their reconciliation.

Africa in Review 2020: Anti-Imperialist Perspectives Essential in Understanding the Way Forward

By Abayomi Azikiwe, January 07 2021

One of the most serious attacks on the anti-colonial and national liberation legacy in Africa was the attempts by the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco to liquidate the right to self-determination among the Saharawi people in the Northwest region of the continent.

Debating Maoism in Contemporary China: Reflections on Benjamin I. Schwartz, Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao

By Elizabeth Perry, January 07 2021

The discussion of Xi Jinping’s Maoist tendencies evokes a previous debate, conducted during the Cold War, over the authenticity and import of Maoism itself. Benjamin I. Schwartz introduced the term “Maoism” into the English lexicon in his 1951 book Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao.

---

Visit our Asia Pacific Research website at asia-pacificresearch.com

Providing coverage of the Asia-Pacific Region

***

Notre site Web en français, mondialisation.ca

***

Nuestro sitio web en español, globalizacion.ca

Freie Bürger, die gegen die Tyrannei aufstehen, haben nichts gegen die Machthaber. Sie tun ihnen nichts. Sie kämpfen für eine gerechtere Ordnung, für ihr Recht auf das Leben, auf Freiheit, Frieden und Sicherheit. Wenn nichts mehr hilft, so lautet die Botschaft von Thomas Morus‘ Roman „Utopia“, dann hilft es, die Dinge radikal anders anzugehen. (1) Für den humanistischen Gelehrten war der kleine Inselstaat ein Gegenmodell zur verfallenden Gesellschaft des damaligen Englands. Für den Autor ist eine freiheitliche Gesellschaftsordnung mit freien Menschen das Gegenmodell zur gegenwärtigen totalitären Herrschaftsform der Unfreiheit, Gewalt und Ausbeutung. Diese Zukunftsvision, für die jeder vollsinnige und unverblendete Bürger kämpfen sollte, hatten einige reife Menschen wie Peter Kropotkin und andere freiheitliche Sozialisten bereits vor über 100 Jahren.

Da sie die Gefühlsreaktionen des Menschen aber nur vorausgeahnt und noch nicht erkannt hatten und zudem von autoritär gesinnten Zeitgenossen vehement bekämpft wurden, konnten sie ihre fortschrittlichen Ideen nicht in die Tat umsetzen. Somit ist der Mensch bis heute nicht frei.

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

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

Der Schweizer Dichter und Romanautor Gottfried Keller (1819-1890) drückte es so aus:

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

Albert Camus: Jeder Mensch besitzt einen mehr oder weniger großen Einflussbereich

Der Literatur-Nobelpreisträger Albert Camus (1913-1960), einer der wichtigsten Intellektuellen des 20. Jahrhunderts, äußerte sich kurz nach Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs in einem „Brief an einen Verzweifelten“ zur Rolle des Individuums in einer als hoffnungslos empfundenen Situation. (2) Es sind Gedanken, die Camus’ Aktualität bis in unsere heutigen Tage dokumentieren und zutiefst berühren.

Die nützliche Aufgabe, die der Ratsuchende nach Camus’ Ansicht auch noch nach Ausbruch des Großen Krieges zu erfüllen habe, ist auch eine Aufgabe für jeden einzelnen Menschen in unserer gegenwärtigen Zeit, dem weltweiten Krieg der herrschenden Clique gegen uns Bürger:

„Sie schreiben mir, dass dieser Krieg Sie bedrückt, dass Sie bereit wären zu sterben, dass Sie aber diese weltweite Dummheit nicht ertragen können, diese blutrünstige Feigheit und diese verbrecherische Naivität, die immer noch glaubt, menschliche Probleme könnten mit Blut gelöst werden. Ich lese Ihre Zeilen und verstehe Sie. Ich verstehe Sie, aber ich kann Ihnen nicht mehr folgen, wenn Sie aus dieser Verzweiflung eine Lebensregel machen und sich hinter Ihren Ekel zurückziehen wollen, weil ja doch alles unnütz sei. Denn die Verzweiflung ist ein Gefühl und kein Zustand. Sie können nicht darin verharren. Und das Gefühl muss einer klaren Erkenntnis der Dinge weichen.“ (3)

„(…) Zunächst müssen Sie sich fragen, ob Sie wirklich alles getan haben, um diesen Krieg zu verhindern. (…) Aber ich bin sicher, dass Sie nicht alles getan haben, was nötig war, genauso wenig wie wir alle. Sie haben es nicht verhindern können? Nein, das stimmt nicht. Dieser Krieg war nicht unabwendbar, das wissen Sie. (…) Noch gibt es eine nützliche Aufgabe zu erfüllen.“ (4)

„Sie haben eine Aufgabe, zweifeln Sie nicht daran. Jeder Mensch besitzt einen mehr oder weniger großen Einflussbereich. Er verdankt ihn seinen Mängeln ebenso wie seinen Vorzügen. Aber wie dem auch sei, er ist vorhanden und er kann unmittelbar genutzt werden. Treiben Sie niemanden zum Aufruhr. Man muss mit dem Blut und der Freiheit der anderen schonend umgehen. Aber Sie können zehn, zwanzig, dreißig Menschen davon überzeugen, dass dieser Krieg weder unabwendbar war noch ist, dass noch nicht alle Mittel versucht worden sind, ihm Einhalt zu gebieten, dass man es sagen, es wenn möglich schreiben, es wenn nötig hinausschreien muss! Diese zehn oder dreißig Menschen werden es zehn anderen weitersagen, die es ihrerseits weiterverbreiten. Wenn die Trägheit Sie zurückhält, nun gut, so fangen Sie mit anderen von vorne an.“

Abschließend ermutigt Camus den Ratsuchenden, nicht an der Geschichte zu verzweifeln, in der das Individuum alles vermag:

„Individuen sind es, die uns heute in den Tod schicken. Warum sollte es nicht anderen Individuen gelingen, der Welt den Frieden zu schenken? Nur muss man beginnen, ohne an so große Ziele zu denken. Vergessen Sie nicht, dass der Krieg ebenso sehr mit der Begeisterung derer geführt wird, die ihn wollen, wie mit der Verzweiflung derer, die ihn mit der ganzen Kraft ihrer Seele ablehnen.“ (5)

„Die Internationale“: Auf zum letzten Gefecht!

„Die Internationale“ ist das weltbekannte Kampflied der sozialistischen Arbeiterbewegung, dessen Aufforderung zum letzten Gefecht nach der gewaltsamen Niederschlagung der Pariser Kommune im Mai 1871 an die internationale Arbeiterbewegung erging. (6) Die deutsche Version des ursprünglich französischen Textes von Emil Luckhard (1910) lautet:

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

Nach der Revolte die Menschen frei lassen!

Karl Marx (1818-1883) hat – gestützt auf Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) – die Auffassung vertreten, dass das Bewusstsein des Menschen durch die gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse geprägt wird und hat damit den Menschen auf die Erde zurückgeholt. Seine materialistische Geschichtsauffassung war ein ungeheurer Einbruch in die Gefühlswelt des Menschen. Marx und einige freiheitliche Sozialisten haben begonnen, den Menschen richtig zu sehen – und dieser Mensch hat angefangen, sich mit sich selbst zu befassen. Vorher hat in Schule und Universität die Tendenz vorgeherrscht, dass die Seele des Menschen hier auf dieser Welt bloß eine Prüfung durchmacht und das ewige Leben erst im Himmel beginnt.

Da die Religion mit Angst und Schrecken verbunden ist, glaubt der Mensch, so lange er Angst hat. In der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung hört der Glaube an Götter und übernatürliche Wesen auf. Hat der Mensch mehr Kenntnis über die Natur und mehr Sicherheit, dann wird er ruhiger und hat diese Gefühlsreaktion nicht mehr. Er ist ein anderer: Er hat keine Angst vor dem Leben, vor dem Verhungern oder vor Ausbeutung; er hat Zeit, sich zu entwickeln, zu lesen, wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse zu erfahren und sich Gedanken über die Welt zu machen.

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

Die naturwissenschaftliche Tiefenpsychologie basiert auf diesen Erkenntnissen. Demnach ist der Mensch ein naturgegeben soziales, auf die Gemeinschaft seiner Mitmenschen ausgerichtetes Wesen. Auch hat er eine natürliche Neigung zum Guten, zur Wahrheitserkenntnis und zum Gemeinschaftsleben. Vor diesem Menschen müssen wir keine Angst haben. Er möchte in Freiheit und Frieden leben, ohne Gewalt und Krieg – so wie wir alle.

Den Menschen zur Freiheit führen!

Die Freiheit, die dem Menschen (wieder) gegeben werden soll, weil sie ihm von Natur aus zusteht, ist selbstverständlich nicht die Freiheit, den anderen Menschen auszubeuten und seine sauer verdienten Ersparnisse zu plündern. Das ist die „Freiheit“, die die herrschende Clique im Kapitalismus meint und die den Menschen unwillkürlich korrupt macht. Dem Menschen die Freiheit geben soll heißen, ihm das Recht auf ein menschenwürdiges Leben, auf Gerechtigkeit, Sicherheit und Ruhe geben.

Dieses Prinzip der Freiheit bedeutet, dass jeder arbeitende Mensch weiß, sollte er aus Alters- oder Krankheitsgründen nicht mehr arbeiten können, dass er dann nicht gekündigt wird, sondern genauso weiterleben kann wie bisher: Er bekommt auch künftig den letzten Lohn, behält seine Wohnung und muss nicht in der kommunalen Gemeinschaftsküche oder bei der Kirche um eine Suppe betteln. Sollte er wegen eines Unfalls unverhofft ums Leben kommen, dann wird seine Familie weiterhin versorgt und seine Kinder können eine gute Schule besuchen.

In einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft hat er nicht nur Sicherheit, sondern auch Ruhe. Keine sogenannte Autorität wird sich aufschwingen, um über ihn zu herrschen; es wird keine Gewalt geben, keinen Krieg, keinen Militärdienst, keine Not, kein Irrenhaus, keine Gefängnisse. Die äußere Freiheit wird auch zur inneren Freiheit führen: Der Mensch wird ein anderes Bewusstsein haben, ein anderes Denken, eine andere Beziehung zum Mitmenschen, ein anderes Gefühl zum lieben Gott.

Wie richten wir die neue Gesellschaftsordnung ein? 

Werden wir wieder eine Diktatur errichten und den Menschen zwingen? Oder werden wir an den Menschen glauben, uns mit ihm assoziieren, uns in ihn einfühlen, an ihn appellieren? Er will gut leben mit seinen Kindern und ein Dach über dem Kopf haben. Dieser Mensch wird mittun in einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft, weil das seiner Natur entspricht. Vor ihm müssen wir keine Angst haben. Auch in der Freiheit müssen wir keine Gefahr sehen. Wenn einer nicht willens oder fähig ist, in einer Gemeinschaft mit zu leben, dann wird er von den anderen mitgenommen. Mit den Kranken wird man ebenso fertig werden; sie werden nicht stören. Im Gegenteil, in einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft werden sie gesund.

Lassen wir den Menschen frei und verlangen wir nichts von ihm! Er wird das gerne aufnehmen und sich anders verhalten, weil er eine andere gesellschaftliche Situation vorfindet. Der Mensch kann sich ändern, meinte Marx – und die Tiefenpsychologie bestätigt das. Auch soll er die Freiheit gleich bekommen. Die Kirchen werden nicht zugesperrt wie es die Bolschewisten in Russland getan haben, weil das die Menschen im tiefsten Inneren, in ihrem Glauben, in ihrer Abhängigkeit, in ihrer Angst verletzt. Sie fühlen sich dann in ihrem Gemüt, in ihrer Seele angegriffen und dazu aufgerufen, dagegen zu kämpfen. Man muß den Menschen die Religion nicht nehmen, sondern sie frei lassen und beten lassen. Nicht der Staat entscheidet, sondern der einzelne Mensch und die Gemeinschaft entscheiden. Im gegenwärtigen Prinzip der Gewalt und der Autorität kann sich der Mensch nicht entwickeln.

Einige reife Menschen, die einen gedeckten Tisch hatten, haben erahnt, dass das vorherrschende kapitalistische System nicht richtig ist. Wie viele Nutznießer gibt es in diesem System, die keinen Beitrag leisten zur Aufrechterhaltung der Gemeinschaft. Es waren Peter Kropotkin, Michail Bakunin und noch einige Reiche, die Gelegenheit gehabt haben, sich zu bilden und zu forschen. Doch man wollte es nicht zulassen, dass die freiheitlichen Sozialisten eine Gemeinschaft anstrebten, in der die freie Assoziation vorherrscht, in der jeder Mensch entscheidet, welchen Weg er wählen will, mit wem er sich assoziieren und wie er leben will. Deshalb wurden sie erbittert bekämpft.

In einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft verändert sich das Bewusstsein des Menschen

Karl Marx hatte Recht: Wenn der Mensch die Sicherheit seines Lebens hat, denkt er anders. Er hat andere Gedanken, andere Gefühle und eine andere Beziehung zum Mitmenschen. Der Mensch wird anders, wenn er den gedeckten Tisch hat. Er hat andere Gefühle als der, der in Unsicherheit lebt, ausgebeutet wird, arm ist, Angst vor Hagel und Blitz hat, den Gott ihm schickt, wenn er nicht genug betet. Angst, dass der liebe Gott sein Haus anzündet oder Hagel schickt und das Korn zerschlägt, sodass er verhungert. In seinem ganzen Gefühlsleben und Denken wird er dadurch in Anspruch genommen.

Wenn wir eine Gesellschaft einrichten, in der der Mensch sein Recht auf das Leben hat, dann hat der Mensch ein anderes Bewusstsein. Die Angst im Kapitalismus prägt den Menschen. Ausbeuter und Ausgebeutete sind gleich arm. Die Kirche hält dieses System aufrecht mit Wundermännern, die in Beziehung mit dem lieben Gott stehen und alles ordnen. Wenn wir das kapitalistische System aufgeben und eine Gemeinschaft bilden, wo das nicht in Frage kommt, dann gibt es keine Ausbeuter, keine Kapitalisten, keine Kriege, keine Angst. Dann entwickelt sich ein anderer Mensch.

Es gibt dann auch keine Angst vor der Gottesstrafe und der Hölle und darum auch keine Religion. Der Mensch hat ein anderes Bewusstsein, denkt selbst, vertraut in die eigenen Kräfte, überprüft an der Erfahrung, hat andere Gedanken und Gefühle. Der Kranke wird durch ein anderes gesellschaftliches System gesund und hat eine angstfreie Beziehung zum Mitmenschen. Er kann sich mit ihm solidarisieren, sich ihm anschließen und sich mit ihm auf gleiche Stufe stellen. Der Mensch kann sich entwickeln und ändert sein Verhalten, er wird nicht mehr korrupt wie im kapitalistischen System. Er bildet sich und lernt das Lesen und Schreiben. Er wartet nicht mehr auf das Paradies im Himmel, sondern will es auf Erden haben; er entscheidet selbst, welchen Weg er geht.

In Russland, in Kuba und im ehemaligen Jugoslawien mit einer einstmals sehr hohen Analphabeten-Rate haben die alten Menschen Lesen und Schreiben gelernt. Papier haben sie noch nicht gehabt, deshalb haben sie die Buchstaben im Schnee oder Sand geübt.

*

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. paed. Rudolf Hänsel ist Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe.

Noten

1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/die-utopie-als-politisches-mittel-in-…en-nicht-in-passivitat-und-resignation-zu-versinken/5709995; https://www.globalresearch.ca/utopia-political-means-not-sinking-passivity-resignation-social-crisis/5709993; http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26733&css

2. Marin, L. (Hrsg.) (2013). Albert Camus – Libertäre Schriften (1948-1960). Hamburg

3. a.O., S. 271

4. a.O., S. 272

5. a.O., S. 273

6. https://www.globalresearch.ca/reflections-secret-agenda-elite-roleus-citizens/5709112; https://www.globalresearch.ca/uberlegungen-zur-heimlichen-agenda-,,,-sogenannten-elite-und-zur-rollevon-uns-burgern/5709117; http://nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26716&css

It didn’t take very long to confirm that we are truly in the final stage of a police state.

The euphoria on Monday when Assange’s extradition was denied (a wonderful interlude of laughs, smiles and hugs) was short lived. I confess that I was sceptical of the premature celebrations then, as were many others. Craig Murray was convinced that bail would be granted.

Wishful thinking. Today witnessed the true betrayal. Assange denied bail. This, if you thought about it, was the obvious outcome. They cannot let Assange survive. They are out to destroy him. He is the head of the snake as far as ‘they’ are concerned. He being the most powerful voice railing against government crimes.

Unfortunately I was arrested and dragged away before the official announcement that Assange has been denied bail, was delivered to the presstitute press, so I still do not know the official reasoning behind this verdict.

The “presstitutes” were allowed to clump together whilst the Julian Assange supporters were targeted, intimidated and arrested. This included Eric, at 92yrs still campaigning for freedom and justice. He was surrounded by cops but the cameras and witnesses to his intimidation was too much for the cops. They had to back off. Apparently, he was given a lift home, all charges dropped.

I have been charged with breaking covid rules. But I really don’t care at the moment, what this all means. I just feel disgust at what is going on.

It is horrifying what is happening. But if the people really cannot see what is happening then it is difficult to keep even a shred of optimism that common sense and our collective humanity will win over this tyranny.

The recent voices from Palestine does not lift any optimism that justice will prevail. But what is the alternative? To give up, to bow to this tyranny or to keep fighting?

*

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 riacale/flickr/cc

Note to our readers. This is a satire focussing on the “mysterious monoliths” which according to NASA is “paving the way for a full scale Alien invasion.” 

***

A recent CBC article, reported that another one of those mysterious monoliths appeared on New Year’s Eve in Toronto on the shore of Lake Ontario.

It made me ponder whether these twelve-foot-tall, low-budget “crop circles” are the harbingers of a new attempt at tyrannical fear-mongering.

Screenshot CTV News

Indeed, I would not be surprised if Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took to the airways with the following  message:

“I know we did our best to scare you with COVID-19. Sadly, the fact almost nobody knows anybody (under the age of 75) who died from this common cold virus really took away the fear-factor.

“So we are now working hard to scare you with stories of a new, more virulent mutation. But, quite frankly, I know we’ve called COVID a few too many times… So let’s forget about pandemics. Let us have a shot at another new normal scenario. I promise, this will really scare you into utter and complete submission.

“NASA has examined these monoliths appearing around the world and has determined they are paving the way for a full-scale alien invasion. Scientists assure us that these are not Steven Spielberg’s E.T. Instead, think Ridley Scott’s Aliens.

“Microscopic eggs from this reptilian race have already infested the world’s food supply. The WHO estimates 3.4% of people already harbour an alien fetus in their stomach, ready to burst forth and devour its host and all those within six feet. For this reason, we strongly urge social distancing more than ever.

“These body hatchers are believed to thrive on oxygen. Henceforth, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer is now recommending that all masks be made of hermetically sealed solid plastic (that allows minimal air flow through a cluster of microscopic pinholes).

We just can’t risk letting you breathe more than the barest amount of oxygen necessary to enable you to continue watching television.

“Furthermore, scientists have determined that water strengthens these extraterrestrial parasites. It is now your civic duty to avoid all forms of bathing and to only drink dehydrating coffee, soda and alcohol. For this reason, municipal water plants will be going into shutdown for the next twenty-eight days. In order to stay clean you need only rub your entire body with a Health Canada approved sanitizer (they’re not just for you hands!).

“In addition to oxygen and hydration, scientist also believe these gastrointestinal invaders survive off the very food you eat. For this reason, we now declare grocery stores as no longer an ‘essential’ business. They, too, will be closed for the next twenty-eight days —or as long as we deem necessary — to starve out this Martian parasite.

“While hunger may be more uncomfortable than wearing a mask, again we ask you not to be selfish. Think of those around who would be devoured when the alien predator inside you breaks through and begins hunting down the sick and elderly who are too slow to outrun it.

“You also probably have no money left anyway, after all those  lockdowns. So by not eating for the next twenty-eight days, you’ll be doing your part to stop food banks from becoming overrun.

“As a last resort, we are already pumping trillions of dollars into building underground bunkers. At a preplanned time, which we won’t reveal until the very last moment, we will herd all of you into these subterranean chambers and seal the airtight doors. Our top eugenicists believe that complete oxygen starvation may be the only way to eliminate this invisible enemy.”

Of course, they would never do that, would they? And, even if they did, nobody would fall for that one. Or would they?

*

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.

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, as well as naturopaths, chiropractors and Ayurvedic physicians. He publishes the COVID-19(84) Red Pill Briefs – an email-based newsletter dedicated to preventing the governments of the world from using an exaggerated pandemic as an excuse to violate our freedom, health, privacy, livelihood and humanity. He is also writing a novel, Brave New Normal: A Dystopian Love Story. Visit his website at: MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

I fully expect that Julian will be released on bail this week, pending a possible US appeal against the blocking of his extradition.

There was discussion of when and how to make the bail application on Monday, after magistrate Vanessa Baraitser announced her decision not to grant extradition as it would be oppressive on health and welfare grounds. Lead Defence QC Edward Fitzgerald was prepared to make an immediate application for release on bail, but was strongly steered by Baraitser towards waiting a couple of days until he could have the full bail application ready in good order with all the supporting documentation.

