Global Research

Super Lawyer Rocco Galati sues the Canadian government, Trudeau, Health Ministers, and others in first of its kind superior court lawsuit.

Galati lays out for listeners why his client and others have decided to sue over the extreme COVID measures that have now been proven to cause 14 to 1 more deaths than the actual virus. With these facts now proven, the government only continues to promote these extreme measures.

His lawsuit has a long list of experts, data, and more to prove the case against the government.

This lawsuit should serve as an important example to others around the world to also push back against these mandates that are destroying lives.

You can learn more and follow this important lawsuit by following Rocco Galati’s Twitter @RoccoGalatiLaw.

*

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.

A recently discovered transcript of an interview with a British intelligence officer who played a leading role in the 1953 coup that restored powers to the shah of Iran claims that Britain was the driving force behind the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

On the anniversary of the UK-US-led coup d’etat that removed Iran’s democratically elected leader, an interview with Norman Darbyshire – head of the MI6 spy agency’s “Persia” station in Cyprus at the time – was published.

In his account, Darbyshire said Britain had convinced the US to take part in the coup.

Darbyshire’s comments came from an interview with the creators of an episode of 1985 British series End of Empire. His interview was not used directly in the programme, as he did not want to appear on camera.

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

As many authors have documented, the global elite is conducting a coup to take complete control of our lives. It is doing this by using the ‘virus’ to terrorize the human population into believing that we will ‘catch’ Covid-19 if we do not submit to draconian restrictions on our rights and freedoms.

And while the elite is conducting its coup, the most important challenges that confront our world are being largely ignored, as I will briefly discuss below.

If you are not already familiar with it, you can read (or watch) a sample of the overwhelming evidence that reports on the virus are vastly exaggerated and distorted:

‘Unmasking the Lies Around COVID-19: Facts vs Fiction of the Coronavirus Pandemic’,

‘COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless’,

‘Death by killing old people, not COVID – The Basic Deception’,‘An Inconvenient Covid-19 Truth: Dr Andrew Kaufman and Del Bigtree’ (republished after being taken down)

and ‘COVID-19 Does Not Exist: The Global Elite’s Campaign of Terror Against Humanity’.

Most notably, perhaps, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, the authors of the second reference cited above, wrote to the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus and each of them in their response ‘concede[d] they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.’

Moreover, Engelbrecht and Demeter also wrote to Dr Charles Calisher, a prominent and veteran virologist, asking if he knew of ‘one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified’. His answer? ‘I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.’

But you can read the paper by Engelbrecht and Demeter if you want to consider the other efforts they made, unsuccessfully, including by contacting prominent institutions such as the Robert Koch Institute in Germany, to locate documented proof that a purified SARS-CoV-2 virus had been isolated.

And in the video above titled ‘An Inconvenient Covid-19 Truth’, Dr Andrew Kaufman states:

‘There is not one scientist who has isolated or purified a virus and made a concrete association with a new illness…. There have been spikes in mortality around the world in different places but we need to look for other causes or explanations for that since there is no solid evidence that there is a virus causing anything.’

So why are some people dying? Some are dying from pre-existing health conditions (‘comorbidities’), some are dying from influenza (as happens to 650,000 people each year: see ‘

Up to 650 000 people die of respiratory diseases linked to seasonal flu each year’), some are dying as a result of living in a toxic environment – see

‘The China lockdown: origin of the war against the population of Earth, pretense of containing the virus’– some are dying in response to the deployment of 5G technologies, some are dying from the fear and other emotional responses to the isolation in which they have been imprisoned, and some are dying of unrelated causes falsely attributed to Covid-19, as the many articles and videos on the statistical manipulation have exposed.

See, for example, ‘COVID 19 Is A Statistical Nonsense’.

Given the categorical science that this virus does not exist, it is clear that the restrictions already imposed, and those that will be imposed, supposedly to tackle this non-existent infection labeled Covid-19, make history’s worst despots – as well as those depicted in dystopian novels and films – look benevolent by comparison.