I had the strong impression that Baraitser was minded to grant bail and wanted the decision to be fireproof. I have spoken to two others who were in court who formed the same impression. Indeed, in the past, she has more than once indicated that she will reject a bail application before one has been made. I can think of no reason why she would steer Fitzgerald so strongly to delay the application if there were not a very strong chance she would grant it. She gave him the advice and then adjourned the court for 45 minutes so Fitzgerald and Gareth Peirce could discuss it with Julian, and on return they took her advice. If she were simply going to refuse the bail application, there was no reason for her not to get it over with quickly there and then.

Fitzgerald briefly made the point that Assange now had very little incentive to abscond, as there had never been a successful appeal against a refusal to extradite on medical grounds. Indeed it is very difficult to see how an appeal can be successful. The magistrate is the sole determinant of fact in the case. She has heard the evidence, and her view of the facts of Assange’s medical condition and the facts of conditions in American supermax prisons cannot be overturned. Nor can any new evidence be introduced. The appeal has rather to find that, given the facts, Baraitser made an error in law, and it is difficult to see the argument.

I am not sure that at this stage the High Court would accept a new guarantee from the USA that Assange would not be kept in isolation or in a Supermax prison; that would be contrary to the affidavit from Assistant Secretary of State Kromberg and thus would probably be ruled to amount to new evidence. Not to mention that Baraitser heard other evidence that such assurances had been received in the case of Abu Hamza, but had been broken. Hamza is not only kept in total isolation, but as a man with no hands he is deprived of prosthetics that would enable him to brush his teeth, and he has no means of cutting his nails nor assistance to do so, and cannot effectively wipe himself in the toilet.

Not only is it hard to see the point of law on which the USA could launch an appeal, it is far from plain that they have a motive to do so. Baraitser agreed with all the substantive points of argument put forward by the US government. She stated that there was no bar on extradition from the UK for political offences; she agreed that publication of national security material did constitute an offence in the USA under the Espionage Act and would do so in the UK under the Official Secrets Act, with no public interest defence in either jurisdiction; she agreed that encouraging a source to leak classified information is a crime; she agreed Wikileaks’ publications had put lives at risk.

On all of these points she dismissed virtually without comment all the defence arguments and evidence. As a US Justice Department spokesman said yesterday:

“While we are extremely disappointed in the court’s ultimate decision, we are gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised. In particular, the court rejected all of Mr Assange’s arguments regarding political motivation, political offence, fair trial, and freedom of speech. We will continue to seek Mr Assange’s extradition to the United States.” That is a fair categorisation of what happened.

Appealing a verdict that is such a good result for the United States does not necessarily make sense for the Justice Department. Edward Fitzgerald explained to me yesterday that, if the USA appeals the decision on the health and prison condition grounds, it becomes open to the defence to counter-appeal on all the other grounds, which would be very desirable indeed given the stark implications of Baraitser’s ruling for media freedom. I have always believed that Baraitser would rule as she did on the substantial points, but I have always also believed that those extreme security state arguments would never survive the scrutiny of better judges in a higher court. Unlike the health ruling, the dispute over Baraitser’s judgement on all the other points does come down to classic errors in law which can successfully be argued on appeal.

If the USA does appeal the judgement, it is far more likely that not only will the health grounds be upheld, but also that Baraitser’s positions on extradition for political offences and freedom of the media will be overturned, than it is likely that the US will achieve extradition. They have fourteen days in which to lodge the appeal – now thirteen.

An appeal result is in short likely to be humiliating for the USA. It would be much wiser for the US to let sleeping dogs lie. But pride and the wound to the US sense of omnipotence and exceptionalism may drive them to an appeal which, for the reasons given above, I would actually welcome provided Julian is out on bail. Which I expect he shall be shortly.

More analysis of Baraitser’s judgment will follow.

*

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.

The government of France has decided to recognize the contributions of essential workers from other countries working within its borders during the pandemic by offering them French citizenship. On 22 December 2020, the day of the announcement, 74 immigrants were naturalized and 693 were in line to receive their papers. So far, 2890 requests have been received.

“Health professionals, cleaning women, childcare workers, cashiers, etc., have proven their commitment to the nation. It is now up to the Republic to take a step in their direction,” reads the government’s press release.

The new move comes at a time of increasing popular criticism of the government. Beginning two years ago with the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Jackets) fight against new consumer fuel taxes, the movement has grown to embrace protest of two impending laws seen to curtail civil rights: an anti-Islamist “Separatism” bill and the “Global Security” bill.

The two bills introduced this month do not name their targets outright but governmental explanations make their objectives abundantly clear. The “separatism” bill was suddenly retitled as the “law affirming the values of the Republic”, with Prime Minister Jean Castex clarifying that the bill “is aimed at the pernicious ideology known as radical Islamism.” The law stipulates mandatory schooling from the age of 3 to hinder private Islamic academies, and reinforces measures against Islamic face covering, absurdly at a time when failing to wear a Covid mask, even outside, results in hefty fines.

The “global security” bill has provoked the ire of the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet. Bachelet objects particularly to the bill’s Article 24, which criminalizes recording and sharing images of the police.

Photographing the use of force has been crucial in exposing police abuses of people of colour. Just last month, a brutal pre-dawn raid tore down an impromptu tent city at the Stade de France stadium northeast of Paris where Afghan, Somali and Sudanese refugees, including children, had been sleeping rough. Days later, a smaller encampment on Paris’ Place de la République, frequent site of progressive protests, was more easily videotaped, revealing officers hurling tents with people still inside.

On November 27, video shot from above recorded the violent, racially-fueled beating by four police officers of Michel Zecler, a Black Frenchman who was entering his own music studio at the time. Zecler was charged with assaulting an officer but video showing him to have not resisted vindicated the music producer. Zecler says he has sustained permanent injuries.

Right-wing leader Marine Le Pen opposes removing Article 24 from the new security law. “The State has lost control,” she asserted before adding ominously, “and when a state loses control, it puts its compatriots in danger.” Her use of the term “compatriots” is significant.

When France conquered and colonized Algeria between 1830 and 1962, Algerians were not considered citizens in their own homeland, and French colonists, called “pieds noirs” or “black feet”, were never required to adopt North African customs, even after successive generations were born in Algeria. A French, and Catholic, educational system was instituted, and close relationships were forged as native Algerians fought in France’s army and emigrated to provide manpower for French industry in the post-war years.

“Citizenship” comports legal rights whereas “compatriotism” implies a shared identity. When Le Pen refers to “compatriots”, she is signalling a “fraternité” that transcends citizenship, and excludes citizens, residents and immigrants on a racial basis. Whereas France sought a French Algeria and a “Françafrique” (France-Africa) in the last century, its institutions continue to reject the plurinational state that results.

*

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.

The unexpected detente between Qatar and its GCC partners saw the full restoration of political ties between them following the end of the over three-year-long blockade against the peninsular nation, but speculation remain about the future of their reconciliation considering the unresolved issue of Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and the UAE’s reported umbrage with Saudi Arabia’s decision to go through with all of this despite the uncertainties, though the arrangement will likely survive even if only because its optics serve every involved parties’ interests for the time being at least.

“Whenever the government of the United States shall break up, it will probably be in consequence of a false direction having been given to public opinion. This is the weak point of our defences, and the part to which the enemies of the system will direct all their attacks. Opinion can be so perverted as to cause the false to seem true; the enemy, a friend, and the friend, an enemy; the best interests of the nation to appear insignificant, and trifles of moment; in a word, the right the wrong, and the wrong, the right. In a country where opinion has sway, to seize upon it, is to seize upon power. As it is a rule of humanity that the upright and well-intentioned are comparatively passive, while the designing, dishonest and selfish are the most untiring in their efforts, the danger of public opinion’s getting a false direction is four-fold, since few men think for themselves.” – James Fenimore Cooper (The American Democrat 1838)

***

I think it is evident to most by now that the United States is presently undergoing a crisis that could become a full-blown second civil war.

Some might be wondering, is it really so bad that the U.S. could possibly collapse in the not-so-distant future? After all, isn’t it acting like the worst of empires? Isn’t it wreaking havoc on the world today? Is it not a good thing that it collapse internally and spare the world from further wars?

It is true that the U.S. is presently acting more like a terrible empire than a republic based on liberty and freedom. It may even be the case that the world is spared for a time from further war and tyranny, if the U.S. were to collapse. However, this is unlikely and it most certainly would be only temporary, since the U.S. is not the source of such monstrosities but rather is merely its instrument.

This paper will go not only through why this is the case and but will also analyze Russia’s historical relationship to the U.S. in context to its recognition of this very fact.

The Great Liberators

In 1861, the Emancipation Edict was passed and successfully carried out by Czar Alexander II that would result in the freeing of over 23 million serfs. This was by no means a simple task and met much resistance, requiring an amazing degree of statesmanship to see it through. In a speech made by Czar Alexander II to the Marshalls of Nobility in 1856 he stated:

“You can yourself understand that the present order of owning souls cannot remain unchanged. It is better to abolish serfdom from above, than to wait for that time when it starts to abolish itself from below. I ask you to think about the best way to carry this out.”

The success of this edict would go down in history as one of the greatest accomplishments for human freedom and Czar Alexander II became known as the ‘Great Liberator’, for which he was beloved around the world.

Shortly after, in 1863, President Lincoln would pass the Emancipation Proclamation which declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.” There is astonishingly a great deal of cynicism surrounding this today. It is thought that because Lincoln did not announce this at the beginning of the war it somehow was never genuine. However, Lincoln was always for the abolishment of slavery and the reason for his delay was due to the country being so at odds with itself that it was willing to break into pieces over the subject, an intent that Lincoln rightfully opposed and had to navigate through.

Former slave and Lincoln ally, Frederick Douglass, though himself frustrated with the delay to equal rights, understood after meeting and discussing his concerns with Lincoln that the preservation of the country came first, stating:

“It was a great thing to achieve American independence when we numbered three millions [slaves], but it was a greater thing to save this country from dismemberment and ruin when it numbered thirty millions. He alone of all our presidents was to have the opportunity to destroy slavery, and to lift into manhood millions of his countrymen hitherto held as chattels and numbered with the beasts of the field.”

For more on the Lincoln-Douglass story refer to my paper.

In addition, there are many speeches Lincoln gave while he was a lawyer, where he most clearly and transparently spoke out against slavery. In a speech at Peoria, Illinois (Oct 16, 1854), 7 years before he would become president, Lincoln stated:

“This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men among ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principle of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.”

During the civil war lord Robert Cecil (later called the Marquess of Salisbury and three-time Prime Minister of Britain) expressed his viewpoint on the matter in the British Parliament:

“The Northern States of America never can be our sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.” [emphasis added]

By 1840, cotton made up more than half of American exports. More than 75% of slave cotton was exported to Britain. American slave cotton was the centerpiece of the British Empire’s world cheap-labor system.

The autumn of 1862 would mark the first critical phase of the Civil War. Lincoln sent an urgent letter to the Russian Foreign Minister Gorchakov, informing him that France was ready to intervene militarily and was awaiting England. The salvation of the Union thus rested solely on Russia’s decision to act.

The Foreign Minister Gorchakov wrote in response to Lincoln’s plea:

“You know that the government of United States has few friends among the Powers. England rejoices over what is happening to you; she longs and prays for your overthrow. France is less actively hostile; her interests would be less affected by the result; but she is not unwilling to see it. She is not your friend. Your situation is getting worse and worse. The chances of preserving the Union are growing more desperate. Can nothing be done to stop this dreadful war? The hope of reunion is growing less and less, and I wish to impress upon your government that the separation, which I fear must come, will be considered by Russia as one of the greatest misfortunes. Russia alone, has stood by you from the first, and will continue to stand by you. We are very, very anxious that some means should be adopted–that any course should be pursued–which will prevent the division which now seems inevitable. One separation will be followed by another; you will break into fragments.”

Russia’s proclaimed support in its letters to Lincoln would be put to the test during the summer of 1863. By then, the South’s invasion of the North had failed at Gettysburg and the violent anti-war New York draft riots also failed and Britain, as a result, was thinking of a direct military intervention with the backing of France. What would follow marks one of the greatest displays of support for another country’s sovereignty to ever occur in modern history.

The Russian Navy arrived on both the east and west coastlines of the United States late September and early October 1863.

The timing was highly coordinated due to intelligence reports of when Britain and France were intending their military action. The Russian navy would stay along the US coastline in support of the Union for 7 months! They never intervened in the American civil war but rather remained in its waters at the behest of Lincoln in the case of a foreign power’s interference.

If Russia had not done this, Britain and France would most certainly have intervened on behalf of the Confederate states as they made clear they would, and the United States would have most certainly broken in two at that point. It was Russia’s direct naval support that allowed the United States to remain whole.

Czar Alexander II, who held sole power to declare war for Russia, stated in an interview to the American banker Wharton Barker on Aug. 17, 1879 (Published in The Independent March 24, 1904):

“In the Autumn of 1862, the governments of France and Great Britain proposed to Russia, in a formal but not in an official way, the joint recognition by European powers of the independence of the Confederate States of America. My immediate answer was: `I will not cooperate in such action; and I will not acquiesce. On the contrary, I shall accept the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States by France and Great Britain as a casus belli for Russia. And in order that the governments of France and Great Britain may understand that this is no idle threat; I will send a Pacific fleet to San Francisco and an Atlantic fleet to New York.

…All this I did because of love for my own dear Russia, rather than for love of the American Republic. I acted thus because I understood that Russia would have a more serious task to perform if the American Republic, with advanced industrial development were broken up and Great Britain should be left in control of most branches of modern industrial development.” [emphasis added]

What was Czar Alexander II referring to exactly when mentioning the advanced industrial development of the American Republic? Well, in short he was referring to the Hamiltonian system of economics. Notably, Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 Report on the Usefulness of the Manufactories in Relation to Trade and Agriculture which was published in St. Petersburg in 1807, sponsored by Russian Minister of Finance D.A. Guryev.

It was Hamilton who pioneered a new system of political economy coming out of the war of Independence which saw America bankrupt, undeveloped, and agrarian. Hamilton solved this problem by federalizing the state debts and converting it into productive credit, channelled by national banks into large scale internal improvements with a focus on the growth of manufacturing. Anyone wishing to learn more about this should read Anton Chaitkin’s recent publication Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress.

In the introduction to the translated Hamilton pamphlet, Russian educator V. Malinovsky wrote:

“The similarity of American United Provinces with Russia appears both in the expanse of the land, climate and natural conditions, in the size of population disproportionate to the space, and in the general youthfulness of various generally useful institutions; therefore all the rules, remarks and means proposed here are suitable for our country.”

This “American system” was what Tsar Alexander II recognised as the only economic system to have successfully challenged the system of empire, which he recognized as the root of all slavery. The ineffective and ultimately costly labour of slaves was no match for competing against a machine tool industry to which Frederick Douglass attested. The construction of rail that was made possible through the development of this machine tool industry is what freed countries from Britain’s maritime supremacy.

The “American System”

In 1842, Czar Nicholas I hired American engineer George Washington Whistler to oversee the building of the Saint Petersburg-Moscow Railway, Russia’s first large-scale railroad. In the 1860s, Henry C. Carey’s economics would be promoted in St. Petersburg’s university education, organised by US Ambassador to Russia Cassius Clay. Carey was a leading economic advisor to Lincoln and leading Hamiltonian of his age.

Sergei Witte, who worked as Russian Minister of Finance from 1889-1891 and later became Prime Minister in 1905, would publish in 1889 the incredibly influential paper titled “National Savings and Friedrich List” which resulted in a new customs law for Russia in 1891 and resulted in an exponential growth increase in Russia’s economy. Friedrich List publicly attributed his influence in economics to Alexander Hamilton.

Lincoln’s Pacific Railroad superintendent, General Grenville Dodge, advised Russia on its Trans-Siberia railroad, built with Pennsylvania steel and locomotives from 1890-1905.

In his 1890 budget report, Sergei Witte- echoing the Belt and Road Initiative unfolding today, wrote:

“The railroad is like a leaven, which creates a cultural fermentation among the population. Even if it passed through an absolutely wild people along its way, it would raise them in a short time to the level requisite for its operation.”

Sergei Witte was explicit of his following of the American model of political economy when he described his re-organization of the Russian railways saying:

“Faced by a serious shortage of locomotives, I invented and applied the traffic system which had long been in practice in the United States and which is now known as the “American system.”

By 1906, Czar Nicholas II of Russia supported the plan for the American-Russian Bering Strait tunnel, officially approving a team of American engineers to conduct a feasibility study.

Russia would complete the trans-Siberian railway in 1905 under the leadership of “American System” follower Count Sergei Witte. On its maiden voyage the Trans-Siberian rail saw Philadelphia-made train cars run across the Russian heartland, and it is no accident that all of the key players involved in the Alaska purchase were also involved in the Russian continental rail program on both sides of the ocean.

Bismarck’s Zollverein

In 1876 Henry C. Carey organized the centennial exhibition where 10 million people from 37 countries came to Philadelphia to see the achievements of the United States in its advancements in machine tool industry, which propelled their economy to the first in the world.

Only three years later, Otto von Bismarck broke Germany’s free trade system implementing an American style tariff policy for his nation. The kinship between Germany and the United States became so strong at this time that Otto von Bismarck’s speech in the parliament (1879) was quoted by McKinley on the floor in US Congress:

“A success of the United States in material development is the most illustrious of modern time. The American nation has not only successfully born and suppressed the most gigantic and expensive war of all history, but immediately afterward disbanded its army, found employment for all its soldiers and marines, paid off most of its debt, given labour and homes to all the unemployed in Europe as fast as they could arrive within its territory and still by a system of taxation so indirect as not to be perceived, much less felt… Because it is my deliberate judgement that the prosperity of America is mainly due to its protective laws, I urge that Germany has now reached that point, where it is necessary to imitate the tariff system of the United States.”

Otto von Bismarck was heavily organising for the building of the Berlin to Baghdad railway, which after much resistance and delay would only be completed in 1940. If this has been accomplished during Otto von Bismarck’s life, the Middle East could have avoided the Sykes Picot carving up.

In 1869, Japanese modernizers working directly with the Lincoln-Carey strategists ran the Meiji Restoration which industrialized Japan.

In the 1880s and 90s, Lincoln-Carey Philadelphia industrialists were contracted for huge infrastructure and nation-building projects in China. Hawaiian Christian missionary Frank Damon, having participated in the Carey group’s strategies at a very high level, helped instigate, shape, and build the Sun Yat-sen organization that gave birth to modern China.

Sun Yat-sen referred to his admiration of Lincoln’s USA as the basis for a new multipolar system saying:

“The world has been greatly benefited by the development of America as an industrial and a commercial Nation. So a developed China with her four hundred millions of population, will be another New World in the economic sense. The nations which will take part in this development will reap immense advantages. Furthermore, international cooperation of this kind cannot but help to strengthen the Brotherhood of Man.”

How Did We End Up Where We Are Today?

With such a glorious outlay of cooperation and common interests across the globe united against an economic system of empire, it begs the obvious question “What went wrong? How did we end up where we are today?”

To give one a quick glimpse into the reason why, let us look at some of the major assassinations and soft-coups from the late 19^th century and early 20^th century of American system proponents (refer to the image below).

Henry C. Carey stated it best when he described the situation as such, in his “Harmony of Interests” (1851):

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

We have yet to conclude the victor between these two opposing systems, the fight is not over and we would be foolish to give up at the finishing line. What we do today will decide the course of things in the future, and whether we live under a true recognition of freedom and prosperity, or whether we are ruled-over and our liberties treated as “privilege,” that can be given or taken based on the judgement of a ruling class, remains to be seen.

Thus, let us hearken to the words of Lincoln, who in a debate with the slave power’s champion Stephen Douglas, said:

“That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.”

*

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.

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).

All images in this article are from SCF

History, while not always a telling guide, can be useful.  But in moments of flushed confidence, it is not consulted and Cleo is forgotten.  A crisp new dawn can negate a glance to the past.  Having received the unexpected news that Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States for charges of breaching the Espionage Act of 1917 and computer intrusion had been blocked by Justice Vanessa Baraitser, his legal team and supporters were confident. All that was left was to apply for bail, see Assange safely to the arms of his family, and await the next move by wounded US authorities.

Former UK ambassador Craig Murray, human rights activist and veteran reporter on the Assange case, was initially buoyant in his column.  “I fully expect Julian will be released on bail this week, pending a possible US appeal against the blocking of his extradition.”  He further got “the strong impression that Baraitser was minded to grant bail and wanted the decision to be fireproof.”

That fireproofing never came.  On Wednesday, January 6, the application for bail by Assange’s legal team was rejected.  Counsel for the US government, Clair Dobbin, built the prosecution’s case around the strong possibility that the publisher might flee the clutches of UK authorities even as the US was gathering its wits for an appeal to the High Court.  “His history shows he will go to any lengths to get away.”

Forums would welcome this disreputable character: Mexico, for instance, had offered to “protect Assange with political asylum.”  The defence might well say that he would not flee due to poor health, but could they be sure?  A “flight risk” had little to do with mental wellbeing.  Remember, she pressed, what he did during the Swedish proceedings, how he “ruthlessly” breached the trust of those who fronted the bail money. Those who had offered surety for him, such as the Duchess of Beaufort, Tracy Worcester, had also failed in ensuring that Assange presented in court in 2012.  Beware, warned Dobbin, of sinister networks of operatives he could call upon to aid him vanish.  WikiLeaks had, after all, facilitated the escape of Edward Snowden.

Dobbin’s tone and manner – gloomy and Presbyterian, as Murray described it – was all judgment.  She insisted to the court that, “any idea that moral or principled reasons would bear on Mr Assange’s conscience turned out to be ill-founded indeed.”  And she had much to go on, as Baraitser’s own judgment had essentially accepted virtually everything the prosecution had submitted bar grounds of mental health and the risk posed to him in US prison facilities.

As for the basis of whether an appeal would succeed, Dobbin was convinced the prosecution were onto something.  The judge, she respectfully submitted, had erred on a point of law in applying the incorrect test on the prison conditions awaiting Assange.  The test was not whether measures taken by US prison authorities would make suicide impossible; the only issue was for authorities to put measures in place to lessen its prospects.  Reprising her role in attacking various defence witnesses who had put together a picture of grotesque danger awaiting Assange, including the ADX supermax prison in Colorado, Dobbin was convinced that the US system stood the test.

Sidestepping the defence evidence on this, more thorough than anything supplied by the likes of US Assistant US Attorney Gordon Kromberg during the trial, Dobbin argued that no thorough assessment of the facilities for treatment and prison conditions had taken place.

Baraitser proved accommodating to Dobbin’s whipping submission.  “Notwithstanding the package offered by the defence, I am satisfied he might abscond.”  Having discharged Assange, she promptly repudiated her own ruling in a fit of Dickensian jurisprudence.  “The history of this case is well known…  Assange skipped bail and remained in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition to the US.”  Assange would remain in Belmarsh prison pending the US appeal.

In her Monday judgment, Baraitser had acknowledged the signs of potential suicide shown by Assange during his stay in Belmarsh.  The prison adjudication report confirmed that, on May 5, 2019 “during a routine search of the cell solely occupied by Mr Assange, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear, a prison officer found ‘half a razor blade’.”  Baraitser even went so far as to accept, based on the assessment of defence witness Professor Michael Kopelman, that the finding of the razor was not merely a “disciplinary infraction” but one of the “very many factors indicating Mr Assange’s depression and risk of suicide.”

On Wednesday, her tune was indifferent to the consequences of sending Assange back to a maximum security prison stocked with Britain’s most notorious inmates.  Continuing her long spell of denial on the seriousness of COVID-19 in the UK prison system, she swatted the submission by defence counsel Edward Fitzgerald QC that there had been 59 cases specific to Belmarsh before Christmas and that the prison remained locked down.  Dobbin demurred on this point, showing an email sent by prison authorities at 10.49 pm the previous night claiming that only 3 positive tests for COVID for Belmarsh had been returned.

The result is that Assange continues to be punished, facing brutal carceral conditions while he awaits the next move by US prosecutors, despite having already served his sentence of skipping bail.  As a dejected Murray wrote, “Julian is living his life in conditions both torturous and tortuous.”

Amidst the banal cruelties of Wednesday’s proceedings came a smidgen of hope for Assange.  G. Zachary Terwilliger, the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia handling the prosecution, had to admit to being uncertain about what a Biden administration would do.  Speaking to NPR, Terwilliger suggested that any decision taken on Assange would “come down to resources and where you’re going to focus your energies.” But he is not waiting to find out: a position at the law firm Vinson & Elkins awaits.

The UK, having adopted a position as Washington’s proxy jailor, is not about to quit its sordid role. Assange’s wellbeing and health continue to be jeopardised by his stay in Britain’s most notorious prison, where determined despair, as Baraitser herself has acknowledged, can take their toll.

*

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. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

Russia has commented on the work policies of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons regarding the Syrian file and the pressures that the organization is subjected to by some countries, criticizing the technical secretariat policies in them, saying that it is “biased and politicized against Syria.”

The Russian comment was made by Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Dmitry Poliansky, who emphasized that “the volume of evidence about irregularities in the work of the organization’s secretariat has crossed until early 2021 a critical threshold, and the problem is much broader than the Syrian file and bears a systemic character, as it revolves around Talking about the crisis of confidence in one of the most credible international organizations in the world in the past, which is now turning into a tool for political manipulation and punishment of unwanted parties.

“The assessments made by former Director General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Boustany, before the Security Council, reflect the internal situation that threatens serious problems for the organization’s reputation and effectiveness,” he said.

He added, “Moscow has been insisting for a few months to invite the current director general of the organization, Fernando Arias, to discussions on the Syrian file in the Security Council, in order to clarify the outstanding issues, but he used various arguments to avoid attending the discussions.”

The Russian diplomat revealed that “Arias last month submitted a statement to the Security Council, but the Russian deputy delegate criticized it because the Director-General of the organization repeated general ideas known to everyone, after which the public part of the hypothetical conference was cut off for vague reasons, and then converted into a closed format, which allowed Arias would avoid answering the questions of the attendees. ”

Poliansky warned that “the role of the OPCW Technical Secretariat in these endeavors has increased negatively,” blaming it for “abandoning the usual procedures for gathering evidence, manipulating facts, and suppressing and intimidating officials opposed to such activities.”

The Russian diplomat also accused the secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of “exaggerating the issues related to the Syrian government’s initial declaration on eliminating chemical weapons,” noting that “such issues are a normal matter that many other countries have faced, such as Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, the United States, Libya and Iraq.”

This article originally appeared on RT (Arabic)

The Turkish Army has been increasing its military presence in Greater Idlib despite the recent withdrawal of observation posts, which had been encircled by the Syrian Army.

Recently, the Turkish military deployed major reinforcements to Mount al-Zawiya. Turkish military convoys deployed to the area included battle tanks and BMC Kirpi armoured vehicles. Mount al-Zawiya is controlled by al-Qaeda-affiliated Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham together with its supposedly ‘moderate counterparts’ from the Turkish-created National Front for Liberation. Turkey has been reinforcing its troops in the Mount al-Zawiya region for the last two months. It has also established several permanent positions in the area.

At the same time, the Turkish military has been undertaking active steps to reinforce its positions along the M4 highway in southern Idlib. Recently, Turkish forces have even started creating watch towers additionally to the permanent observation posts that they already have there.

The situation in northern Syria also remains tense. As recently as January 3, intense clashes had broken out between Turkish proxies and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces near the town of Ain Issa. Turkish-backed militants tried to capture the villages of Hwshan and al-Khalidiyah in another attempt to block the part of the M4 highway that runs by there.

These developments came amid cries from pro-Turkish propaganda that the ‘cowardly’ Assad regime and the Russians are planning to violate the de-escalation agreement and to capture the Turkish-occupied town of al-Bab in northern Aleppo.

The SDF keeps apace with Sultan Erdogan and also shows no sign of dropping its attempts to bite off a piece of Syria. On December 30, Sinam Mohamad, a representative of the SDF political wing in Washington, called on US President-elect Joe Biden to recognize the SDF-controlled territory in northern Syria as a de-facto state. This, he claimed, will help to improve the security and humanitarian situation there. The SDF has also repeatedly declared its support for the illegal US presence in Syria and for the US occupation of Syrian energy resources on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

Under such conditions, there is no surprise that the group’s Kurdish leadership prefers to turn a blind eye to the negative consequences of these ‘democratic actions’. For example, the state of lawlessness created by US-backed forces on territories controlled by them and the Kurdish ethnic nationalism in fact employed by the SDF as an instruction manual for relations with the Arab majority in the SDF-held areas both contribute to the growth of militancy and create conditions for the resurgence of ISIS cells.

Government-controlled territories and units of the Syrian Army on the western bank of the Euphrates regularly experience the resulting consequences of this situation in the drastic increase of ISIS attacks. On January 3, the Syrian Army and local pro-government militias once again launched a combing operation in the vast desert located between the towns of al-Mayadin and al-Bukamal. The goal of the operation is to track and neutralize ISIS cells there. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that this threat can be fully removed without the establishment of full control of the border by the Damascus government and the elimination of US-occupied ‘No-Go Zones’, which are being extensively used by terrorists.

*

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

A British district judge denied bail for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange after a hearing in which the prosecution argued he had helped NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden “flee justice” and would abscond if released from the Belmarsh high-security prison.

“As far as Mr. Assange is concerned, this case has not been won,” Judge Vanessa Baraitser declared. She said the United States government “must be allowed to challenge [her] decision.”

Baraitser referred to the lengthy history of the case and how he “jumped bail” and entered the Ecuador Embassy to obtain asylum in 2012.

She went on to highlight the “huge support networks” he still has “should he again choose to go to ground,” and Baraitser agreed with the prosecution that WikiLeaks’ assistance of Snowden made Assange a flight risk.

Assange has been confined at Belmarsh since he was arrested and expelled from the Ecuador embassy in April 2019. All along, Judge Vanessa Baraitser agreed with prosecutors that he was a flight risk.

“Mr. Assange’s past conduct shows the lengths he is prepared to go to avoid extradition proceedings. If I released him today, he would not return to face these extradition proceedings,” Baraitser declared during a hearing in March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was initially intensifying worldwide.

In her ruling on bail, despite evidence of a recent outbreak at Belmarsh, the judge maintained that the facility was properly caring for prisoners and Assange would be safe.

Edward Fitzgerald, an attorney for Assange, argued the extradition decision changed any motive Assange would have to flee London before the case was resolved. In fact, the extradition decision came with an order of discharge for Assange.

“The logical outcome of the ruling would be he regains liberty at least conditionally,” Fitzgerald stated.

Fitzgerald questioned whether the Justice Department is even serious about an appeal, given recent reporting on the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden.

Although Fitzgerald indicated Assange would be willing to wear a GPS tracking device while under house arrest, the judge gave no reasoning why this would not be enough to prevent him from absconding before the date of his appeal.

Assange has not seen his family in person since March 2020, and Belmarsh has suspended social visits. It is widely recognized that physical contact would alleviate the mental distress that factored into the judge’s decision against extradition.

London is on lockdown as a mutated variant of COVID-19 rips through the city, and the date for the appeal proceedings is unknown.

And here’s my full video report that was broadcast immediately after proceedings concluded:

*

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.

Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, “Unauthorized Disclosure.”

The US remains wholly incapable of tracing Covid-19 contagion, but if it tried, we might wind up with “the worst of both worlds” – a horror of coercion and confusion that still failed to stop the epidemic.

“Low income communities, particularly Black and Brown communities, have reasonable fears that at least some law enforcement agencies might use access to contact tracing data to harass them.”

I spoke to Bay Area privacy activist Tracy Rosenberg about the danger that data contact tracing to track the spread of COVID-19 will become available to the surveillance state.

***

Ann Garrison: Many fear that digital contact tracing to stop the spread of COVID-19 will expand surveillance states’ ability to curtail privacy and control their populations. Can you explain what contact tracing is?

Tracy Rosenberg: Contact tracing is the process of creating a map of a person’s movements and associations in order to identify the possible spread of infectious disease. Before the age of digital technology, it was an onerous process of paper surveys, which while they contained very personal information, had some practical limitations on any additional use. In the age of digital technology, the ability to retain, repurpose and search large data chains is greater than it has ever been in human history. Contact tracing data, when performed by government public health agencies, is medical health data and is protected by the same laws that protect other health data.

AG: What dangers does it pose?

TR: Well, there are quite a few. One is emergency protocols. A large tracing program set up under emergency conditions can often lead to incomplete frameworks and poorly trained personnel, including some with relatively little or no familiarity with health data protections. When data protections, storage and access protocols are not well-planned, leaks, hacks and unauthorized access sometimes occur.

AG: Can you describe what a well-planned data protection plan would be? Who would have access to what and who not, and how would we know that the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Mossad hadn’t gotten into it?

TR: It’s not an easy question, but generally data protection requires retention limits (i.e., only keeping things for as long as you actually need them and no longer), disaggregating bulk data from personally identifying information as soon as possible, clear demarcations of access by job title, several layers of anti-hacking security protections, clear consent procedures, and training. An emergency like a pandemic is always the enemy of planned data protections. But there have been efforts.

For example, California privacy groups tried to pass protective legislation in 2020 for contact tracing software (AB 1782 and AB 660) that among other things would have established procedures for providing and revoking consent, required at least some level of encryption for stored data, required public reports and metrics every 90 days, and prevented law enforcement agencies from participating in or having access to contact tracing data. (That’s a broad summary, but it gives you the idea.) Sadly, both bills were vetoed by Gavin Newsom who argued that he did not want regulations that might slow down contact tracing efforts in the state.

It’s a habitual trend in American politics that we don’t want to address privacy issues during emergencies, which has then led to revelations of upsetting practices after the fact. In theory, agencies like FBI, CIA, NSA, and Mossad (to use your examples) should have no access to health data that is already protected by law. But in an emergency, with a bunch of entities that are both public and private rushing in to try to help and set up new processes–that is exactly how the guard rails slip and things happen that aren’t supposed to happen.

AG: Doesn’t any privacy protection plan or policy depend on the good faith of those expected to follow it? This is true with any policy, but the use of Big Data seems particularly difficult to detect.

TR: Good faith only goes so far. Firstly, it probably isn’t that good an idea to depend on the intentions of government agencies, which are filled with a large variety of people. While I believe most public health workers are dedicated and conscientious, one can never say anything concrete about 100% of the people involved in anything, and the nature of a pandemic is to draw in other additional agencies and entities with relatively little experience with handling large amounts of health data and personally identifying information (PII). In general, our approach to privacy regulations is that enforcement is required. A policy without enforcement protocols and consequences for violations is a recommendation. The vetoed California bills I mentioned both included private rights of actions that allow anyone to take a legal action to ensure compliance. Basically crowdsourced enforcement, which provides a step that can be taken if and when good faith is not enough.

There isn’t any doubt that the use and distribution of any set of Big Data can be hard to detect in real time. The only privacy protection that is 100% bulletproof is not to collect the information in the first place. But if that’s not an option (and a reasonable case can be made that it probably isn’t, at least in the early stages of a pandemic), then enforceable regulations are the next best thing.

At this point in the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, case numbers are far exceeding any realistic contact tracing program, so we may have the worst of both worlds, which is half-assed and partial contact tracing with limited effect on actually reining in the pandemic and with no effective or enforceable regulations.

AG: The California Development Department has been announcing jobs for contact tracers every day since the COVID pandemic began, and employment information is readily available on the Web. They usually include the promise that you can “work from home” and don’t require much experience. What kind of training do you think contact tracers should have?

TR: A thorough review of federal and state protections for medical data. A one-way data uplink that removes data access once it is submitted to a public health agency so it cannot be recovered and stored on a personal hard drive or shared.

AG: What about cross-state and cross-border contact tracing? How is that being handled?

TR: Best as I can tell, remarkably ad hoc and randomly. Since the federal government under Trump has largely shifted pandemic response onto the states to deal with, there is a big handicap in dealing with cross-state episodes. We’ve seen that with incidents like the MA conference that allegedly spread a great deal of virus in the early days of the pandemic as conference-goers went home all across the country, but primarily to the large urban cities, and the few attempts at national contact tracing of Florida spring break participants. Probably the most active federal involvement apart from some of the vaccines has been at the airports, but as we’ve seen it’s been pretty marginal, with random travel bans on some foreign countries at some times, and somewhat chaotic testing protocols that I’m not sure people really believe are that effective, given the limitations of PCR testing for infection.

AG: What are some of the other dangers of contact tracing?

TR: Another issue is consent. The right to agree or not agree to participate in contact tracing is an important privacy value. While very few have advocated for mandatory participation in the US, that would potentially be a privacy issue. What is more worrisome is what we call coerced participation, which is pressure from employers or social service agencies which impairs freely given consent by suggesting adverse consequences for those who do not participate. California had proposed bills in 2020 to ban retaliation against individuals who chose not to participate, but Governor Newsom vetoed those contact tracing regulatory protocols.

AG: It’s worth noting here that Governor Newsom is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.

TR: Yes.

AG: It seems that most contact tracing is done with cell phone apps that people are downloading voluntarily, although Singapore is also deploying a wearable token. Are most people who now choose to participate in contact tracing downloading an app onto their phone?

TR: The Apple/Google Notify app is a fairly widespread mode of contact tracing. There are a lot of downloads of the app, although there is no real way to verify how many of those people have turned on Bluetooth to use the app and how many are carrying their cell phone everywhere they go. As I said, this particular app was developed to minimize privacy risks and does not collect too much PII. However, testing facilities, which are run in a lot of different ways in different states, may also be engaging in contact tracing with positive test results, and how all of that is working across the country is a bit unclear. There are also anecdotal reports of large employers engaging in some ad hoc contact tracing when their employees test positive, which of course happens in a black box.

AG: Singapore has already excluded anyone who refuses to participate in contact tracing access to public space, and openly stated that they will make data available to police to investigate crimes. That’s not surprising because Singapore is one of the most tightly and openly controlled states in the world. Who is pressing for mandatory participation here?

TR: I don’t think anyone has openly pushed for mandatory participation in contact tracing. If they have, I’m not aware of it. But there is concern about coerced participation with employers pressuring employees, or educational bureaucracies pressuring teachers and students that would have people fearing informal retaliation or discrimination if they prefer not to participate. In my view, mandated participation requires extensive safeguards. Laissez-faire should not operate in only one direction. If the government will not take action to safeguard my personal information, then I have a choice whether to trust them with it—or not.

AG: What’s next on your list of concerns?

TR: Another is technology. As with anything else, technology can make large-scale tasks much easier, but it can also introduce more problems. Automated contact tracing programs can potentially introduce greater scale and speed, but also introduce storage and access questions that can impair data safety, sometimes in ways that are not clear until something bad happens. It bears repeating that the California Notify app, one of the first automated contact tracing programs to go forward with public distribution, was carefully designed with privacy rights in mind and, at least on paper, its protocol should prevent many of the problems that could be anticipated.

AG: Can you give us an example of “something bad happening”?

TR: A list on the dark web or even the plain old Internet of people with positive COVID tests in the last month in Philadelphia with the names and addresses of anyone they can remember having contact with, secured by a hacker. A FOIA request that comes back in 2022 with emails from FBI agents referring to “tapping into” the NY COVID database to find someone they are looking for. Vaccine passports required for bus, train, and plane travel that cannot be acquired without a social security number, which turns undocumented Americans into literal fugitives in the country they live in and turns victims of identity theft into one big no-travel list. None of these things are impossible from a badly regulated contact tracing effort.

AG: What about law enforcement access outside Singapore, where it’s already acknowledged?

TR: That’s of course one of the greatest concerns. First responders are sometimes seen as participants in contact tracing administration. While this can make sense on the EMS public health end, it becomes concerning when extended to police and fire. One of the restraints that California’s 2020 legislation sought to establish was a red line keeping police out of contact tracing. But, as mentioned, that was vetoed by California’s governor.

Communities have what I think are reasonable fears based on past experiences that at least some law enforcement agencies might use access to contact tracing data to harass low income communities, especially in Black and Brown neighborhoods or homeless people. It is definitely true that some police agencies have demonstrated ongoing violations of data-sharing limitations of all kinds, which usually come to light after the fact, so the role of law enforcement in contact tracing is an ongoing concern.

AG: Anything else?

TR: Beyond those four specific concerns, there are always broader concerns that lists of “the exposed” or “the infected,” like any government list of people (like lists of “suspected terrorists” or “antifa” or “black identity extremists”), could under certain political conditions be used to strip some level of Constitutional protections from the people on the list. This would be a secretive government activity unsanctioned by law, but it has certainly happened before in American history.

AG: Since the Snowden release about NSA surveillance, many people assume that the horse is out of the barn, that we have no privacy left, but I know you continue to work on privacy issues with multiple coalitions and at multiple levels of government. Can you explain why you still have hope and think this is worth doing?

TR: Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which more or less legalized most of the NSA’s snooping, was not renewed by Congress after 20 years. That’s a big deal. In reality, although an agency like the NSA has enormous access, the numbers of people they actually touch is tens of thousands in a year, while there are hundreds of millions in the US. So there is plenty of room to protect literally mountains of collected data, first by trying to reduce the size of the mountain and secondly by installing guardrails to limit abuse and misuse. It is never a question of 100% success because that won’t happen, but I can say after several years that the visibility of the conversation and the acknowledgment of the risks have increased by a quantum amount from say 2013 to 2021. I do not think this pandemic emergency has (at least not yet and not in the United States) set loose the kind of mass privacy violations unleashed by 9-11. That said, it has unleashed an economic crisis and social control limitations that become increasingly debilitating the longer they drag on. And it is not wrong to say that the economic disenfranchisement of millions over the course of a year certainly can work in the interests of oppression and authoritarianism. A state of ongoing emergency is a state in which things that would never fly in a non-emergency can become institutionalized.

AG: There’s a lot of concern about contact tracing expressed in mainstream outlets. What could you say about how widespread and effective the resistance to abuse of the data has been so far?

TR: With regard to the pandemic, objections to masks and social distancing as well as business closures and fears about the vaccines have been all tangled up with contact tracing worries in kind of a soup of general anxiety. It has been difficult to separate out all of the pieces into coherent public policy recommendations. So I’d say we have widespread and ineffective resistance. Probably the folks pursuing eviction moratoriums have been the most successful in getting protections actually put into place, and even those have been only partially effective. We definitely have not provided the economic support people need for a real disease-prevention lockdown, nor have we made it possible to identify everyone exposed and assist them with a real isolation period to stop any spread. Without those things, we end up with a very, very long period of emergency, which has huge risks as outlined above.

*

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.

Tracy Rosenberg is the Executive Director of Media Alliance  and a founding member of Oakland Privacy.

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize  for promoting peace through her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes Region. Please help support her work on Patreon. She can be reached on Twitter @AnnGarrison  and at ann(at)anngarrison(dot)com.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

“To understand the situation, figure out that now, in Washington, the main obstacle to war is a man called Mad Dog.”