This is because the intended and ongoing consequences of these restrictions, if they are all successfully implemented, will be catastrophic: those human beings still alive will be reduced to digitized identities controlled by forces literally beyond their perception and one (presumably) unintended consequence of this coup will be the extinction of our species. Let me explain why.

The Elite Coup

If you have not been following the literature in relation to the ongoing coup and its rapidly accumulating costs, you can read a sample from the most recent documentation here:

Economist and geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig, formerly of the World Bank, in ‘IMF and WEF – From Great Lockdown to Great Transformation. The Covid Aftermath’ notes as follows:

‘Deep-State-Actors’ behind the scene were using Covid to… cause a total lockdown of people as well as of the world economy…. This mighty lockdown order, instigated from ‘high-up’, way above the world’s governments and the UN, and with such co-opted ‘authorities’, like the WHO, has brought the world economy down on its knees within less than 6 months….

One of the opportunities the IMF sees emerging from this crisis, is ‘the digital transformation – a big winner from this crisis’. The IMF doesn’t say what it means, but it requires foremost digitizing people’s identity and digitizing money – total control over people’s movements, health records, cash flow, bank accounts and more. See also ‘The Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”.

Former Air Force Captain David Skripac in ‘What Are the Truly Verifiable Facts Surrounding COVID-19?’ summarizes the non-existent or flawed science around the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus, the diagnostic testing, the use of masks and the claim that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for COVID-19 is far greater than the seasonal influenza, and concludes as follows:

What is certain, though, is that all of the medical martial law edicts that have been issued in united fashion have been based on unsubstantiated science. Equally clear is that the drive for a global COVID-19 vaccine regimen and the global surveillance grid are moving ahead in concert to transform the world as we know it – ifwe allow it to happen.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky in his recently republished timeline ‘COVID-19 Coronavirus “Fake” Pandemic: Timeline and Analysis’ outlining events leading up to and then immediately following declaration of the pandemic by the World Health Organization on 30 January 2020, carefully documents such points as Event 201 held in New York in October 2019, and notes the following:

What we are dealing with is ‘economic warfare’….

Our… analysis reveals that powerful corporate interests linked to Big Pharma, Wall Street and agencies of the US government were instrumental in the WHO’s far-reaching decision. 

What is at stake is the alliance of ‘Big Pharma’ and ‘Big Money’, with the endorsement of the Trump Administration. The decision to launch a fake pandemic under the helm of the WHO on January 30, was taken a week earlier at the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF). The media operation was there to spread outright panic.

We are dealing with a complex global crisis with far-reaching economic, social and geopolitical implications.

US constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead in his article ‘One Nation Under House Arrest: How Do COVID-19 Mandates Impact Our Freedoms?’ documents the extensive and ongoing encroachments on rights and freedoms in the USA and highlights the following:

On a daily basis, Americans are already relinquishing (in many cases, voluntarily) the most intimate details of who we are – their biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.) – in order to navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world.

COVID-19, however, takes the surveillance state to the next level. 

There’s already been talk of mass testing for COVID-19 antibodies, screening checkpoints, contact tracing, immunity passports to allow those who have recovered from the virus to move around more freely, and snitch tip lines for reporting ‘rule breakers’ to the authorities….

In this post-9/11 world, we have been indoctrinated into fearing and mistrusting one another instead of fearing and mistrusting the government. As a result, we’ve been forced to travel this road many, many times with lamentably predictable results each time: without fail, when asked to choose between safety and liberty, Americans historically tend to choose safety.

Failing to read the fine print on such devil’s bargains, ‘we the people’ find ourselves repeatedly on the losing end as the government uses each crisis as a means of expanding its powers at taxpayer expense.

And, technologically, it is now incredibly easy to do this in many ways.