This answer was given to me three years ago by Ray McGovern, when I asked him about the situation in the USA. McGovern is a former senior CIA analyst. One of his main tasks was to brief daily six successive US Presidents on what was happening in the USSR. After his retirement, he became a staunch critic of US foreign policy.

He told me also another thing. There were always two CIA’s inside CIA. One of them informed the President about realities and the other constructed realities as arguments for action. Without such “constructions”, by the way, it would be impossible to invade Iraq and unleash the chain of wars in the Middle East that followed.

As for the “Mad Dog”, he was no other than former US Defense Secretary General Mattis. Analyzing closely the publications on what was happening in the White House during the Trump years, I came to the conclusion that probably Mattis played a crucial role, along with the chief of staff of the US Armed Forces, General Joseph Dunford and leading Republicans, in setting up an “informal”, secret mechanism to prevent Trump if he decided to launch a nuclear attack. But of course there are not, and there cannot be proofs of that.

The US nuclear command system has been designed in such a way that any presidential order to launch nukes will be executed almost automatically in a few minutes. The mechanism does not allow any room for hesitations in executing an order. It is calibrated to the scenario of a world nuclear war, when one must act very quickly, in order not to lose his weapons from an attack of the enemy. And it is providing US President with an almost unlimited power to launch a nuclear attack.

This is the kind of games humanity is busy playing with after 1945. When Soviets and Americans signed the agreements on nuclear control, many people thought that we left all that madness behind us. Unfortunately, we still live in a barbaric and (hopefully!) pre-historic world, so all its problems tend to resurface from time to time.

According to the New York Times and many other sources, Mattis and Tillerson have also opposed successfully the drive to war with Iran, orchestrated by Netanyahu, Bannon, Bolton and others (for a short introduction to the subject, you may read the story – only partially – reconstructed by the New York magazine http://www.defenddemocracy.press/the-secret-history-of-the-push-to-strike-iran-2/).

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, when President Trump assembled his main advisors to make the final decision about the targets of the Syria US bombings in 2018, Mattis was the only one participant who opposed successfully extended bombings of the country, which could provoke a much larger conflict in the Middle East, if not with Russia, given the presence of Russian troops in Syria. (The US bombing campaigns of 2017 and 2018 to Syria revealed indirectly another interesting thing. Behind the quite open agenda by Netanyahu, Bannon and Bolton, to attack Iran, there was also, and it is always there, the “hidden” agenda of the same forces to expel Russia from the Middle East). Somehow, there is an analogy between Mattis’ role in 2018 and Kennedy’s role in the Cuban Missile Crisis, with the difference Mattis did not pay it with his life, only with his job.

The clash between extremists and … “normal” imperialists, is a permanent feature of the situation in the United States (and the West at large) since the election of Bush and Cheney in 2000. This clash between two opposing lines has demonstrated itself at least five times during the last two years concerning Iran and one concerning the use of Armed Forces to suppress turmoil in US cities, as Trump wanted last June.

Israel, a “hidden superpower”

A similar conflict between “normal” and extremist imperialists is a permanent element of political life in Israel, but there the power of extremists is even higher than in the USA. Benjamin Netanyahu has financed the planning of the Iraqi War by leading Neocons Perle and Wolfowitz back in the 90’s  following the lines already developed by the Israeli strategist Odet Yinon back in the ‘80s (See this). This is by the way quite astonishing given that, if the “radical” ideas were implemented, Israel would risk much more than the United States! This is also a proof of the extremely dangerous fanaticism of a part of world leadership in our era.

Netanyahu exercised a tremendous influence in the US under Trump, to the point of dictating US Foreign Policy, at least in the fields he wanted to.

It is impossible to analyze the international situation portraying Israel as a “satellite”, or a “client – state” of the United States, or a medium power. Especially under Netanyahu it has acquired at least some of the characteristics of a “hidden superpower”. Its ascension was greatly facilitated – there is no other logical way to explain it – by its special links to the world financial capital and the rise of its power of the later during the “globalization” era (after 1990).

Israel has not only a regional, but a truly global agenda, from Ukraine to Brazil and from Britain to Sudan. It is also able to intervene to the internal affairs of major European powers, like it did in Britain against Corbyn, or when it was able to overturn the decision by the French President Sarkozy upon his election in 2008 to appoint Hubert Védrine as Foreign Minister. Vedrine would be a serious obstacle to the French intervention in Syria to support jihadists and to the war which destroyed Libya.

At a time the 2nd Socialist International is a shadow of itself, the 3rd Communist International does not exist and the 4th International has been split in many organizations, if not degenerated, the Israeli extremists dispose of their own Far Right International, in the form of the Evangelicals, able to greatly influence the politics of big countries like the US or Brazil. Israel is so powerful (and many people so opportunistic) that it has been able to deter effectively any serious analysis of its global role. You can also freely criticize Americans, Russians, Germans or Chinese, but it seems much more difficult to do it with Israel. As George Orwell put it, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Sending bombers and withdrawing air carriers

This controversy between the two lines on Iran has resurfaced in recent days. Trump’s departure will make war with Iran much more difficult. And on the other side, a war could facilitate Trump’s plans to remain in power, in spite of his electoral defeat.

Acting US Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller has ordered the US aircraft carrier Nimitz to return to its base, thus removing a key element for any major military action against Iran. He did so despite the suggestion of General Frank McKenzie, head of the US Central Command, who was pushing for the expansion of the aircraft carrier’s mission. Simultaneously, anonymous Pentagon sources told CNN that there is no trace of information about any planned attacks by Iran, especially in Iraq. That means the Pentagon sources have denied what American and Israeli officials have been claiming for weeks!

Just before this announcement was made the Americans sent to the Gulf strategic B-52 bombers for a third time in recent weeks and the Israelis a submarine equipped with nuclear weapons.

It is also noteworthy that the chief of the US General Staff General visited Israel recently. Maybe it is a pure coincidence, but every time he visits Israel something very big happens afterwards. It was the case with Gen. Soleimani’s assassination or the explosion in Beirut.

The extremists of the Empire have repeatedly used methods of provocation, deception and deep “entryism” into the US state apparatus and political and media system, in order to provoke the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They are most probably trying to use the same methods now, only now their opponents know their methods and they are much more aware of the potential consequences of a major escalation in the Middle East. We cannot exclude also that they use themselves the methods of their opponents, or, as a minimum, the situation has already led various opponents of a war against Iran to communicate somehow between themselves, thus creating an informal, still powerful “anti-provocation” mechanism.

Human history cannot repeat itself in exactly the same forms, as happens with processes of the inorganic world, for a quite simple reason. Humans know it.

Conclusion

Three conclusions can be drawn from what we already presented.

First, the international public awareness was greatly reduced during the last 20 years. Back in 2003 powerful states and millions of demonstrators were mobilized against the Iraq war. Now, we have to count on the US Armed Forces, the CIA and various conspiracies to avert the danger of a global disaster!

Second, it seems very probable that extremists will not be able to provoke the war they are planning, although no one can be certain. It is an ongoing struggle.

Third, even if nothing happens from now till January 20^th, even under Biden, the dangerous oscillation of the Middle Eastern situation (and of the whole world situation) between chaos and stability will continue and the apocalyptic scenarios may come back, if there is not a comprehensive solution to the problems of the whole region of the Middle East (and of the world).

*

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.

Ivermectin, a cheap generic drug used for hookworm, heartworm and scabies, with a half life causing it to remain in your system for months, is used as a “worming” medicine in children, dogs, horses.  Due to its tremendous value as a highly safe and effective drug, a Nobel Prize was awarded to its developers in 2015.

Serendipitously, it was found to be extremely effective in Covid-19, for both prevention and treatment.  It is even effective at a late stage of illness, unlike hydroxychloroquine.  The drug seems to work against SARS-CoV-2 even better than antimalarials.  Unlike the chloroquine drugs, its efficacy was only established during the past several months.  Many studies now prove its value in Covid-19.

Ivermectin’s routine use in places like Africa probably contributed to Africa’s extraordinary resistance to Covid-19, where rates of death are a small fraction what they are in the US. Most African countries have reported death rates from Covid-19 between 1% and 10% that of the US.

A US Senate hearing led by Senator Ron Johnson on December 8 called as witnesses doctors who were using the drug, who discussed its extreme benefit in the Covid epidemic.

That appears to have initiated a firestorm of fake news about how the drug is dangerous, unproven, and should not be used for Covid.  The Associated Press led the way, employing journalist Beatrice Dupuy, who specializes in debunking Covid ‘misinformation,’ and who previously wrote for Teen Vogue. The AP also used Facebook’s opaque “fact checking” system.  Then other media outlets followed.

On Christmas Eve, 16 days after the Senate hearing that gave ivermectin its first broad publicity, the government of South Africa banned its use and importation as a treatment for Covid.  No specific safety issue was cited as the reason.  There is no specific safety issue; the drug is extremely safe, although a large burden of dead worms can sometimes sicken a patient.

The chloroquine drugs are also very effective treatments for early Covid, but their use for this purpose has been obfuscated, banned, and interfered with using a huge number of techniques.  I created a list of 53 different strategiesthat have been employed to prevent chloroquine drugs from being used against Covid in many countries. The strategies were enormously effective.  Few doctors and patients have any idea that real “magic bullets” exist to cure Covid.  Fewer still have realized that by preventing access to highly effective drugs, our rulers deliberately prolong the pandemic and maximize the deaths.

Make no mistake:  proper use of chloroquine drugs or ivermectin (all cheap and generic) would be a game changer.  They would end the Covid-19 pandemic, with or without vaccines.

The banning of ivermectin in South Africa is a TRIAL BALLOON–if the powers that be can get away with it there, they will start banning it elsewhere.  Do everything in your power to prevent this from happening. Please spread the word.  Get your doctor to prescribe the drug for you.  Write letters to the newspaper.  Please DO SOMETHING!

*

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 the author’s blog site, Anthrax Vaccine.

The import into South Africa of ivermectin, a drug that has made international headlines recently as a so-called “miracle cure” for Covid-19, has been declared illegal by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra).

Ivermectin, which has been used for decades to treat livestock and people infested with parasitic worms, was hailed as a revolutionary drug in the 1980s and works by paralysing and killing parasites.

In a statement, Sahpra chief executive Dr Boitumelo Semete-Makokotlela said:

“Our stance is unambiguous. This drug is not approved by Sahpra and any attempt to import it into the country will be dealt with by Sahpra’s regulatory compliance unit in conjunction with law enforcement agencies such as the SAPS and the SIU.”

Semete-Makokotlela said:

“If any member of the public is aware of such transgressions, please contact Deon Poovan, senior manager of Sahpra’s Inspectorate and Regulatory Compliance on [email protected]”

“At present, there is no confirmatory clinical evidence available for the use of ivermectin in the management of Covd-19 infections,” said Semete-Makokotlela.

“In terms of safety and efficacy, there is no evidence to support the use of ivermectin and we do not have any clinical trial evidence to justify its use.

“Sahpra is focused on quality, safety and efficacy and its ultimate goal is to protect the health and well-being of all those who live in South Africa. The use of such a drug could potentially lead to harmful effects or even death,” said Semete-Makokotlela.

Reached for comment, provincial head of health Dr Keith Cloete said:

“We will be guided by the expert advice of the national Essential Medicine List (EML) committee and the ministerial advisory committee for Covid-19, who will pronounce on this matter.”

Provincial health department spokesperson Mark van der Heever said:

“We only use medication and drugs which are approved by Sahpra.”

During a hearing before the US senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee last week, Dr Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, described ivermectin as a “wonder drug” with immensely powerful antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents.

Kory said:

“Ivermectin is highly safe, widely available, and low cost. Its discovery was awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine, and is already included on the WHO’s World’s List of Essential Medicines. Ivermectin is effectively a miracle drug against Covid-19.”

The hearing went viral on social media with one clip receiving more than one million views on YouTube, and a number of people around the world including in South Africa where the second wave of Covid-19 appears to be worse than the first time around, have since called for governments and regulators allow the drug for use against Covid-19.

The WHO and health authorities worldwide have urged people to be wary of so-called Covid-19 miracle cures.

*

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.

One of the most serious attacks on the anti-colonial and national liberation legacy in Africa was the attempts by the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco to liquidate the right to self-determination among the Saharawi people in the Northwest region of the continent.

These maneuvers by Washington took the form of geographic misrepresentation suggesting that the Western Sahara, formally colonized by Spain, was an integral part of Morocco.

The efforts to distort the actual history of the struggle for independence by the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) was linked to the purported “normalization” of relations with the State of Israel by Morocco. The diplomatic recognition of Tel Aviv has been a consistent theme pursued by the U.S. State Department throughout Africa.

Millions of Palestinians, like their counterparts in the Western Sahara, are seeking to relinquish the stranglehold imposed upon them by imperialism. A truce declared nearly three decades ago in lieu of United Nations internationally supervised elections in the territory, has recently been rejected by the SADR and its armed forces known as the Polisario Front.

The SADR has been recognized by the UN and the AU as the legitimate representatives of the people of the Western Sahara. Nonetheless, the outgoing administration of President Donald J. Trump has sought to hamper anti-colonial and anti-imperialist efforts on the continent and indeed throughout the world. The incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will inherit a well-established foreign policy orientation which transcends both the Democratic and Republican parties throughout successive administrations.

In addition to the U.S., the SADR has condemned France for its consistent support given to Morocco as it relates to the Western Sahara national question. Moreover, the provisional government has vowed to maintain its disavowal of the truce from 1991 which could threaten stability in the North and West Africa regions.

Sahara Press Service reported on a statement delivered by the Polisario Front representative to France saying:

“Frente POLISARIO’s representative to France, Mohamed Sidati, said the Saharawi people embarked, since November 13, in a second war of liberation, following Morocco’s aggression against Saharawi civilians, stressing UN Security Council’s recent strong message to the United States and the Moroccan occupier which attempt to derail the decolonization process. Speaking Monday (December 28) to the International Radio of Algeria, Sidati said the Saharawi people’s ‘return to the path of armed struggle shows they remain so determined to sacrifice themselves for the recovery of their rights.’”

The path of armed revolutionary struggle has been a tactical and strategic approach within the history of the African Revolution since the era of enslavement and colonialism. Such decisions to resist with weapons by genuine anti-imperialist liberation movements and provisional governments are never taken lightly. The purpose of the violent approach to the oppressive state and social system are in essence actions of self-defense, where the objective is clearly aimed at removing the mechanism of exploitation and political suppression.

Sidati, in the article quoted above also emphasizes:

“The Moroccan occupation has completely ignored the will of the Saharawi people and tried to exploit the patience of Western Sahara people, persisting in its tyranny, before being surprised by the strong response of the Saharawi people, he added. On outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to acknowledge Morocco’s alleged ‘sovereignty’ over Western Sahara, the representative of the Frente POLISARIO in France said that ‘to exchange the right of a people for such sovereignty is an injustice and a tyranny.’ ‘This will not succeed,’ Sidati stressed, explaining that it will only tarnish Morocco’s reputation as wanting to sell the Palestinian cause in order to confiscate a territory that is not its own. This recognition, he said, is a ‘kind of international brigandage’ of peoples’ rights, which is, he added, especially harmful to the United States.”

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has been a source of the strongest support for the SADR as proponents of the right of independence for the Western Sahara. Zimbabwe, which has been subjected to imperialist-driven economic sanctions for more than two decades, understands clearly, the significance of the Western Sahara question. Consequently, SADC and the AU for the last two years have held “Anti-Sanctions Day” during October in solidarity with Harare and the ZANU-PF government.

Britain and the U.S. have led the sanctions and destabilization efforts against Zimbabwe in response to the radical land redistribution program launched in 2000. Since the expropriation of European settler-colonial agricultural business interests in Zimbabwe, the country has been targeted for regime change. However, Zimbabwe, with the assistance of neighboring African states and the People’s Republic of China, has been able to maintain its political independence. Therefore, Zimbabwe and SADC can take positions which coincide with the aspirations of the anti-imperialist forces internationally.

Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Ivory Coast: Focal Points for Imperialist Intrigue

In the Horn of Africa state of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia there has been an internal conflict stemming from the need to take control of the Tigray region in the north where the former ruling party challenged the central government headed by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali. Under the TPLF which was the dominant party within the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), the armed organization came to power after being designated by the United States in May 1991 as the official representatives of the people.

The TPLF-EPRDF regime played an important role in facilitating the foreign policy of Washington in East Africa. Ethiopia entered Somalia in December 2006 at the aegis of the Pentagon. The situation in Somalia remains precarious although thousands of African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) troops along with the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) occupy the oil-rich nation. Dating back as far as 1992-1994, the former administrations of Presidents George W. H. Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton, deployed thousands of Marines to Somalia. U.S. soldiers have been killed in Somalia including during 2020.

As the motivating factors behind imperialist intervention remain strategic mineral and energy interests as well as competition with China, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a prime illustration of the extent to which western states will go to extract wealth and maintain indirect political control. The first elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba sought after taking office in June 1960 to form Pan-African alliances with other governments such as Ghana. Belgium and the U.S. expended considerable intelligence and military resources in order to undermine the Congolese Revolution.

Today, the current President Felix Tshisekedi has become embroiled in a row with former President Joseph Kabila, who ruled the DRC from 2001 until 2018. A coalition administration appears to be breaking up over which party will control the apparatus of the government.

The disagreement between Tshisekedi and Kabila has recently involved Pan-African cultural figure Tshala Muana, a staunch supporter of Kabila. Muana was detained in November ostensibly for releasing a popular song criticizing the political posture of Tshekedi.

According to the Standard news website:

“Relatives of the Lubumbashi- based singer said agents from the National Intelligence Agency arrested her in Kinshasha on November 14 saying she was wanted for questioning.  Their sentiments were echoed by her companion and producer Claude Mashuls, who indicated that the artiste was treated like a criminal. Speaking to Standard Entertainment and Lifestyle through Congolese music promoter Jules Nsana who relocated back to Kinshasha two years ago from Kenya, the musician denied attacking president Tshisekedi, instead saying she was misunderstood.”

Ivory Coast, the largest cocoa producer internationally and an emerging oil exporting country, was the center of an electoral dispute in 2010-2011 that resulted in the military intervention by France designed to topple the Popular Front (FPI) administration of President Laurent Gbagbo. The president and his wife, Simone, the Second Vice President of the FPI and a political leader in her own right, was placed under the incarceration of imperialist-backed interests. The U.S. under former President Barack Obama concurred with the French in overthrowing Gbagbo who was later kidnapped and taken to the Netherlands to stand trial in a contrived International Criminal Court (ICC) tribunal on Ivory Coast.

Due to lack of evidence, the Netherlands-based court could not gain a conviction against Gbagbo. He was released while being required to wait in another European state for the prosecution to develop an appeal to the case. In early December 2020, it was announced that the Ivorian government had issued Gbagbo a passport to return to the country, which the president says he will soon seek reentry.

Simone Gbagbo was charged by the French-installed regime of Alassane Ouattara of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After spending several years behind bars, she was released by the neo-colonial dominated Ivorian administration. In an interview granted to DW she said of the current political crisis in Ivory Coast stemming from Ouattara’s insistence on staying in power for a third term that:

“I think that Ivory Coast was targeted by a French conspiracy. First it was [Jacques] Chirac’s France, then Sarkozy’s France, who decided that Laurent Gbagbo had no right to be in Ivory Coast. They organized things so that Gbagbo would be ousted from power. This they needed to show that he was surrounded by demons. Apparently I became the leader of a death squad. But nobody has ever been able to provide any evidence to support this allegation. I just watched and chose not to say anything. At that time, 2002 to 2003, I took French press agencies who repeated the claim to court in Paris. I won all my lawsuits. They went appealed; I won again. I don’t use weapons to act, to expose my ideas, to share my ideas. So I say nothing about the death squads.”

Pan-Africanism and Anti-Imperialism in the 21st Century

There can be no functional and effective unification of Africa absent an anti-imperialist orientation in domestic and foreign policy issues. The examples cited above are reflective of the challenges facing the continent in the coming decades of the present century.

Economic integration in its most logical form presupposes ideological and political uniformity. Judging from the pronouncements of the AU along with the trade union, youth, women’s and farmer organizations, the African masses yearn for social justice and collective progress.

Nonetheless, the anti-imperialist movement is part and parcel of the class struggle for socialist transformation. The solidarity of oppressed peoples and the international proletariat provides the potential for the eradication of the exploitative capitalist modes of production and social relations.

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Over the last three years, a new type of groupthink has emerged among many Western media and policy think tanks in their geopolitically motivated efforts to malign China. They’ve claimed that China is practicing a new type of colonialism, which is coined “debt-trap diplomacy.” China is charged with deliberately luring developing nations into borrowing-lending arrangements, primarily for infrastructure projects, with the intention of entrapping them into unpayable loans. It is alleged that once the borrowing nation defaults on “excessive debt,” China seizes the project or collateral assets of valuable mineral resources.

There is only one problem with this supposition. None of it is true. There has been no takeover of any project and no seizure of assets of any kind in Africa by China. There is no evidence of an intentional effort to trap African nations into owing debt to China.

To give an example of how manipulation of words is used to disparage the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Africa, just look at Heather Zeiger’s article “China and Africa: Debt-Trap Diplomacy?” The article recognizes that Kenya is suffering from COVID-19 related financial stress and cannot fulfill the terms of the loan for the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR). However, she then attempts to make the case for debt-trap diplomacy by slyly using a conditional sentence: “If Kenya defaults on payments, China might be able to receive revenue from the Port of Mombasa as collateral, although the Chinese government has said it does not intend to do this.”

The truth is, neither happened.

Johns Hopkins University’s China-Africa Research Initiative (CARI) has extensive data on Chinese lending in Africa. After reviewing over 1,000 loans, it reports that “we have not seen any examples where we would say the Chinese deliberately entangled another country in debt, and then used that debt to extract unfair or strategic advantages of some kind in Africa, including ‘asset seizures’.”

Aerial photo shows trains at the Nairobi railway station in Nairobi, capital of Kenya. /Xinhua

However, this has not prevented U.S. elected officials and representatives of Democratic and Republican parties from ignorantly reciting this debt-trap mantra. This propaganda is so pervasive that even some Africans have been repeating this disinformation.

African nations require infrastructure

China through the BRI is helping to finance and construct vitally needed infrastructure in Africa. Nothing is more critical or more urgently needed to industrialize Africa and end poverty and hunger than infrastructure. The United States, whose foreign policy is increasingly vectored at countering China’s rising political and economic power in the world, has no strategy or intention of making a similar commitment to the African continent.

W. Gyude Moore, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development and Liberia’s former Minister of Public Works, has said that China’s investment in infrastructure in Africa is unsurpassed. And given the West’s history and operations in Africa, it is “frustrating that in its complicated, enmeshed, centuries-long history in Africa, there has never been a Western proposal for continental-scale infrastructure building … It was the Chinese who sought to build a road, rail and maritime infrastructure network to link Africa’s economies with the rest of the world.”

China helped finance and construct Kenya’s SGR, the only new railroad in 100 years since the British empire occupied Kenya at the beginning of the 20th century. The first phase of this ambitious project, from the port city of Mombasa to the capital Nairobi, is already completed. It is intended to connect to Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan and Ethiopia. This has the potential to become the eastern leg of the long overdue East-West railroad across the girth of Africa, which would transform the continent.

China has contributed to the welfare of nations through the BRI. And for this, it should be supported, not pilloried.

*

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.

Lawrence Freeman is a political-economic analyst on Africa with 30 years of experience in Africa promoting infrastructure development policies. The article reflects the author’s opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Featured image is from CGTN

If you are advocating for lockdowns, you are complicit in tearing families apart. You are complicit in inflicting untold suffering on millions of people around the world.

You are complicit in casting the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies into even further grinding poverty. You are complicit in murder.

Read full transcript below.

***

This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com.

In 2006, a 15-year-old high school student from Albuquerque, New Mexico won third place in the Intel science and engineering fair for her project on slowing the spread of an infectious pathogen during a pandemic emergency. Using a computer simulation that she developed with the help of her father, she argued that in order to slow the spread of the disease, governments should implement school shutdowns, keep kids at home and enforce social distancing.

Incredibly, that third place high school science fair project can be tied directly to the lockdown policies being implemented by governments around the world today. You see, that father that she developed her computer simulation with was no average doting dad, but a senior researcher at Sandia National Laboratories who at that time was working on pandemic emergency response plans for the US Department of Homeland Security. His proposal to implement school shutdowns and, if need be, workplace shutdowns in the event of a pandemic emergency was developed at least in part in response to his daughter’s high school project.

Now those advocating for lockdowns have seen the destruction and death that those policies have wrought this year and we are living through that right now. Not only are people being deprived of their livelihoods and forced into grinding poverty as a direct result of these shutdowns, but now the undeniable truth is that if you are advocating for lockdowns, you are advocating for some portion of the population to be consigned to death.

This is no longer debatable. It is even openly admitted—although months too late by the World Health Organization.

DAVID NABARRO: I want to say it again: we in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of control of this virus. [. . .] We may well have a doubling of world poverty by early next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents and poor families are not able to afford it.

This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe, actually. And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other. But remember, lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.

SOURCE: The Week in 60 Minutes #6

This is the point at which, no doubt, I’ll be expected to produce the data to back up the non-controversial observation that lockdowns kill, even though that data will do precisely nothing to penetrate the consciousness of those who have already decided that they occupy the moral high ground for advocating locking billions of people around the globe as prisoners inside their own homes. But persevere I will.

I’ll point, for example, to the letter signed by hundreds of doctors calling the lockdowns themselves a “mass casualty incident” and exhorting politicians to end the shutdowns.

I’ll point to the research that shows that thousands of people will die because of delays to cancer surgery treatments as a result of the medical shutdowns.

I’ll point to the research of the Well-Being Trust showing that 75,000 Americans are expected to die deaths of despair—including alcohol and drug misuse and suicide—this year alone as a result of the lockdowns.

I will point to the research of The Lancet showing that 265 million people are expected to be thrown into severe food insecurity as a result of these lockdowns.

I will even point to the research showing 125,000 children are expected to die from malnutrition as a result of these lockdowns.

But, as I say, none of these deaths will matter to those who have already decided that they are right and virtuous for advocating locking vast swathes of the human population inside their own homes to starve to death in the name of slowing the spread of a disease that even the epidemiologists who have been wrong about everything this year tell us will kill less than one percent of the infected.

Yes, slowing the spread, not stopping the spread. This was never about stopping a pandemic. Even the lockdown advocates never advocated that. But somehow that has been forgotten and “15 days to flatten the curve” has turned into a never-ending carte blanche for the biosecurity state to implement any number of draconian policies on its population, any number of policies on the checklist of the would-be dictator. Not only locking people inside their own homes, but constant surveillance of the population through the contact tracing and tracking apps that are increasingly being implemented around the globe, and, inevitably, the proposals for mandating the experimental vaccines which agents of the state will forcibly inject into people against their will.

This is not acceptable.

We cannot allow this to stand.

If we forsake this, our most basic right—the right to step foot outside of our own homes—then we forsake our humanity itself. An important part of what makes us human is being taken away from us in the name of stopping the spread of COVID-19.

But there is good news for those who have managed to retain their sanity in the time of insanity. We do not need a complicated plan in order to subvert this agenda. We do not need special deputization or to ask permission from the government. We do not need to join any particular political party or even any particular protest movement.

All we have to do is disobey these unlawful “orders.”

CASSIE ZERVOS: The persistent anti-lockdown protesters said they will not forget Melbourne’s strict 112 day measures as they took to the steps of Parliament. They carried signs saying “Don’t trust the government” and chanted for police to join them in their rally.

SOURCE: Melbourne anti-COVID lockdown protest turns ugly outside Parliament House

BUSINESS OWNER: I’ve lost friends who’ve killed themselves. I’ve seen clients die because they’ve lost their livelihood.

HEALTH INSPECTOR: I’m sorry to hear that.

BUSINESS OWNER: I know you are and i’m just a—I’m asking for you to guys have some compassion.

SOURCE: Buffalo, New York Business Owners Stand Up to Cuomo Lockdown Orders

ASHLEY DRIEMEYER: Can he arrest us all? Because, from what I am gathering, in this area we are all banding together and going against our governor.

SOURCE: Illinois restaurant owner will defy new state restrictions

[CROWD BANGS POTS AND PANS DURING PROTEST]

SOURCE: Protests in Denmark – Epidemic law and mandatory vaccines – EPIDEMILOV

BUSINESS OWNERS: Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out!

SOURCE: Buffalo, New York Business Owners Stand Up to Cuomo Lockdown Orders

If you have managed to retain your sanity during this time of widespread insanity, I applaud you and wish to assure you that you are not alone. Many, many people all around the world are defying orders. They are protesting against these lockdowns. They are standing up. They are disobeying.

But of course the corporate controlled press don’t want you to know that disobedience is an option on the table and they will not report on this. But disobedience is an option. Open your business. Leave your home. Do not ask for permission. Disobey.

To those who are still advocating for lockdowns, I encourage you to do so to the face of those parents who have lost their teenage children due to suicide as a direct result of the shutdowns and tell them that their child’s death doesn’t matter because it wasn’t listed as being due to COVID-19. Or do so to the face of the tens of thousands of others who have already lost loved ones as a direct result of these shutdown or the hundreds of thousands more who will die as long as these lockdowns endure.

If you are advocating for lockdowns, you are complicit in tearing families apart. You are complicit in inflicting untold suffering on millions of people around the world. You are complicit in casting the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies into even further grinding poverty. You are complicit in murder.

A line is being crossed right now. Which side of history are you on? Make your decision now and make it wisely, because your actions during these times will not be forgotten.

You have been warned.

This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com.

*

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: Public domain image from Wiki’s COVID-Protest page.

Among the many controversies surrounding the events of 9/11 one of the most prominent has been the question of how, many hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers, the 47-storey WTC7 building suffered a total collapse, all in a matter of seconds.

The persistence of this controversy is hardly surprising. WTC7 was not hit by an airplane, it had suffered from only a few isolated office fires whilst multiple sources on the day were foretelling the collapse of the building, even though in history no steel-framed skyscraper had ever been brought down by fire alone.

Questions were hardly mitigated by the remarkable length of time it took NIST (the National Institute for Standards in Technology) to publish their investigation of the collapse nor their eye-brow raising conclusion.

And prior to this the 9/11 Commission Report had entirely ignored WTC7. The belated NIST investigation concluded that isolated office fires had caused thermal expansion leading to the failure of a single column and then, extraordinarily, an immediate cascading collapse of all columns in the building.

This then brought the building down symmetrically, in a manner consistent with controlled demolition, in under 12 seconds.

WTC 7 from SEVEN, AE911 / 1091 Pictures.

To many this did not appear to be a particularly persuasive analysis, and certainly not for the grouping of engineers and architects (AE 9/11) who had been questioning for some time the initiation and behaviour of the building collapses on 9/11.

Indeed, so dissatisfied were the architects and engineers that they funded an independent scientific study in order to rigorously evaluate NIST’s ‘completely new’ theory of thermal expansion and progressive collapse.

Seven tells the story of this scientific study, focusing upon its lead researcher, Professor Leroy Hulsey from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who spent four years examining the WTC 7 collapse along with two engineering PhD students Feng Xiao and Zhili Quan.

Image on the right: Dr. Leroy Hulsey – SEVEN, AE911 / 1091 Pictures.

The film is beautifully produced and directed by Dylan Avery, narrated by the well-known and much-loved actor Ed Asner, and is underpinned by a powerful music score by Johan Back Monell. It was produced by Richard Gage, Ted Walters and Kelly David from AE9/11.

Interviews with Professor Hulsey are skillfully interwoven with expert testimony from Roland Angle (civil engineer), Kamal Obeid (structural engineer), Scott Grainger (fire protection officer) and Tony Szamboti (mechanical engineer).

The integrity and expertise of these experts is juxtaposed with embarrassing silences from news anchors when members of the US public phone in to ask about Building 7 and the sheepish Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the NIST study. At one point in the film, having introduced the matter of the corroded steel, retrieved by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and reported by the New York Times as ‘perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation’, Sunder is heard awkwardly attempting to explain away its significance:

Er, there is, there is reference often made to a piece of steel from Building 7. There was no evidence that any of the residue in that steel, in that piece of steel, er had any, er, relationship to, er, an an, undue er fire event in the building … or any other kind of incendiary, incendiary device in the building.

The extreme temperatures needed to have corroded or melted the steel were many times higher than those identified by NIST as having occurred due to the isolated office fires. As with so many other aspects of the NIST investigation, evidence that did not fit a preordained conclusion was simply ignored. Scientific method and rigour was thrown to the wind.

Hulsey’s integrity and rigour stands in sharp contrast to NIST’s disgraceful and un-scientific conduct.

University of Alaska Fairbanks – SEVEN, AE911 / 1091 Pictures.

Seven carefully describes how Hulsey’s team systematically unpicked the flawed claims advanced by NIST, including demonstrably inaccurate calculations relating to their explanation that thermal expansion worked to move a girder off its seat, and implausible claims that the resulting failure of a single column (out of a total of 50 odd) could ever lead to a global collapse of the entire building at free fall speed.

Using two separate computer programs, Hulsey’s team explored how the building would have behaved according to NIST’s explanation and found that the NIST account was wrong.

When confronted with issues relating to their study, NIST simply responded with evasions and secrecy: they have refused to release their key data whilst specific errors identified in their study received curt responses signed off, not by an engineer, but by a NIST public relations staffer. Hulsey’s study, conversely, and all of its data and calculations, has been fully open to expert and public scrutiny.

After one year of public consultation (2019-2020), almost no substantive issues were identified and his reported was officially published byAlaska Fairbanks University. The Hulsey study conclusions are delivered with devastating effect. The final report states:

… the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behaviour observed in videos of the collapse, whereas no other sequence of failures produced the observed effect

Hulsey is more concise in the film:

All those interior columns came out at once, at once, the exteriors also a few seconds later came out at once, giving you free fall which comes down, straight down.

Image below: SEVEN, AE911 / 1091 Pictures.

To its credit, Seven remains focused on the scientific question of why WTC 7 collapsed and, only at the very end, are the broader implications hinted at.

If the building was not brought down by office fires, something else caused it to come down. The events in New York and Washington D.C. on September 11 2001 led directly to a global ‘war on terror’ and multiple wars, with countless lives being destroyed and ruined, and the crumbling of basic civil rights and democracy in the west.

The film closes with Hulsey’s understated but powerful words:

I’m worried, I’m worried about this country right now. We just seem to be doing a lot of yelling and screaming and no hearing. No listening, maybe some hearing but no listening. So are we in a post 9/11? Yes we are. Does that mean just that is a problem? I think it’s bigger than that, I just don’t know where we are right now. It’s a bit troublesome.

Ultimately, Seven calmly and carefully tells a story of good scientists and professionals with integrity battling to establish an important truth through scientific rigour and objectivity. And that truth relates to one of the most important and consequential events of the 21st century whose ramifications are felt ever more powerfully today.

Hulsey’s study is likely to play an important role in some of the legal processes that are currently underway: The Lawyers’ Committee Grand Jury petition and lawsuit against the FBI, the petition to initiate a congressional investigation of the 2001 Anthrax attacks and theCampbell family petition to the UK courts.

But the struggle they have had is testament to how far Western institutions and public spheres have been corrupted in the service of power and become, to all intent and purpose, mediums of propaganda.

At an early stage two students, although keen, elected not to study with Hulsey’s team because of the controversial nature of the research; one prominent University blocked an attempt to discuss Hulsey’s findings; nefarious so-called ‘debunkers’ contacted members of Hulsey’s team and told them not to continue with their work. Hulsey himself speculates that fear of losing lucrative government funding streams has deterred debate among architectural and engineering firms.

The creation of a spiral of silence, fuelled by a compliant and lazy corporate media all too eager to childishly dismiss any questioning as ‘conspiracism’ or ‘conspiracy theory’, has meant that public discussion and debate has been subdued.

The conduct of NIST, more than anything else, highlights how respected scientific organizations have become corrupted.

Dr. Leroy Hulsey – SEVEN, AE911 / 1091 Pictures.

These issues could not be more relevant today, in 2021, where we see similar processes at work suffocating open scientific debate regarding COVID-19 and obfuscating the very real political and economic agendas now being pushed through. Indeed, the parallels between 9/11 and COVID-19 are striking. And the processes are also seen with the ongoing OPCW scandal regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria in which rigorous science has been thwarted by political power.

But, as much as Seven serves to highlight how far the West’s Enlightenment tradition has been eclipsed by corruption and propaganda, it also serves as an example that not all hope is lost. ‘Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority’ and is achieved through the determined efforts of people with integrity and courage.

Academia needs more people like Professor Hulsey and so too does the world, never more so than today.

You can rent and buy Seven on multiple platforms, 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.

This article was originally published on OffGuardian.

Dr Piers Robinson is a co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies and convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. He is an associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 ‘Global War on Terror’. He writes here in a personal capacity.

Featured image: University of Alaska Fairbanks – SEVEN, AE911 / 1091 Pictures.

Every recent US administration has performed a perverse ritual as it has come into office. All have agreed to undermine US law by signing secret letters stipulating they will not acknowledge something everyone knows: that Israel has a nuclear weapons arsenal.

Part of the reason for this is to stop people focusing on Israel’s capacity to turn dozens of cities to dust. This failure to face up to the threat posed by Israel’s horrific arsenal gives its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a sense of power and impunity, allowing Israel to dictate terms to others.

But one other effect of the US administration’s ostrich approach is that it avoids invoking the US’s own laws, which call for an end to taxpayer largesse for nuclear weapons proliferators.

Israel in fact is a multiple nuclear weapons proliferator. There is overwhelming evidence that it offered to sell the apartheid regime in South Africa nuclear weapons in the 1970s and even conducted a joint nuclear test. The US government tried to cover up these facts. Additionally, it has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Yet the US and Israeli governments pushed for the invasion of Iraq based on lies about coming mushroom clouds. As Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu said: the nuclear weapons were not in Iraq – they are in Israel.

To read complete article on The Guardian 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.

Desmond Tutu, a Nobel peace laureate, is a former archbishop of Cape Town and, from 1996 to 2003, was chair of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Featured image: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a speech on Iran’s nuclear programme at the defence ministry in Tel Aviv on 30 April 2018 (Source: MEE)

Yemen, a Quagmire for Saudi Coalition and Imperialists

By Azza Rojbi, January 06 2021

The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is the worst in the world. Those who survive the war live in dire situations struggling to provide for their own basic human needs and those of their families. According to the United Nations, nearly 80 percent of the Yemeni population — over 24 million people — rely on humanitarian assistance to live.

Iran Uses Its Grip on Strait of Hormuz to Fight Back US-Imposed Sanctions

By South Front, January 06 2021

Iran has found an original way of dealing with sanctions and limitations imposed on it by the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign launched by the Trump administration.

Assange Extradition Denial Indicts US Prison System But Imperils Journalism

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, January 06 2021

As press freedom advocates celebrate that Assange has escaped facing charges under the U.S. Espionage Act — charges that carry 175 years in prison — they are also lamenting Baraitser’s acceptance of virtually all of the Trump administration’s attacks on investigative journalism.

COVID-19 and Induced Insanity in the UK, the Global Lab Rat

By Dr. David Halpin, January 06 2021

The strategy has been to scare a large majority out of their remaining wits, and to keep repeating the big lie – that Covid_19 (C19) is very infectious and likely lethal. Every body set up to drive the policies, and there are hundreds, has been corrupt.

We Are at War

By Peter Koenig, January 06 2021

We, the common people, are at war against an ever more authoritarian and tyrannical elitist Globalist system, reigned by a small group of multi-billionaires, that planned already decades ago to take power over the people, to control them.

The GSK – Pfizer Multibillion Dollar Global Vaccine Monopoly

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 05 2021

It’s Big Pharma, It’s Big Money. It’s the multibillion dollar global vaccine market. In August 2019, five months before the onslaught of the Covid-19 crisis, two of the largest Worldwide Pharma conglomerates decided to join hands in a strategic relationship which barely made the headlines.

Greece: From A Covid Coup To A Covid Junta

By Evans Aggelissopoulos, January 06 2021

The Covid Coup of early March has metastasized into a full blown Covid Junta as areas in Western Athens have had a full 24 hour curfew imposed on them. Citizens have been quoted on MSM as stating this has nothing to do with a virus but a full-blown attempt at a Junta.

The Fate of the American Republic: Without the Banana!

By Philip A Farruggio, January 06 2021

“We are a DEMOCRACY.” The Democratic Party leaning stations love to ram this continually down our throats. The right wing outlets seem to be SO far gone that they don’t even attempt to sell this **** to their viewers. Such is the fate of this republic.

In Diversity We Trust: Joe Biden’s Cabinet Choices

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, January 06 2021

Such a vulgar politicisation of multiculturalism and identity also serves another function.  Not only is it meant to convince the multicultis and identitarians that they are onto a good thing with Biden; they can also scorn those voters who backed the soon-to-be-exiting Donald Trump.

What to Expect in 2021: Madness, Mayhem, Manipulation and More Tyranny

By John W. Whitehead, January 06 2021

Iran has found an original way of dealing with sanctions and limitations imposed on it by the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign launched by the Trump administration.

On January 4, the Navy of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps detained a South Korea-flagged oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz over an alleged environmental pollution issue. The chemical tanker HANKUK CHEMI was inbound to Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates. Ahead of the incident, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations naval authority reported that an “interaction” between Iranian authorities and a merchant vessel in the Strait of Hormuz led the ship to alter its course and proceed into Iranian waters.

Following the incident, the South Korean Defense Ministry said that it will send its anti-piracy Cheonghae unit, normally based in the Gulf of Aden, along with helicopters to the Persian Gulf. The 302-strong Cheonghae unit operates a 4,500-ton destroyer, a Lynx anti-submarine helicopter and three speed boats.

The deployment of this unit is a rather a symbolic move than a practical step that should allow to protect South Korea-flagged ships in the region as Iranian forces have an overwhelming dominance there and using its conventional and asymmetric capabilities can even challenge the US military in the event of a limited military confrontation there.

Two days before the seizure of the tanker, Iran said a South Korean diplomat was due to travel to the country to negotiate over billions of dollars in its assets now frozen in Seoul. The total amount of Iranian money blocked in South Korea is up to $8.5 billion and Tehran declared its readiness to barter its money for deliveries of a variety of goods and commodities, including raw materials, medicine, petrochemicals, auto parts, home appliances.

Apparently, Iran thinks that South Korea needs some additional motivation to go contrary to the will of its Big Brother and accept the Iranian proposal.