In one of his ongoing videos (that, so far, has not been censored) about the Covid-19 coup – this one titled ‘This Couldn’t Possibly Happen. Could it?’ the transcript for which can be accessed by clicking the ‘Health’ tab after entering his website– the UK’s Dr Vernon Coleman explains one sinister aspect of this technological control:

If you were a mad doctor and you wanted to control an individual it would be a doddle.

You’d just tell them you were giving them an injection to protect them against the flu or something like that and in the syringe there would be a little receiver. And then you’d stick a transmitter on the roof of the house across the road from where they lived.

And then you could send messages to make them do whatever you wanted them to do. You could make them sad or angry or happy or contented. You could make them run or fight or just spend all day in bed.

Remember, that’s what Dr Delgado was doing over half a century ago. It’s nothing new.

Of course, if you wanted to do the same thing for lots of people you’d need a whole lot of people to help you….

And you’d need something to inject into people. A medicine of some kind for example.

And then you’d need someone good at software to help with all the transmitting and the receiving and you’d need people with access to lots of tall poles or roofs where they could put the transmitter things.

But none of that would be any good unless you had a reason for injecting people. You can’t just go around injecting millions of people for no reason.

Ideally, you’d need them all to be frightened of something so that they were keen to let you inject them. And then you could put your tiny receivers into the stuff that was being injected. Or squirted up their noses or whatever.

Whitney Webb provides further insight into the elite intention in this regard. In one of her meticulously-researched articles – ‘Coronavirus Gives a Dangerous Boost to DARPA’s Darkest Agenda’– she outlines the hidden technological agenda behind the Covid-19 coup that might well be delivered as part of any vaccination program by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). After carefully outlining the history and ‘logic’ of what is taking place, she concludes with the chilling words:

Technology developed by the Pentagon’s controversial research branch is getting a huge boost amid the current coronavirus crisis, with little attention going to the agency’s ulterior motives for developing said technologies, their potential for weaponization or their unintended consequences….

This is especially true given that – without a major crisis such as that currently dominating world events – people would likely be unreceptive to the widespread introduction of many of the technologies DARPA has been developing, whether their push to create cyborg “super soldiers” or injectable Brain Machine Interfaces (BMIs) with the capability to control one’s thoughts. Yet, amid the current crisis, many of these same technologies are being sold to the public as “healthcare,” a tactic DARPA often uses. As the panic and fear regarding the virus continues to build and as people become increasingly desperate to return to any semblance of normalcy, millions will willingly take a vaccine, regardless of any government-mandated vaccination program. Those who are fearful and desperate will not care that the vaccine may include nanotechnology or have the potential to genetically modify and re-program their very being, as they will only want the current crisis that has upended the world to stop.

In this context, the current coronavirus crisis appears to be the perfect storm that will allow DARPA’s dystopian vision to take hold and burst forth from the darkest recesses of the Pentagon into full public view. However, DARPA’s transhumanist vision for the military and for humanity presents an unprecedented threat, not just to human freedom, but an existential threat to human existence and the building blocks of biology itself.

In essence then, the ongoing elite coup is accelerating the so-called fourth industrial revolution as well as development of the technologies with which the Pentagon plans to fight future wars. If they succeed, you will only exist provided you have a biometric digital identity vaccinated into your body –

see ‘Africa to Become Testing Ground for “Trust Stamp” Vaccine Record and Payment System’– that confirms your existence, contains your vaccination record and your ‘authority’ to pay digital money.

But, as discussed by Dr Vernon Coleman and Whitney Webb, the ‘vaccine’ might well contain much more than that. In any case, you might not be relieved to know that this system will even work ‘in areas of the world lacking internet access or cellular connectivity’ and that it ‘does not require knowledge of an individual’s legal name or identity to function’.

Who you really are, as a human individual, will be irrelevant and will be largely gone: The nanotechnology in your body will have altered and redefined you. It will be used to control your behaviour in response to a digital signal controlled by others. Whether as worker or soldier, you will do as directed to serve elite ends, no longer having volition of your own.

If this is not enough to convince you of what is at stake, you can read further itemization of the adverse impacts of this coup in other articles such as

‘The Elite’s COVID-19 Coup Against a Terrified Humanity: Resisting Powerfully’ and

‘How the Covid-19 Crisis Affects Individual Rights and Freedoms. A New Crisis in International Law?’

And you can access a substantial list of resources carefully compiled by Roger Brown in ‘The Covid-Lockdown Crisis – Alternative Info & Sources’.

Of course, you do not need to believe the scholars I have cited above. Major elite organizations, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), have been equally clear, even if they cast what is happening rather more positively given their role in generating the Covid-19 ‘crisis’ to precipitate the coup in the first place. In its document ‘The Great Reset: A Unique Twin Summit to Begin 2021’ the WEF candidly notes that:

COVID-19 has accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

But given the deeper agenda of which the fourth industrial revolution (with its military implications) is only a part, the WEF also notes in its recent report, without even a hint of irony after citing a report by sustainability experts – see ‘Scientists’ warning on affluence’– that:

Affluence is the biggest threat to our world… 

True sustainability will only be achieved through drastic lifestyle changes… rather than hoping that more efficient use of resources will be enough.

The World Economic Forum has called for a great reset of capitalism in the wake of the pandemic. See ‘This is now the world’s greatest threat – and it’s not coronavirus’.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the WEF has not heard of Mahatma Gandhi who modeled and espoused substantially reduced consumption more than 100 years ago while also modeling and advocating local self-reliance – ‘Earth provides enough for every person’s need but not for every person’s greed’ – and those activists and experts who have lived and/or articulated such a course since Gandhi.

But, then again, does the WEF really mean what it sounds like it means? Is the global elite about to forego its affluence and return its wealth to those billions of impoverished people who are just the latest of many generations from whom the elite has stolen virtually everything through military conquest, an economic system and other structures of exploitation that ‘allocate’ resources in accord with mechanisms over which ‘ordinary’ people have no control?

Or is the global elite more interested in a new series of mechanisms that further impoverish the human population and exploit the natural world, particularly if the bulk of the human population has been effectively robotized by the nanotechnology in the Covid-19 vaccine and can simply be directed to work (or kill in war), irrespective of working conditions and recompense?

Ignoring the Challenges that Really Threaten Us

But the coup to take greater control of our lives is just one of the many adverse outcomes that we can expect and this is why human extinction, by any of four separate paths, is a likely outcome.

Whether by the ongoing demolition of weapons control agreements –

see ‘Trump’s War On Arms Control and Disarmament’– endlessly fighting and provoking wars –

see ‘Largest U.S. Seizure of Iranian Fuel from Four Tankers’(although this has since been contradicted by Iran) – and even courting the risk of nuclear war –

see ‘Kremlin Warns The US Of Nuclear Retaliation If Russia Or Her Allies Are Targeted’– the current US-generated military environment has not been this close to nuclear armageddon at any time in history. Unfortunately, things have deteriorated dramatically since the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2020 Doomsday Clock Announcement back in January ‘Closer than ever: It is 100 seconds to midnight’.

Of course, it should be noted, the fundamental driver of these latest regressive developments (which simply add to those many regressive developments that have preceded them) is the US nuclear doctrine that has been in place since 2003. As explained by Professor Michel Chossudovsky: ‘The Hiroshima Day 2003 meetings had set the stage for the “privatization” of nuclear war…. This long war against humanity is [now being] carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history. It is intimately related to a process of financial restructuring which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the world population. The ultimate objective is world conquest.’

Watch ‘Secret Meeting on the Privatization of Nuclear War Held on Hiroshima Day 2003’.