Another important diplomatic achievement was made by Qatar, which is known as not only a Turkish ally, but also the Gulf monarchy that has constructive relations with Iran. On January 4, Saudi Arabia lifted the 4-year air, sea and land blockade that it together with the UAE, Kuwait, Egypt and Bahrain imposed on Qatar. In June 2017, the blockading countries accused Qatar, among other things, of supporting terrorism and of being too close to Iran. They severed economic and diplomatic ties with Doha and imposed a land, sea and air blockade on it. Qatar rejected all the allegations and refused to comply with a long list of demands announced by the blockading countries. So, now the anti-Qatari coalition is in retreat. The main factors that contributed to this scenario are the following:

• a deep crisis faced by Saudi Arabia due to the failed intervention in Yemen and its oil war adventure;
• the UAE-Saudi tensions that reached a new level due to the declining power of the Saudi Kingdom;
• the growth of the influence of Iran and its popularity among the population of the Middle East due to the public rapprochement of the Gulf monarchies with Israel;
• the stern stance of Qatar itself that used the blockade to develop alternative alliances and strengthen relations with Turkey, Iran and even Russia to contain the pressure it faced.

The Israeli-aligned Gulf monarchies will likely try to use the lifting of the blockade to convince Doha to officially join the US-led pro-Israeli coalition. However, even if Qatar does this under the pressure of the United States and with hopes of restoring economic relations with its neighbors, this does not mean that Doha would change its de-facto regional strategy as the previous years already demonstrated that the national-oriented approach is much more useful in times of crises than empty hopes on large revenues from Israeli love.

Perfumed and tailored for a certain brand of folksy, identity politics, Pete Buttigieg hoped to blast his way to the White House having run a community of 102,000 constituents in South Bend, Indiana.  Mayor Pete was hoping for the best, though his effort did not so much stall as fall over early on before the somnambulist who eventually won both his party’s nomination and the Presidency. 

With President-elect Joe Biden hoping to give the impression of full-blooded diversity in his Cabinet, Buttigieg was a natural choice for transport secretary.  At least New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the US Conference of Mayors thought so.  He spoke well, much like a textbook Rotarian who wishes to justify the club fee.  He comes across as tutored, yet to be jaded.  And there was that wonderful bonus thrown in: his sexual politics.

Biden has gone where many a US president has gone before, pushing up the hill of exceptionalism, proudly claiming that he has gotten his appointments the way no other president before has.

“This Cabinet will be the most representative of any Cabinet in American history.”  Meretriciously, he claimed it would be a “Cabinet of barrier breakers, a Cabinet of firsts.”

Buttergieg had been his ninth “precedent-busting” pick.

To keep him company was, of course, the Vice President-elect herself, Kamala Harris; Alejandro Mayorkas (Department of Homeland Security) – the first Latino to occupy that position and defense secretary appointee Army Gen. Lloyd Austin – the first Black American for the role.  Avril Haines is pencilled in as chief of the US intelligence committee – the first woman to take the reins.  The world’s citizenry can rest assured that they will be monitored, bombed and tortured by a most inclusive set of Cabinet appointees.

Biden’s choices are certainly brimming with the rehearsed lines and testimonials.  Haines, to take but one example, claims to “have never shied away from speaking truth to power…. I’ve worked for you for a long time and I accept this nomination knowing that you would never want me to do otherwise.”

Former CIA director John Brennan is also taken by her “willingness to speak up and speak out if she sees something that needs to be said, so she is not somebody who hesitates to be contrarian as necessary.”

This barely squares with her approval of an “accountability board” that exonerated CIA personnel from conducing espionage on investigators charged by the US Senate for investigating claims of torture.  Far from speaking truth to power, she took a shovel and sought to bury it.  Haines also threw in her lot in backing Gina Haspel for the role of CIA director, despite Haspel’s torture speckled resume.

The appointments have certainly propitiated the devotees of diversity across a number of publications and fora.  The New Republic, making specific reference to court appointments, suggested that it “may actually be an essential move […] to make after the Trump era”.  Biden’s “diversity promises” were “identity politics at their best.”

Jodi Enda of the Center for American Progress wrote glowingly of the president-elect’s appointment of an all-female communications team.  It was “a particularly stunning move”; women, for the first time in history, would “have the chance to weigh in on every important White House decision.  Women will be advising the president and speaking for him.”  Making much of this, the network had to justify the soggy praise.  Having such a team was good because women’s priorities were “different” from men.  “In general, women are more often focused on issues such as healthcare, pay equity and education, which directly affect their families, and are more concerned about equality for immigrants and people of color.”

Such a vulgar politicisation of multiculturalism and identity also serves another function.  Not only is it meant to convince the multicultis and identitarians that they are onto a good thing with Biden; they can also scorn those voters who backed the soon-to-be-exiting Donald Trump.  That’s a huge number to scorn, suggesting that change is something bound to be left in cold storage.  As conservative commentator Daniel Henninger has suggested, “diversity in practice is preponderantly political, which is to say, divisive.”

The diversity drive has become a creature of itself, a lobbying tool, pressing Biden into making appointments to satisfy investors.  Asian American and Pacific Islander lawmakers, for instance, wish for their share of the diversity pie and would be deeply disappointed “if several AAPIs are not nominated.”  Texas Rep. Vicente González has demanded no less than five Latinos to occupy Cabinet positions.

Consolation prizes are being doled out to candidates with neither the expertise nor the interest.  Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge had hoped to head the Department of Agriculture but instead got the call to fill the role of secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  Ironically enough, it was Fudge who told Politico in November that, “You know, it’s always ‘we want to put the Black person in labor or HUD”.

The racial-gender-sexual arithmetic has entailed ensuring a plastering and splash of shallowness, a squeezing of rhetoric that, on closer inspection, fractures with the clichés.  In such cases, history suddenly has eyes and is looking at Biden.  “The eyes of history,” he insists, “are gazing at my diversity inclusion.”  This does not necessarily do him any favours.  This is fashion show politics, not substantive thinking about how best to ameliorate a fatigued, broken state.  We await the achievements of the appointees in due course, but a good number of the ills of the US Republic will continue to be ignored by the practices of the establishment.

*

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. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

You’ve been diabolically lied to and deceived by a tyranny-supporting troika of Western regimes, Big Pharma, and their media press agents.

Covid is seasonal flu/influenza by another name, worlds apart from how it’s portrayed. [That assessment is broadly confirmed by the CDC and the WHO].

It shows up annually during cold weather months — unaccompanied by fear-mongering mass hysteria, a daily media promoted blitzkrieg of mass deception.

Endless promoting of what’s harmful to human health will surely continue in the new year — selling snake oil vaccines that contain an alphabet soup menu of dangerous toxins, some revealed, others hidden.

Annual flu shots do more harm than good and should be avoided to protect health and well-being.

Vaccines are far worse because of a menu of highly toxic ingredients.

Experimental covid ones may be the most dangerous of all.

All vaccines are hazardous to human health. Instead of shielding from diseases as falsely claimed, they risk outbreaks of what they’re supposed protect against.

They also create customers for more drugs, the greater the number taken, the higher the risk of other illnesses, the more sickness industry profits.

Misnaming it Western healthcare is part of diabolical mass deception.

Wellness isn’t profitable. Big Pharma and large hospital chains need widespread illnesses to prosper.

Vaccines for covid enable Pharma to cash in big on a bonanza of profits — at the expense of human health and well-being.

I’ve covered all of the above before and will again because it’s important to combat mass deception by ruling regimes that are supposed to be serving and protecting public health, wellness, and safety but go the other way for their own self-interest.

They’re public enemies, not allies. Knowledge is self-protection, what’s essential to have and act accordingly to keep from being irreparably harmed by mass-vaxxing that doesn’t protect.

Outbreaks of seasonal flu/influenza — disguised as covid this year — showed up in mutated strains as it does every year.

It’s why annual flu shots in the US are for one or more strains that are different from previous years.

What’s true for flu shots (vaccines by another name) applies to mass-vaxxing for covid.

Emergency authorization use granted Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca entries in the covid vaccine sweepstakes will likely be granted for vaccines in development for new seasonal flu/covid strains called covid in the weeks and months ahead.

It’s another version of annually promoted flu shots except that they’re a one-time single shot routine each year for believers.

Multiple strains of seasonal flu showed up this year, more emerging, what happens most all years.

Mass-vaxxing for covid requires multiple shots — two initially, then more with newly developed vaccines for new strains as they emerge that may be bioengineered bioweapons that will harm, not protect human health.

The process is designed to be endless — forever mass-vaxxing for unwitting guinea pigs.

The more shots given, the more profitable to Pharma’s bottom line — the more harm to people taken in by the scam it’s vital to avoid to stay well instead of risking potentially serious illnesses from vaccine toxins.

New covid strains in Britain, South Africa, India, and more surely on the way are part of the diabolical scheme — promoting endless mass-vaxxing henceforth with hazardous to human health toxins.

In late December, Pandemic News.com reported that Pharma is developing new vaccines for newly “concoct(ed)” covid strains to be mass-marketed by stepped up fear-mongering.

The scheme may continue ad infinitum unless through knowledge from reliable sources most people reject it.

The WHO is part of the scam. Days earlier, it warned that covid is “not necessarily the big one,” adding:

We must learn to live with covid — without explaining it’s seasonal flu that shows up annually like clockwork, unaccompanied by fear-mongering mass-hysteria.

According to epidemiologist/chair of the WHO’s strategic and technical advisory group for infectious hazards Dr. David Heymann:

“It appears that (covid) is to become endemic (and) will continue to mutate as it reproduces in human cells.”

“Fortunately, we have tools (that) permit us to learn to live with Covid-19.”

WHO emergencies program director Dr. Mike Ryan said it’s likely  that covid will become an “endemic virus” that can be treated by mass-vaxxing each time new strains emerge.

WHO chief scientist Dr Soumya Swaminathan said social distancing may not “be able to be stopped in the future” because of continued emergence of new viral strains.

Lockdowns when ordered, quarantines, face masks and social distancing as a permanent way of like is what dystopian social control is all about — sacrificing freedom to a totalitarian higher power.

It appears that made-in-the USA covid, economic collapse, and medical tyranny are intended to be longterm, not 2020 events to end in the new year.

If things turn out this way that’s likely, it’s a new abnormal to be feared and rebelled against, not accepted.

Was 2020 a test run to learn whether most Americans, others in the West and elsewhere will accept dystopian harshness or resist?

The latter is sparse. Stepping it up is crucial.

The alternative is the worst of Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s brave new world — ruler/serf societies in the West and elsewhere controlled by police state harshness.

We have a choice. Resist or capitulate to tyranny that won’t end in our lifetime.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

“I was still awake. I was sitting in a chair because I was afraid of the planes flying overhead and making a very loud noise. Then they dropped a bomb near us and afterwards they hit our neighbourhood with three bombs. After that, I lost consciousness.”

These are the words of Yemeni child Ahmad Mansour, ten years old, after he survived the Saudi-led airstrike in his neighbourhood in the Midi District, Hajjah Governorate in north-western Yemen. Ahmed was injured, and his mother and siblings died in the airstrike. A total of 15 people were killed that day (nine children and four women).

The airstrike against Ahmed’s neighbourhood is one of the horrific incidents documented by the Yemeni organization Mwatana for Human Rights in a report titled “DAY OF JUDGMENT”: The US’s Role and Europe in Civilian Death, Destruction, and Trauma in Yemen.” According to the report, a “US-made BLU-63 cluster bomb Submunition” was used by the Saudi-led coalition in this bombing.

World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis

Ahmed and his family’s tragedy is similar to that of many other Yemeni families as the Saudi-led coalition war and destruction on Yemen continues into its sixth year. In its 2020 Global Humanitarian Overview, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said that the war on Yemen “had already caused an estimated 233,000 deaths, including 131,000 from indirect causes such as lack of food, health services, and infrastructure”. To put this devastating number of deaths in perspective, this would be the equivalent of over 2.5 million people killed by war in the United States.

Children collecting water in Yemen’s capital Sana’a

The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is the worst in the world. Those who survive the war live in dire situations struggling to provide for their own basic human needs and those of their families. According to the United Nations, nearly 80 percent of the Yemeni population — over 24 million people — rely on humanitarian assistance to live. Children suffer the most, with 100,000 children under five years old at risk of dying from acute malnutrition.

The U.S.-backed Saudi-led coalition has bombed and destroyed vital civilian infrastructure in Yemen. Over half of Yemen’s healthcare facilities have been damaged and closed due to the war. To add to the brutal bombing, the Saudi-led coalition maintains a sea, land, and air blockade on Yemen. The cruel blockade hinders Yemen’s access to food, fuel, medicine, and medical equipment.

Forgotten Yemeni Refugees

The Saudi-led war on Yemen continues to intensify the humanitarian crisis in the country. 3.6 million people in Yemen have been internally displaced and live in makeshift shelters and refugee camps inside Yemen. According to the UN, Yemen is home to almost 300,000 refugees from countries in the horn of Africa, mainly from Somalia. Refugees across Yemen live in harsh conditions under the threat of war and hunger, making them very vulnerable to diseases, especially in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.

A Yemeni boy in the Markazi refugee camp near Obock, Djibouti

Hundreds of thousands of Yemenis chose to make the perilous journey to leave Yemen to seek safety and asylum in other countries such as Egypt, Djibouti, Somalia, Malaysia, Jordan, and Sudan. These families that were forced out of their beloved homeland by the Saudi-led war find themselves stranded in foreign countries with very little support. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) response to Yemeni refugees’ suffering has been completely inadequate and insufficient.

The same “international community” has been profiting since the start of the war on Yemen from selling weapons and military equipment to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and their allied coalition. The U.S. and its western imperialist allies are directly responsible for the war and destruction in Yemen. Yet, they purposely turn a blind eye to the suffering of millions of displaced Yemenis internally and internationally.

Imperialists Complicity and Hypocrisy of the War

Since the start of the war, the United States has only accepted over 50 refugees from Yemen! In contrast, the U.S. has provided political, logistical, and military support to Saudi Arabia to carry out the war under the guise of restoring legitimacy and stability to the region. Over five years of Saudi-led war on Yemen only achieved death and destruction with no peace or stability in sight.

Saudi Arabia was the largest importer of weapons globally in 2015–2019 and the United States was its biggest supplier with billions of dollars’ worth of arms sales. In his last days in office, U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing to complete a $500 million arms sale to the Saudi Kingdom and a $23 billion arms sale to the United Arab Emirates.

The U.K. government also continues to profit from weapons sales and to provide military training to Saudi Arabia. An article published on September 23, 2020, in Declassified UK, an investigative journalism website, exposed that Saudi combat aircraft pilots continue to receive training in the U.K. by the British Royal Air Force.

Just like the U.S. and the U.K., Canada also has blood on its hands as it also continues to profit from selling arms to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the military coalition. According to data from the “Canadian International Merchandise Trade Database,” Canada has exported over $600 million worth of “Tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, motorized, and parts” to Saudi Arabia just in the period between July and October 2020.

In contrast, Canada contributed $220 million in humanitarian assistance for Yemen since the war in 2015. Canada’s amount of money made selling weapons to Saudi Arabia in the last four months is three times higher than the total amount donated by the government in aid for Yemen in over five years! Such hypocrisy!

A Canadian-made LAV sold to Saudi Arabia is seen burning after clashes in the Kitaf district in northern Yemen

In addition to profiting from the war, Canada also joins other Western countries in disregarding the Yemeni refugee situation. While hundreds of thousands of Yemenis are still stranded in transit countries, Canada has only accepted 124 refugees from Yemen between January to June​ 2020. What a shame!

No to the War on Yemen

The hypocrisy of countries like the U.K., the U.S., and Canada is so revolting. As long as they continue their political and military support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen, there will be no solution to the country’s humanitarian or political situation. We must hold our respective governments accountable and demand an immediate end to the war and that they open the borders to Yemeni refugees and grant them asylum. The solution to Yemeni political problems has to come locally from diverse Yemeni voices, without any military and foreign interference. The Yemeni people deserve a future in peace and prosperity.

Let’s add our voices on January 25, 2020 for the global day of action against the war on Yemen organized by the Yemeni Alliance Committee and other anti-war and humanitarian organizations from across the world. Fire This Time Movement for Social Justice endorses and supports this critical international initiative led by the Yemeni community, and we will actively build it. For more information on the campaign, you can read the international joint statement against Yemen’s war on page 9 of this issue. Let’s unite our voices to demand an end to Yemen’s brutal and cruel war and blockade. Saudi Arabia and U.A.E Stop Bombing Yemen! U.S., U.K., and all imperialists Hands Off Yemen!

Azza Rojbi is a Tunisian social justice activist, author and researcher in Vancouver, Canada. She is a member of the Executive Committee of Vancouver’s antiwar coalition Mobilization Against War and Occupation (MAWO) and author of the book “U.S. and Saudi Arabia War on the People of Yemen” (Battle of Ideas Press, April 2019).

Originally published in the Fire This Newspaper

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”―George Orwell, Animal Farm

What should we expect in 2021?

So far, it looks like this year is going to be plagued by more of the same brand of madness, mayhem, manipulation and tyranny that dominated 2020.

Frankly, I’m sick of it: the hypocrisy, the double standards, the delusional belief by Americans at every point along the political spectrum that politics and politicians are the answer to what ails the country, when for most of our nation’s history, politics and politicians have been the cause of our woes.

Consider: for years now, Americans, with sheeplike placidity, have tolerated all manner of injustices and abuses meted out upon them by the government (police shootings of unarmed individuals, brutality, corruption, graft, outright theft, occupations and invasions of their homes by militarized police, roadside strip searches, profit-driven incarcerations, profit-driven wars, egregious surveillance, taxation without any real representation, a nanny state that dictates every aspect of their lives, lockdowns, overcriminalization, etc.) without ever saying “enough is enough.”

Only now do Americans seem righteously indignant enough to mobilize and get active, and for what purpose? Politics. They’re ready to go to the mat over which corporate puppet will get the honor to serve as the smiling face on the pig for the next four years.

Talk about delusion.

It’s so ludicrous as to be Kafkaesque.

A perfect example of how farcical, topsy-turvy, and downright perverse life has become in the America: while President Trump doles out medals of commendation and presidential pardons to political cronies who have done little to nothing to advance the cause of freedom, Julian Assange rots in prison for daring to blow the whistle on the U.S. government’s war crimes

You’d think that Americans would be outraged over such abject pandering to the very swamp that Trump pledged to drain, but that’s not what has the Right and the Left so worked up. No, they’re still arguing over whether dead men voted in the last presidential election.

Either way, no matter which candidate lost to the other, it was always going to be the Deep State that won.

And so you have it: reduced to technicalities, distracted by magician’s con games, and caught up in the manufactured, highly scripted contest over which beauty contestant wears the crown, we have failed to do anything about the world falling apart around us.

Literally.

Our economy—at least as it impacts the vast majority of Americans as opposed to the economic elite—is in a shambles. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Our government has been overtaken by power-hungry predators and parasites. And our ability—and fundamental right—to govern our own lives is being usurped by greedy government operatives who care nothing for our lives or our freedoms.

Our ship of state is being transformed into a ship of fools.

We stand utterly defenseless in the face of a technological revolution brought about by artificial intelligence and wall-to-wall surveillance that is re-orienting the world as we know it. Despite the mounting high-tech encroachments on our rights, we have been afforded a paltry amount of legislative and judicial protections. Indeed, Corporate America has more rights than we do.

We stand utterly powerless in the face of government bureaucrats and elected officials who dance to the tune of corporate overlords and do what they want, when they want, with whomever they want at taxpayer expense, with no thought or concern for the plight of those they are supposed to represent. To this power elite, “we the people” are good for only two things: our tax dollars and our votes. In other words, they just want our money.

We stand utterly helpless in the face of government violence that is meted out, both at home and abroad. Indeed, the systemic violence being perpetrated by agents of the government—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—has done more collective harm to the American people and their liberties than any single act of terror or mass shooting.

We stand utterly silenced in the face of government and corporate censors and a cancel culture that, in their quest to not offend certain viewpoints, are all too willing to eradicate views that do not conform. In this way, political correctness has given way to a more insidious form of group think and mob rule.

We stand utterly locked down in the face of COVID-19 mandates, restrictions, travel bans and penalties that are acclimating the populace to unquestioningly accede to the government’s dictates, whatever they might be (as long as they are issued in the name of national security), no matter how extreme or unreasonable.

We stand utterly intimidated in the face of red flag laws, terrorism watch lists, contact tracing programs, zero tolerance policies, and all other manner of police state tactics that aim to keep us fearful and compliant.

We stand utterly indoctrinated in the collective belief that the government—despite its longstanding pattern and practice of corruption, collusion, dysfunction, immorality and incompetence—somehow represents “we the people.”

Despite all of this, despite how evident it is that we are mere tools to be used and abused and manipulated for the power elite’s own diabolical purposes, we somehow fail to see their machinations for what they truly are: thinly veiled attempts to overthrow our republic and enslave the citizenry in order to expand their power and wealth.

It is a grim outlook for a new year, but it is not completely hopeless.

If hope is to be found, it will be found with those of us who do not rely on politicians that promise to fix what is wrong but instead do their part, at their local levels, to right the wrongs and fix what is broken. I am referring to the builders, the thinkers, the helpers, the healers, the educators, the creators, the artists, the activists, the technicians, the food gatherers and distributors, and every other person who does their part to build up rather than destroy.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” are the hope for a better year. Not Trump. Not Biden. And not the architects and enablers of the American Police State.

Until we can own that truth, until we can forge our own path back to a world in which freedom means something again, we’re going to be stuck in this wormhole of populist anger, petty politics and destruction that is pitting us one against the other.

In that scenario, no one wins.