And in case you believe that ‘world conquest’ is fanciful, consider the following. As mentioned above, the technology now available after decades of effort enables receiver nanochips to be sprayed, injected or otherwise implanted into human bodies. With the ongoing deployment of 5G (which includes extensive space and ground-based technologies), it will be possible to direct the individual behaviour of each of those people. Given that the control technology will be owned by corporate executives, here are just four examples of how the elite might direct that it be used (more or less as a ‘drone pilot’ sitting in the United States controls a drone flying in the Middle East that fires weapons on local people):

1. The official chain of command to launch nuclear weapons can be subverted by using remote control to direct the chosen individual in a particular chain of command to order (or execute) the launch of one or more nuclear weapons at the target(s) nominated at the time(s) specified. Subordinates can be directed to follow orders they might otherwise question.
2. ‘Cyborg soldiers’ (either as mercenaries or formal military personnel) in groups or as individuals can be deployed anywhere to fight as ordered by those in charge of their remote controls.
3. ‘Cyborg workers’ can be instructed to work in dangerous conditions for extended periods and simply be replaced as required. Someone else close by will have been vaccinated too.
4. Activists on any issue can simply to be instructed to refrain from further involvement in their campaign. Or to actively take the opposite position to the one they had previously.

Anyway, just briefly on the other three imminent threats to human survival.

The climate remains under siege. Despite elite propaganda to the contrary, Earth passed 2°C above the 1750 (preindustrial) baseline in February 2020 – see ‘Crossing the Paris Agreement thresholds’ and ‘2°C crossed’– and given that carbon dioxide emissions generate ‘maximum warming’ about one decade after the emission actually occurred – see ‘Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission’– ‘the full warming wrath of the carbon dioxide emissions over the past ten years is still to come’. See ‘2°C crossed’.

However, with even most activists accepting the elite-driven narrative in relation to Covid-19, efforts to curb the climate catastrophe are largely on hold despite the fact that ‘global warming is rampaging, running amuck’ with fires in eastern Siberia  – ‘the very region of the planet that’s famous for the coldest temperatures of all time… now recording Miami-type summer temperatures’ – according to NASA satellite images ‘depict[ing] an inferno of monstrous proportions’ with which ‘nothing in modern history compares’. See ‘Freakish Arctic Fires Alarmingly Intensify’.

And having mentioned fires, how is the Amazon going after last year’s disastrous season? Not well, according to this latest report: ‘More than 260 major, mostly illegal Amazon fires detected since late May’.

But if fires in Siberia and the Amazon do not concern you, did you realize that the warming temperature is now causing methane to leak from Antarctica (not just the Arctic) too? See ‘Riddles in the cold: Antarctic endemism and microbial succession impact methane cycling in the Southern Ocean’ and ‘As Planet Edges Closer To Climate Tipping Points, Scientists Identify Methane Gas Leak In Antarctica’.

Moreover, while the global industrial shutdown has temporarily reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, it has also significantly reduced the aerosol masking effect generated by burning fossil fuels as explained by Professor Guy McPherson in his recently-published paper ‘Will COVID-19 Trigger Extinction of All Life on Earth?’ For reasons he carefully explains in his paper, McPherson concludes:

The ongoing reduction in industrial activity as a result of COVID-19 almost certainly leads to loss of habitat for human animals, hence putting us on the fast track to human extinction.

Apart from the serious threat of nuclear war and the accelerating climate catastrophe, in their latest paper Professor Gerardo Ceballos and his colleagues provide further evidence of the ongoing ‘biological annihilation’ of life on Earth and what it means for ecosystem functioning while documenting the complicating factors that have arisen during the COVID-19 crisis because capturing wildlife for trade or food was one backup economic survival option for many people when other options were shut down.

‘Even though only an estimated 2% of all of the species that ever lived are alive today, the absolute number of species is greater now than ever before. It was into such a biologically diverse world that we humans evolved, and such a world that we are destroying…. Millions of populations have vanished in the last 100 years…. The reason so many species are being pushed to extinction by anthropogenic causes is indicated by humans and their domesticated animals being some 30 times the living mass of all of the wild mammals that must compete with them for space and resources’. But, Dr Ceballos adds: ‘Many of the species endangered or at the brink of extinction are being decimated by the legal and illegal wildlife trade.’ See ‘Vertebrates on the brink’.