There’s a meme circulating on social media that goes like this:

If you catch 100 red fire ants as well as 100 large black ants, and put them in a jar, at first, nothing will happen. However, if you violently shake the jar and dump them back on the ground the ants will fight until they eventually kill each other. The thing is, the red ants think the black ants are the enemy and vice versa, when in reality, the real enemy is the person who shook the jar. This is exactly what’s happening in society today. Liberal vs. Conservative. Black vs. White. Pro Mask vs. Anti Mask. The real question we need to be asking ourselves is who’s shaking the jar … and why?

Whether red ants will really fight black ants to the death is a question for the biologists, but it’s an apt analogy of what’s playing out before us on the political scene and a chilling lesson in social engineering. So before you get too caught up in the circus politics and conveniently timed spectacles that keep us distracted from focusing too closely on the government’s power grabs, first ask yourself: who’s really shaking the jar?

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Originally published by The Rutherford Institute

In the end, only a Grand Coalition of all Covidian parties will become inevitable, either as a consequence of a rebellion or prior to one…

The Greek government is trying to excel in its imposition of totalitarian rules for a non-existent Covid crisis. Magnifying alleged PCR positives and blowing infections out of all proportion, they shut down Greece in early November by imposing draconian measures. The Covid Coup of early March has metastasized into a full blown Covid Junta as areas in Western Athens have had a full 24 hour curfew imposed on them. Citizens have been quoted on MSM as stating this has nothing to do with a virus but a full-blown attempt at a Junta.

PM Mitsotakis in a video conference call with Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset book on his desk

September 2020

Whilst hotels were partially opened in the summer but a whole series of roadblocks were created on tourists from PCR tests for entrance into Greece, the banning of certain islands from tourists, night curfews, etc., the actual numbers were miniscule to support the tens of thousands that work in the industry or supply it. The collapse in the tourist trade was catastrophic, and as most businesses were closed down during the draconian years of the IMF-EU imposed austerity, the economy entered the new Great Depression already on its knees and it will now be blown up completely. That is why even more draconian measures are sought and imposed.

Mitsotakis’ New Democracy is fully embedded to Merkel’s EU and she dictates the agenda. The covidclowns in Athens are only too eager to please and the reason is simple. Since Syriza came to power, they have shown that they are more pro-EU than the EU itself and they know the opposition wants even more measures than are being proposed or implemented.

Old habits die hard: Afghanis and Pakistanis celebrate in central Athens despite lockdown measures

After making masks compulsory for shopping and public transport, the government then made mask wearing compulsory everywhere the moment you leave the house with €300 fines, SMS messages in order to leave, and not allowing people to leave the region/area they live in. Fines became like confetti when the changes were first implemented, but to what extent any are paid is another issue. Coupled with compulsory mask wearing in schools and the defeat of the student protests due to the Lockdown Left, the government implemented a second lockdown in early November which continues till this article was written, and they want to extend it to Easter and possibly indefinitely.

Economic Meltdown Anew

Having been the guinea pigs for the Eurocrisis that was magnified beyond all proportion for lilliputian Greece, they have now chosen for themselves to be the Covidclowns for Davos’ Great Reset. Without any serious functioning industries left anymore and relying mostly on imports and the tourist trade, they are being imploded one lockdown after another on dubious excuses regarding infections and Covid deaths. The ever evolving Covid-1984 goalpost serves an agenda, that which destroys the independence of all and turns them into dependent appendages of a higher authority whose aim is to instil fear via virus terrorism and to ensure people no longer meet or act independently of governments. The closest description are prisoners of an open prison who are free to act within certain limits and their life is regulated.

The collapse of GDP year-on-year but beginning from the first lockdown early March 2020 until March 2021 will probably be in the region of around 25%, equivalent in one year to what took four to occur between 2010 and 2014, but you won’t hear that being said anywhere as a boom is always literally round the corner. The only problem for most people is that they can never find that corner, and it isn’t due to a lack of working google maps.

The two reasons Greece and its people survived (not everyone of course, that is) in the last decade was the fact that hundreds of thousands of citizens went abroad for work, and North African coupled with Turkish tourism collapsed due to the wars/upheavals in those regions. But the 2020 collapse in tourism which registered probably a 80% downturn in both numbers and takings will eventually take its toll as it will complete a full cycle (Easter 2020-Easter 2021).

For Whom the Bell Tolls

Police roadblocks in the Western Greater Athens region of Aspropirgos

The Greek riot police have spent over a decade cracking heads open and targeting the most vulnerable in society, usually pensioners, women, and children. They actually get a buzz out of it that breaks the boredom of hanging around doing nothing. Twice in the past they have been defeated: intheriots over a dump site which was withdrawn in Keratea, Greece and in the islands of the Aegean over illegal immigration. A third event is developing, this time round the Covid dictatorship in Western Athens, the old rustbelt of Aspropirgos (which in the last three decades has been populated by ex-Russian Pontiac Greeks who arrived in the mid-1980s and settled in the region) and a northern town called Kozani which has also been in extreme lockdown.

The curfew has been imposed from 6pm till 5am and helicopters and drones have been circling the areas daily with police roadblocks in and out of the roads that connect the region. All shops and markets apart from supermarkets are to be closed. Hundredsgotinvolved in battles with the riot police for a series of nights. These areas have become a testing site to roll this out nationally, and it’s no coincidence that locals interviewed in the media mentioned that this is all about going national (i.e. a new Junta). Just as this is being written, a new lockdown has been announced, nationally restricting movements from 9pm to 5pm and re-closing everything apart from supermarkets. The aim of course is to lock Greece down from 6pm and block all movements. This appears to be an EU agenda as France announced similar types of measures as well.

Theriotpolice’s role has now been elevated in imposing around-the-clock curfews, the problem being that there aren’t enough of them and going into local areas in such a brutal manner only shows their limitations. This role can only realistically be imposed by an army with shoot to kill orders.

The Covidian Junta is trying to impose a Woke Dictatorship whereby people volunteer to stay imprisoned indefinitely, and if they come out, then we send riot police out to crack a few skulls. This would work if there was an active segment of the population on the streets pushing for people to stay in, but they are all shielding from life in general, hence the arrival of the riot police only inflames passions and inevitably leads to their defeat as they can’t take on locals in their own areas. Apart from the riots in Aspropirgos, a motorcade rally now occurred in Kozani, with emphasis that no political parties are allowed to be present.

Lockdown Left Propping Up New Democracy

Never in the history of Greece has there been such a total and complete unison in politics by all the representatives in Parliament. The previous decade of course showed that they were in unison in particular when fake left Syriza took over and New Democracy voted alongside them for the 3^rd Memorandum. Now,though, they are in lockstep behind endless rounds of lockdowns, which according to the World Bank are to go on for a full five years (funding has been secured for that aim).

The leaders of the official left parties Syriza and KKE rushed to get the Pfeizer vaccine and no other. Not the Russian, but Pfeizer’s, the one that the government was allegedly going to roll out for millions within weeks but which now has been derailed as only a few thousand arrived and are now on hold. Having told everyone that lockdowns are the only way for stopping the virus but then they don’t stop it, they now tell everyone that the vaccine will but then they stop its rollout, which begs the question that if lockdowns were successful, then why were they continued? And if they weren’t successful, then why weren’t they discontinued?

World Bank documentation stating that funding for Covid goes on till 2025

The Greek government has voted through a (Great Reset) Bankruptcy Law and now individuals will be treated as corporations. Without your knowledge, creditors can apply for default. So for any loan you have taken out or for any money you owe, if they push for bankruptcy and you own any assets, then they will go for them….real asset stripping will occur, not the fake ones that occurred before when they fake Left allegedly got involved in stopping them. This time around, there won’t even be any fake protests as the Lockdown Left will be at home wearing a mask and keeping ‘safe’. This is the number one priority of all political discourse nowadays: how to save oneself from death by dying one lockdown at a time.

In the end, only a Grand Coalition of all Covidian parties will become inevitable, either as a consequence of a rebellion or prior to one…

Julian Assange’s legal victory this week was bittersweet. In a stunning decision, British judge Vanessa Baraitser denied Donald Trump’s request for extradition of Assange to the United States, ruling that he was at high risk of suicide if he were extradited because the U.S. prison system could not protect him.

But at the same time, Baraitser spent most of her 132-page decision supporting the Trump administration’s case against Assange, which amounts to the criminalization of national security journalism.

So even as press freedom advocates celebrate that Assange has escaped facing charges under the U.S. Espionage Act — charges that carry 175 years in prison — they are also lamenting Baraitser’s acceptance of virtually all of the Trump administration’s attacks on investigative journalism.

Extradition Would Be “Oppressive” Due to Assange’s Mental Condition

The U.K. 2003 Extradition Act forbids extradition if “the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.”

If Assange is extradited to the United States, he would be incarcerated in a U.S. supermax prison and held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day under onerous conditions, the judge found.

Baraitser relied heavily on the written testimony of Professor Michael Kopelman, emeritus professor of neuropsychiatry at Kings College London, who diagnosed Assange with recurrent depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Baraitser cited Kopelman’s assertion, “I am as confident as a psychiatrist ever can be that, if extradition to the United States were to become imminent, Mr. Assange will find a way of suiciding.” She noted that other experts corroborated Kopelman’s predictions of suicide.

The judge wrote, “The detention conditions in which Mr. Assange is likely to be held are relevant to Mr. Assange’s risk of suicide.” She cited testimony by prison experts as well as mental health experts. If he were sent to the U.S., Assange would face incarceration under onerous special administrative measures leaving him in virtual isolation from all other human beings.

Thus, Baraitser found, “Faced with conditions of near total isolation and without the protective factors which moderate his risk at HMP Belmarsh [where Assange is currently imprisoned], I am satisfied that the procedures described by Dr. Leukefled will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide.”

“I am satisfied that the risk that Mr. Assange will commit suicide is a substantial one,” Baraitser concluded. “I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.”

Baraitser’s decision is ultimately an indictment of the brutal U.S. prison system that wouldn’t be able to protect Assange if he were sent there.

National Security Journalism Under Threat From Judge’s Ruling

But Baraitser had no problem with the U.S. government prosecuting Assange for practicing journalism.

This is the first time a journalist has been indicted under the Espionage Act for publishing truthful information. Journalists are allowed to publish material illegally obtained by a third person if it is a matter of public concern. The U.S. government has never prosecuted a journalist or newspaper for publishing classified information.

The indictment charges that Assange and WikiLeaks obtained and published classified material that Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning had provided to the organization. Many of the charges allege that Assange had “reason to believe that the information would be used to damage the interests of the U.S. or used to the advantage of a foreign nation.” The material that Assange and WikiLeaks published contained evidence of war crimes committed by the United States.

They published 400,000 field reports about the Iraq War, 15,000 unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians and evidence of the systematic murder, torture and rape by the Iraqi army and authorities that was ignored by U.S. forces.

They published 90,000 reports about the war in Afghanistan, including the Afghan War Logs, which recorded more civilian casualties by coalition forces than the U.S. military had reported.

And they published the Guantánamo Files — 779 secret reports about the U.S. government’s torture and abuse of 800 men and boys in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The most notorious release by WikiLeaks was the 2007 “Collateral Murder” video, in which a U.S. Army Apache helicopter gunship targeted and fired on unarmed civilians in Baghdad. At least 18 civilians were killed — including two Reuters reporters and a man who came to rescue the wounded — and two children were injured. An Army tank drove over one of the bodies, severing it in half. That video portrays the commission of three separate war crimes prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual.

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! that, “the point of the prosecution [of Assange] is to criminalize national security journalism.” It goes to the heart of what journalists do, he said, “protecting confidential sources, communicating with them confidentially, cultivating sources, publishing classified secrets. These are the pillars of investigative journalism, of national security journalism in particular.”

Jaffer provided written testimony at Assange’s hearing. He noted that in 1973, Harold Edgar and Benno Schmidt Jr. called the Espionage Act a “loaded gun pointed at newspapers and reporters who publish foreign policy and defense secrets.”

If publication of national security secrets violated the Espionage Act, we wouldn’t know about U.S. government misconduct in the “war on terror.” In his interview with Goodman, Jaffer cited The Washington Post’s exposé of the CIA black sites, the torture and abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq that The New Yorker and “60 Minutes II” disclosed, and the warrantless surveillance program revealed by The New York Times.

Noam Chomsky said at a January 4 webinar (in which I participated) that the Biden administration will now be spared the embarrassment of putting Assange on trial, but at the same time, the threat to press freedom has been strengthened by Baraitser’s ruling.

Chomsky noted that the government always invokes national security when it doesn’t want the people “to know what they’re doing in their name.” National security really means “the security of the state against its own citizens,” he said.

Four Blackwater mercenaries committed war crimes when they used machine guns and grenade launchers to kill or wound at least 31 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in 2007. They were convicted and were serving long prison terms. In a move that fueled outrage throughout Iraq, Trump pardoned all four men. Contrast that with the 2007 Collateral Murder video, which contains evidence of U.S. war crimes, also in Baghdad. The helicopter crew was never prosecuted. Trump pardoned individuals who committed war crimes but indicted Assange who revealed them.

The U.S. government is appealing to the High Court to reverse Baraitser’s denial of extradition. If the U.S. loses there, it can appeal to Britain’s Supreme Court. The appellate process will take several months.

It is unlikely that Baraitser’s ruling will be reversed on appeal. She limited her decision to a narrow ground — Assange’s mental health — and accepted most of the U.S. government’s allegations.

On January 6, the defense will request that Assange be released on bond pending appeal.

Originally published on Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

There were several events typical of predictive programming. 

The World Economic Forum October 21^st 2020 meeting and the Great Reset was one (1). 

Here in Britain the orchestration of central, NHS and local responses to a respiratory disease suggested that plans were laid before the Wuhan outbreak was announced on the 12^th of December 2019. 

For instance, the title of a most complex and lengthy bill nodded through in 48 hours in the Mother of Parliaments, was ‘The 2019/2020 Coronavirus Bill’.  This would have required drafting lawyers and committees of MPs to crawl over this miscarriage for at least a month or so pre-Wuhan.

Click the screen below to view to WEF Great Reset Propaganda Video.

The Virus

In my earlier article (2)  I focus on the apocalyptic atmosphere being engendered by the ‘hype’ attached to this recent addition to the ubiqitous corona virus family, first characterised in the 1960s.  That it was probably ‘engineered’ –i.e. not of natural origin by mutation, might have been an excuse for more fear than logic determined.

There was a feeling of ‘End Times’ under a blackening sky; an inevitable spiral into the failure of systems with increased suffering and loss, especially for that large majority world wide who live hand to mouth.

The Pandemic and Geopolitics

Under the vast and masked distraction, and without the possibility of publics gathering in protest, a long planned attack on Iran was in those many psychopathic minds. (2)  The latter are the zealots for destruction of other humans calling a nuclear weapon ‘tactical’.

The Propaganda Campaign

The strategy has been to scare a large majority out of their remaining wits, and to keep repeating the big lie – that Covid_19 (C19) is very infectious and likely lethal.

Every body set up to drive the policies, and there are hundreds, has been corrupt.

The corruption and mendacity of politicians is vast in scale, but ‘they’ press on without any accountability and ‘laugh in the faces’ of those who know.

Sustaining Obedience. The Mask, Social Distancing 

The gullibility is extraordinary in most, and obedience almost complete.

Nine months from the start at least half the shoppers in the local country towns are masked as they move about or queue observing anti-social distancing.

Some ride cycles in brisk winter weather with faces muzzled.

Attempts to tell the wearers that they will have varieties of bacteria and viruses in the culture medium within the gauze are met with blank eyes.

That some species in the masks which are fingered constantly, tucked into pockets and removed for every encounter, are probably pathogenic, evinces no reaction.

“I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections.  … In February and March we were told not to wear masks. What changed? The science didn’t change. The politics did. This is about compliance. It’s not about science… (Dr. James Meehan) 

The Behavioural Insights Team (now Independent of the Uk government)(3) will be measuring compliance via the masks as seen in CCTV footage at supermarkets, petrol stations etc.

With the same title exactly in the US, these psychologists of the mass mind will know how the mask has many benefits for control of the polity.  De-personalization, submission, stifling of speech, and anonymity are some of the gains as perceived in the fascist mind.

Fascism – the author’s definition:

the subjugation of the individual’s will and freedom by an overweening state.  Humanity withers, freedom of speech is stifled and the soul dies. Self preservation becomes a dominant drive.

The suffering is largely silent, and the complacent middle classes spend time ordering their food on line for home delivery.

The print and broadcast media is in lock step, the main message being that there are many thousands of ‘cases’ or ‘infections’ each day – conflating the many positive RT-PCR ‘tests’ (4) with disease.

Many are oblivious to this obvious lie.  Their ductility is ensured by their lack of logic, inquiry and a desert of information.

The Bailouts, Handouts and Social Safety Nets

‘Funny’ money dished out, pacifies the many and memories are in milliseconds.

That ‘austerity’ was enforced after the exchequer baled out the banks with an amount equal to five years worth of NHS spending – £540 billion, in 2008 is not remembered, and the consequences of a record National Debt now does not hit home.

Surveillance and Social Control

The current situation in this ‘demi-paradise’ is of accelarating fear and ever closer surveillance and control.

This is the BBC ‘news’ today (5).

  “Covid-19: Concern at ‘unprecedented’ infection level in England”.

‘The mutant strain of C19 is very ‘infectious’ and the ambulance service and the receiving hospitals are being overwhelmed.’

There is no let up in the lying; the evil of it tends to overwhelm the conscientious.

Locally, in Devon (Southern England), are these things true?

1. Is there a bounty to some health authority if Covid-19 is on the death certificate – as was the case in the US?
2. Did the relative dying of a ruptured aneurysm in hospital have Covid-19 put on his death certificate?
3. There was an accident on the coastal road in Torbay. A car rolled over and the road was closed, It was said the driver had just driven away from the English Riviera Centre where a Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ had been injected.  What are the facts?

But all is not lost.  At present it can be said that if the British were in 1939, what the morasse is like now, Hitler would have walked straight in.

But there are many who see through the propagandare nero, and as poverty bites, the trampled will resist more and a revolution of the mind will restore the freedoms and the common sense.

This was Trafalgar Square in late September 2020  (6).

*

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.

Notes

1. https://www.weforum.org/videos/welcome-to-the-jobs-reset-summit?collection=jobs-reset-summit-2020
2. https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-america-and-britain-building-a-pretext-to-wage-war-on-iran-setting-the-scene-for-a-broader-war/5680621
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/behavioural-insights-team
4. https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-scandal-breaking-merkel-germany/5731891
5. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55462701
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBxleGUxig

You tune into the great BOOB and channel surf the ( so called ) News and News Talk shows, and you hear this over and over: We are a DEMOCRACY.

The Democratic Party leaning stations love to ram this continually down our throats. The right wing outlets seem to be SO far gone that they don’t even attempt to sell this **** to their viewers.

Such is the fate of this republic.

Take a look at this current Senatorial run-off election in Georgia, the one that has gotten so much attention. One surmises that for lovers of this Two Party/One Party con this election could decide the balance of power in the Senate.

As many of us should realize by now the Senate is AKA The Super Rich Man’s Club replete with super rich or water carriers for the super rich. One of the current Georgia Senators is a super rich cousin of the powerful Sonny Perdue, former Governor of the state.

David Perdue made his fortune as a management consultant for major corporations. HIs real ‘ claim to fame’ was just this past year when he made money from the Covid 19 influenced stock market crash from information he gathered at closed door Senate meetings. This should be enough to have him either censored from the Senate or indicted.

His opponent, Jon Ossoff, has an equally ‘ checkered past’ in Democratic Party politics.

Ossoff was a student at Georgetown U. when he volunteered to write speeches for Hank Johnson in 2006. Johnson was selected ( the term I will use) by the big machers in the Democratic Party to run against Rep. Cynthia McKinney. Ms. McKinney ( who I later voted for as President when she ran on the 2008 Green Party ticket ) was one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq invasion, along with her doubts as to the official 9/11 Commission’s findings

In a nutshell, McKinney was a ‘ breath of progressive fresh air’ during those days. Her party could NOT tolerate her for her stances on many issues. Bernie Sanders could only wish e had the same views on things that she had. Ossoff made damn sure that this woman would lose her seat… and she did!

Now we come to Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler, appointed to that seat just 13 months ago. Loeffler, married to NY Stock Exchange Chairman Jeffery Sprecher, is said to be worth $500 million.

Her husband is also “filthy rich”. As with Perdue, Loeffler had information from being on important Senate Committees that it is reported her husband may have used to make a fortune during this pandemic.

Duh, they call this ‘ Insider trading’ and it is ILLEGAL.

To hear her speak publically, as with Perdue, one can easily ascertain that she is not a ‘ bright candle’. As we all know, ‘ Money talks’. Her opponent, Pastor Raphael Warnock, fits in with the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. He will always make sure that he stays as close to the other ( so called ) moderate Democrats.

The good pastor, who has stood for many noble causes during his tenure as head of the late MLK Jr’s church, is aware of just how far his party will allow him to go. As with this previous presidential election, we the voters really have a scant choice. To vote for Trump and his Republican minions would be almost sacrilegious. Thus, to get rid of these parasites we had to vote for more kinder and gentler parasites. Sad.

This Two Party/One Party con job has been only getting more lethal through the decades. The super rich have succeeded in capturing any remnants of what we were schooled in as pure Democracy. As with the Jim Morrison lyrics:

” When I was back there in seminary school someone put forth the proposition that you can

‘ Petition the Lord with Prayer’ , ‘ Petition the Lord with prayer’ , Petition the Lord with prayer’…..

YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!!!

Ditto for thinking that we are living in a Democracy.

Worse than that, we are even worse than a Banana Republic. Why? Well, in most of these Banana Republics the populace knows that their electoral system is a ruse, a scam.

They know just how easy it is for the super rich to run things through fixed elections. Amerika operates on a much more sophisticated con. They make sure there are only two parties to choose from. The rest of any third party movements are either co-opted or forced through the use of money in elections to become mostly invisible to the public. We see in each and every recent presidential election the higher amounts of money spent on campaigns. This obscenity, like the battery commercial, just ‘ Keeps on Keepin on’.

As this new Biden administration will reveal, just like with Obama before him, little will be done to counteract the super rich who run this empire.

We will see the same ‘ Food Fight’ by the two parties that will give Zero to working stiffs. Zero!

When the day comes that a  mass of people finally show up at the halls of Congress, at the statehouses and the city councils, as well as the local offices of their elected officials , and look them in the eyes and demand change concerning vital issues….

PA Farruggio

January 5th, 2021

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].

It’s Big Pharma, It’s Big Money. It’s the multibillion dollar global vaccine market.

In August 2019, five months before the onslaught of the Covid-19 crisis, two of the largest Worldwide Pharma conglomerates decided to join hands in a strategic relationship which barely made the headlines. 

In an August 2019 Press release GSK confirmed the formation of a major partnership with Pfizer entitled the Consumer Health Joint Venture:

While the two companies had envisaged a “separation” clause following a process of restructuring, GSK and Pfizer have nonetheless integrated their decision making, specifically with regards to the vaccine market:

“With our future intention to separate, the transaction also presents a clear pathway forward for GSK to create a new global Pharmaceuticals/Vaccines company, with an R&D approach focused on science related to the immune system, use of genetics and advanced technologies,  …  Ultimately, our goal is to create two exceptional, UK-based global companies, with appropriate capital structures” (GSK)

What is at stake is the de facto formation of a Big Pharma Worldwide monopoly with a global network of “partners”.

Most of the so-called 125 (“small pharma”) candidates are involved in subcontracting (out-sourcing) manufacturing and marketing activities on behalf of the Big Pharma conglomerates.

The COVAX Initiative and Big Pharma

The COVAX initiative launched in April 2020 was intended to facilitate the Worldwide  distribution of the Covid vaccine. It is coordinated by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, and the World Health Organization (WHO) (all of which are partially funded by the Gates foundation).

In turn, the Gates foundation is a major shareholder of the Big Pharma vaccine conglomerates including GSK and Pfizer:

Sanofi and Glaxosmithkline were awarded about $2.1 billion in July from the U.S. Operation Warp Speed to support development and large-scale manufacturing of their adjuvanted recombinant protein subunit vaccine, providing the federal government with 100 million doses. The companies also have supply deals with the U.K., Canada and Gavi, an international vaccine alliance. (BioWorld, December 202o, emphasis added)

.

The November 2020 Launching of the Covid Vaccine

Were the standard animal lab tests using mice or ferrets conducted?

Or did Pfizer, Moderna  “go straight to human “guinea pigs.”? Human tests began in late July and early August. “Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the norm.”  

Our thanks to Large and JIPÉM

This caricature by Large + JIPÉM  explains our predicament:

Mouse No 1: “Are You Going to get Vaccinated”,

Mouse No. 2: Are You Crazy, They Haven’t finished the Tests on Humans”

And why do we need a vaccine for Covid-19 when both the WHO and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have confirmed unequivocally that Covid-19 is  “similar to seasonal influenza”. 

The unspoken answer is “Big Money”.

Biggest Vaccine Operation in World History

The plan to develop the Covid-19 vaccine is profit driven. It is supported by corrupt governments serving the interests of Big Pharma.

The US government had already ordered 100 million doses back in July 2020 and the EU is to purchase 300 million doses. It’s Big Money for Big Pharma, generous payoffs to corrupt politicians, at the expense of tax payers.

The objective is ultimately to make money, by vaccinating the entire planet of 7.8 billion people for SARS-CoV-2.

The Covid vaccine in some cases envisages more than one shot. If this plan were to go ahead as planned, it would be the largest vaccine initiative in World history and the biggest money making operation for Big Pharma.

Moreover, under the Pfizer Moderna initiative, the mRNA vaccine will have an impact on the human genome.

The ID2020 Digital Vaccine Identity Platform

And there is also the project promoted by GAVI to insert a “digital passport”.

It’s called the ID2020 Agenda, which, according to Peter Koenig constitutes “an electronic ID program that uses generalized vaccination as a platform for digital identity”.

“The program harnesses existing birth registration and vaccination operations to provide newborns with a portable and persistent biometrically-linked digital identity”. (Peter Koenig, March 2020)

The Founding Partners of ID2020 are Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) among others.

It is worth noting the timeline: The ID2020 Alliance held their Summit in New York, entitled “Rising to the Good ID Challenge”, on September 19, 2019, exactly one month prior to nCov-2019 simulation exercise entitled Event 201 at John Hopkins in New York:

Is it just a coincidence that ID2020 is being rolled out at the onset of what the WHO calls a Pandemic? – Or is a pandemic needed to ‘roll out’ the multiple devastating programs of ID2020? (Peter Koenig, March 2020)

.

ID2020 is part of a “World Governance” project which, if applied, would roll out the contours of what some analysts have described as a Global Police State embedding through vaccination the personal details of several billion people Worldwide.

The creation of false opposites has been a long-standing obstacle to human progress.

From the ancient pleasure-seeking Epicureans who argued against the logic-heavy Stoics of ancient Rome to the war of “salvation through faith vs works” that schismed western Christianity, to the chaotic emotional energy driving the Jacobin mobs of France whose passions were only matched by the radical Cartesian logic of their Girondin enemies; humanity has long been manipulated by oligarchs who knew how to set the species to war against itself. Although these operations have taken many forms, the desired effect has always been the same: divide-to-conquer bloodbaths which drowned out the saner voices of Cicero (executed in 44 BCE), Thomas More (executed in 1535 CE), or Jean Sylvain Bailly (executed in 1793 CE).

Today’s polarization across the Trans-Atlantic world has reached a fevered pitch with the “right wing conservatives” shouting for liberty and less government while left wing liberals call for more government and top-down reforms of the system (with Great Reset technocrats laughing in the background).

Everyone with half a brain should be able to sense that the danger of civil war and economic meltdown hang over our destinies like a sword of Damocles, but instead of hearing calls for restoring the SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN traditions of American System banking that author Ellen Brown recently documented in her powerful new essay, we find only feuding sects that assert we must EITHER have top-down centralized planning OR bottom-up free markets laissez faire policies devoid of any government intervention.

To the degree that this false debate continues the overtones of France’s 1789-94 bloodbath will be heard growing louder with every passing day.

Keynes vs Hayek: A False Dualism

In this first of a three-part series, I will argue that the source of this confusion among Americans was first concocted in London during the height of the depression, centering on the figures of two London-based Malthusian hedonists. One was top-down economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and the other played the role of his supposed opponent in the form of “bottom up” advocate Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992).

To put it another way, these two fundamentally anti-republican ideologues whose lives were each devoted to the hereditary systems of empire constructed a widely publicized debate that asserted two opposing economic theories, either 1) government must spend arbitrarily to create jobs OR 2) government must cut budgets, end social safety nets and public services and let the strong survive leaving each unit of society to its own (supposedly) self-regulating passions.

The constants among both apparent opponents (who remained friends throughout their lives) were that 1) neither believed that INTENTION or MIND should govern economic policy (Keynes believed in arbitrary “make work” which could not differentiate between the qualitative difference of a $100 paycheck to a digger of random holes vs $100 paycheck to an engineer building a dam), and 2) both believed equally in the universal validity of Malthus’s population theories, and of Bernard Mandeville’s satanic belief that personal vice creates public virtue. Both theories have underpinned British imperial grand strategy for over two centuries.

It is also important to hold in mind that this 1932 debate emerged at a time that the world government agenda driven by the Bank of England and League of Nations were on the ascendency. This operation, in which both Keynes and von Hayek were thoroughly enmeshed, demanded fascist regimes control the world under a “scientifically managed” bankers’ dictatorship.

One month after the London Times October 17, 1932 publication began to print arguments from proponents of both schools on how to best end the depression, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to the U.S. presidency.

With his presidential victory, a specific form of economic planning was restored to the republic that had nothing to do with either school of Keynes or Hayek and everything to do with something uniquely embedded in the U.S. Constitutional traditions that petrified the hereditary empires of Europe’s old nobility.

In the years leading up to his victory, FDR had worked closely with a grouping of bipartisan American congressmen and senators to revive a form of political economy which involved the paradoxical coexistence of increased government involvement together with massive increase in entrepreneurism, and private sector growth. The fact that FDR is attacked by communists for being a capitalist shill while being simultaneously attacked by capitalists for being a communist shill to this very day is a sign of this ongoing confusion and a testament to the effectiveness of British intelligence propaganda.

The systemic inability for modern Americans to resolve the ‘FDR paradox’ today is due entirely to a sleight of hand pulled by the very same imperial power that has never forgiven the USA for declaring its independence in 1776.

What Ben Franklin Created

When Benjamin Franklin (1705-1790) had orchestrated his life-long project of establishing a new nation on this earth founded upon the principle of the sanctity of the individual (enunciated in the 1776 Declaration of Independence) and the sanctity of the General Welfare (as outlined in the Constitution’s 1787 pre-amble), he and his leading co-thinkers demonstrated a profoundly philosophical understanding of the political economy and also nature of true freedom which citizens must re-learn – quickly.

In order to give practical meaning to the ideals of individual (bottom up) freedom and national (top down) collective well-being enshrined in America’s founding documents, a new system of political economy was created by Franklin and his closest followers among the founding fathers.

This new system did not arise ex nihilo but was itself based upon the greatest traditions of French dirigisme of Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683), and earlier Cameralist schools of economic planning which grew out of the creation of the first modern nation states of France’s Louis XI and England’s Henry VII. For the first time in history (at least since the short-lived effort by Charlemagne in the 8^th century), the idea of “money”, “value”, “profit” were tied not to the passive capital off which feudal landlords fed parasitically, or bounty to be looted, but rather the improvement of the lives of people from whom the legitimacy of government was recognized to originate.

Throughout the 18^th century, Benjamin Franklin became a leading American force for this school of thought which was outlined in his 1729 On the Necessity for a Paper Currency. In this influential essay, the young scientist argued for a system of finance, colonial scrip, and value governed by the growth of manufacturing and full spectrum economics. In his essay Franklin battled the British establishment who argued that the colonies should forever remain agrarian, backward and cash cropping, saying:

“As Providence has so ordered it, that not only different Countries, but even different Parts of the same Country, have their peculiar most suitable Productions; and like wise that different Men have Genius’s adapted to Variety of different Arts and Manufactures, Therefore Commerce, or the Exchange of one Commodity or Manufacture for another, is highly convenient and beneficial to Mankind.”

Some of Franklin’s leading protégé’s who carried this tradition into the 19^th century included the first U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), John Jay (1745-1829), Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816), Robert Morris (1734-1806), Isaac Roosevelt (1726-1794) (great-great grandfather to Franklin Roosevelt) and later Henry Clay (1777-1852), John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), Matthew Carey (1760-1839). Matthew Carey’s son Henry C. Carey (1793-1879) became a leading economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln.

All of these figures defended the right of the young republic to develop “full spectrum economics” in order to gain true independence from the City of London.

Henry C. Carey’s Seminal works that rallied the nation’s patriots to the cause of the American System included The Principles of Political Economy (1840), How to Outdo England Without Fighting Her (1865), Unity of Law (1872) and more. It was in The Harmony of Interests (1856) that Carey famously foretold of the emerging global fight between open vs closed systems that would define the post Civil War decades:

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

What did the “American System” Do?

While the British System of laissez fair free trade demanded that governments do nothing, regulate nothing and plan nothing in order for the magical creative animal spirits of the self-regulating markets to “do their thing”, the American System took a very different approach.

By applying protectionism, national banking, internal improvements and public credit, the American System was driven by the idea that “value” was located not in money or any material thing existent in the ephemeral “now” but rather in the development of the creative powers of mental activity of the people. Lincoln outlined this concept beautifully in his powerful “On Discoveries and Inventions” (1858) and this principle governed the creation of the Greenbacks when private bankers made every effort to cripple the Union’s access to credit needed to win the war.

Using protection, all nations have the right and even duty to prevent the cheap dumping of foreign goods by imposing a tariff upon imports, thus ensuring that local production be favored. Dumping was an old practice of economic warfare which the British had honed since the 17th century crushing its colonies’ efforts to build up local manufacturing on countless occasions (and continues to be a key element of economic warfare masquerading behind the veneer of globalization in our current age).

As demonstrated in the LPAC documentary 1932, whenever American System-followers in Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, China, Spain and France applied protection, rail, and dirigiste credit, prosperity, independence and abundance flourished. Whenever these policies were abandoned, those nations were crippled and manipulated into wars by foreign interests.

Between 1880-1930, this system was led by nationalist forces affiliated with President Garfield (1831-1881), President Ulysses Grant (1822-1885), Governor William Gilpin (1813-1894), President McKinley (1843-1901), Secretary of State James Blaine (1830-1893), and President Warren Harding (1865-1923). Each time it began to take hold the system was derailed by timely assassinations and it was only able to emerge once more in 1932.

How Franklin Roosevelt Revived the American System

With Roosevelt’s entry into office, the British Empire (using its Wall Street lackies) that had intentionally orchestrated the Great Depression in 1929 had realized that the American System was coming back to life for the first time in decades.

While Warren Harding’s short-lived presidency saw a few noble attempts to resurrect the McKinley-Lincoln traditions of the republican party, his convenient “death by oyster poisoning” in 1923 ensured that the revival of the American System would not succeed. Over Harding’s dead body, free trade, bank deregulation, and speculation ran rampant throughout the “roaring twenties” led by Andrew Mellon, the Morgan dynasty and their puppet Calvin Coolidge. This decay turned the once-productive industrial economy of America into a casino of bubbles built on unpayable debts and over-extended broker call loans that went up in smoke in 1929.

The “solution” that the financial oligarchy provided to the world in anticipation of the fear and starvation unleashed by the planned meltdown of the banking system was a novel economic miracle solution called “fascism”. This system soon swept the world from Italy, Germany, Austria and Spain. Within Britain, Canada and the USA, Wall Street/London sponsored fascist movements arose with lightning speed offering to solve all financial woes “and put food on the table” for millions of traumatized citizens. In a world of fear and instability, the masses were proving all too willing to ignore Ben Franklin’s sage advice by giving up their liberties to achieve a bit of security.

It was within this context that Franklin Roosevelt’s call to kick the money changers out of the temple and declare war on the abuses of Wall Street was an unexpected breath of fresh air for millions of suffocating citizens. With FDR’s sabotage of the 1933 London Conference, the empire gasped as their carefully laid plans for world government run by local fascist enforcers were going up in smoke. Wall Street’s assassination plot in February 1933 and a military coup plot in 1934 failed, as the Pecora Commission shone the light of truth upon the abuses of those bankers that created the great depression.

After putting dozens of leading bankers in prison, prosecutor Ferdinand Pecora described the operation years later: “Under the surface of the governmental regulation of the securities market, the same forces that produced the riotous speculative excesses of the ‘wild bull market’ of 1929 still give evidence of their existence and influence. Though repressed for the present, it cannot be doubted that, given a suitable opportunity, they would spring back to their pernicious activity.”

In Washington, a bi-partisan network of patriotic statesmen representing the Lincoln-McKinley-Harding traditions rose to prominence and shaped in large measure the policies which came to be known as the New Deal together with associated bank reforms of the Glass-Steagall, national credit, protectionism, and large-scale megaprojects known as the “four corners” vision (Tennessee Valley authority/Rural Electrification, Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee dam/Colorado River development, and St Lawrence Seaway).

Much like the Belt and Road Initiative today, these large-scale macro projects governed the tens of thousands of smaller state, county and municipal “micro” projects within a top-down dynamic.

The Keynesian Myth

Even though today’s popular narrative has asserted that FDR’s New Deal was a Keynesian innovation managed by the nebulous “Brain Trust”, the reality is that Keynes believed that FDR was a buffoon and FDR believed the Fabian eugenicist could only be considered a detached ivory tower mathematician but not a competent economist.

In her autobiography, FDR’s Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her: “I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist.” In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal stated he had “supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking.”

The ‘American System’ Caucus

Those forgotten forces who have been nearly written out of history were American statesmen who had battled against the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, stood up to the police state apparatus begun by Teddy Roosevelt’s FBI in 1908, and against America’s turn towards imperialism with the death of McKinley. They were the men who risked much to stand up against the League of Nations World government schemes launched in 1919, and against the Wall Street/CFR takeover of U.S. foreign and internal policy.

Senator George Norris showcasing the web of controls managed by the Wall Street oligarchs

These names which should be celebrated today, interfaced closely with FDR and his allies Harry Hopkins and Henry Wallace. Some of their names include Senator Robert Lafollette Jr (R-Iowa) (1895-1953), Sen. Robert Wagner (D-NY) (1877-1953), Sen. Peter Norbeck (R-SD) (1870-1936), Sen. Edward Costigan (D-Colo.) (1874-1939), Senator George Norris (R-Neb) (1861-1944) and Rep. William Lemke (R-N.D.)(1878-1950). These were a few of the leading men that some historians have dubbed “the American System Caucus”, and while this article doesn’t leave room for their story, rest assured that more will be said about them in a future installment.

While it would be a lie to say that there was no such thing as a “Brain Trust” or that Keynesian economists and Rhodes Scholars were not to be found among this group, the idea that this was the “cause” of the New Deal is a pure fiction.

Taking Back Control of Credit Policy

While surgery was begun on the cancerous financial system and unpayable debts depriving the nation of the credit needed to commence a reconstruction policy of the physical economy (over 50% of U.S. industrial potential was destroyed and unemployment hit 25%), Franklin Roosevelt’s long time ally Harry Hopkins worked with Harold Ickes to provide emergency work for over 3 million people in the first months under the Public Works Administration and Works Progress Administration.

Although FDR could not destroy the private Federal Reserve that had taken control of U.S. monetary policy 30 years earlier, he was able to impose his own man (Marinner Eccles) onto it in 1934, forcing the beast to start obeying national law for the first time ever. Despite this maneuver, Wall Street oligarchs continued to sabotage FDR’s recovery by constricting credit, refusing to purchase treasury notes at strategic moments, or even speculating against the U.S. dollar itself. To get around these manipulations, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was brought online to function as a surrogate national bank channeling billions of dollars into small and medium businesses, industrial growth, and infrastructure projects.

Psy Ops vs the New Deal: The Rise of the Austrian School

Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Mellon-Morgan-Rockefeller interests ran a multifaceted psychological war against the population. After their coup plans failed due to Gen. Butler’s brave whistleblowing in 1934, these groups created a think tank calling itself the “American Liberty League”. The irony of the word “Liberty” used by an organization whose controllers sponsored fascism before and even during WWII should not be lost on anyone.

Through powerful oligarchs like William Randolph Hearst, Henry Luce, the Morgans, the Warburgs, the Duponts, and the Rockefellers, the Liberty League controlled the majority of mainstream media outlets, radio stations, and publishing houses in the USA, at the same time they co-ordinated with the newly re-organized FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. These groups worked hard to paint FDR as a Keynesian who only created inflationary “make work jobs” without any concrete intention for the future productive powers of labor. Through this sleight of hand, FDR’s enemies were able to invent a straw man that they could then refute by promoting the anti-Keynesian model known as the “Austrian School” that had formerly grown out of the British System inspired theories of Carl Menger (retainer for the Habsburg empire) and his aristocratic disciples Ludwig von Mises, Friedrick von Hayek, Frank Knight, and Sir John Claphan.

By 1940, the American Liberty League formerly disbanded. However with FDR’s death its cabal of controllers spawned dozens of new think tanks that were enmeshed with the Council on Foreign Relations and Mont Pelerin Society mothership founded in 1947 by von Hayek and a group of eugenics-loving oligarchs whom we will encounter in a following report..

Over the coming decades, the Liberty League morphed into hundreds of new think tanks which began with the American Enterprise Association (AEA) [later American Enterprise Institute] founded by Liberty League leader Raymond Moley and sponsored by General Mills, Chemical Bank and Bristol Meyers.

Other think tanks built up by this network over the years included the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Hudson Institute, Mises Institute, Manhattan Institute etc… which would set the groundwork for the later “conservative revolution” of the 1970s. This “Austrian School” revolution would spring to life once the 1945-1971 Keynesian perversion of Bretton Woods ended with the 1971 floating of the dollar off of the fixed exchange rate gold reserve system.

Under this post-1971 era, a new god of the “markets” would replace the old god of “the state” and a new ethic of post-industrial consumerism would replace the former system of Keynesian controls that defined the post-WWII era. Those anti-Keynesian leaders of the American System tradition such as Henry Dexter White, Franklin Roosevelt, Wendell Wilkie, Sumner Welles, and Harry Hopkins were taken out of power through various means between 1945-1946 as the Anglo-American establishment regained control over U.S. foreign and internal policies. This Keynesian takeover destroyed the positive potential of the Bretton Woods Institutions which were designed originally to internationalize the New Deal via the creation of cheap credit for global development and win-win cooperation.

In our next installments, we will look more deeply into the sordid minds and political operations controlling the figures of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek.

The author can be reached at [email protected]

Originally published on Strategic Culture Foundation