But if you want another account, you can read a solid summary in the latest media release of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) here:

‘Nature’s Dangerous Decline “Unprecedented”; Species Extinction Rates “Accelerating”’.

And for just one of the latest accounts in the ongoing stream of disasters,

see ‘Calls for swift action as hundreds of elephants die in Botswana’s Okavango Delta’.

Of course, while the World Economic Forum does not even list electromagnetic radiation (or nuclear war, for that matter) as one its top ten ‘risks’ –

see ‘The Global Risks Report 2020’– because its plan to implement the fourth industrial revolution (with its profound implications for the future of warfare) depends on the deployment of 5G, this deployment is already wreaking havoc (and presumably a driver of at least some of the ill-health and deaths falsely attributed to Covid-19) and is another path to imminent human extinction.

See ‘Deadly Rainbow: Will 5G Precipitate the Extinction of All Life on Earth?’

Apart from other, locally disastrous outcomes, this deployment means that the existing fleet of functional satellites orbiting Earth, which totaled 2,666 on 1 April 2020 – see ‘Satellite Database’– but has already grown by a couple of hundred since then, will be vastly expanded to 100,000 in the near future.

This will disturb, in a way that goes profoundly beyond all previous disturbances, the global electrical circuit, that evolved over eons and sustains all life.

In short, we will have fundamentally altered the very conditions that made the evolution of life on Earth possible.

So why is this all happening?

The coup being conducted by the global elite, that is also fast-tracking four paths to human extinction, is a direct outcome of their unconscious terror and the insanity this causes. The elite is not capable of considering ‘the big picture’ because each member of the elite, as well as all those who serve it, is trapped in a confined psychological state that makes them incapable of perceiving or behaving beyond the terrified imperative to endlessly seek control. This outcome is the direct result of the violence they each suffered as a child and which now leads them to endlessly but dysfunctionally seek the control they were denied as a child. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

In essence, a terrorized child will result in an equally terrified and powerless adult. Powerless individuals are so terrified that they will not get what they want that they fear the idea of cooperation for mutual benefit. Hence, they must endlessly seek total control so that they will feel ‘safe’. Of course, safety based on control of this nature is a delusion and, even if it could be achieved, is dysfunctional. This is partly why the elite coup, which is designed to give them total control, fails to take account of factors beyond the coup, particularly including the paths to extinction they are accelerating.

In contrast, powerful individuals are happy to negotiate in an atmosphere that allows conflicting parties to explore mutually beneficial outcomes. They readily understand that others have needs and these can be met without undermining the satisfaction of their own needs. Control is simply not important to them beyond that which allows it to be shared among equals.

For further discussion of this point, see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

Moreover, it is worth pointing out, wealth accumulation is just another compulsive behaviour: that is, a serious but common psychological disorder in industrialized societies. And these individuals need considerable psychological help. But we do not help them by participating in their delusion that control and wealth are what they need. See‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.

Resisting the Elite Coup so Far

Fortunately, increasing numbers of people are becoming aware of the coup and resistance to it is now building steadily (even if corporate media outlets routinely ignore these actions, underestimate the numbers and/or smear those resisting). Here is just a sample of the most recent ‘demonstrations’ (but not other forms of nonviolent resistance):

A large march and rally – estimated at 1.3 million people – was held in Berlin on 1 August 2020.

See ‘Media grossly underestimates massive turnout at Berlin’s “End of the Pandemic” protest’.

The rally included speeches by two police officers to which you can listen.

See ‘German police speak out against draconian COVID-19 restrictions, lies and fear-mongering’.

A demonstration was held in London on the same date.

See ‘“Masks are Muzzles”: Thousands March in Berlin & London Against Mandatory Masks & Covid-19 measures (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)’.

Another demonstration was held in Stuttgart.

See ‘Protesters March in Stuttgart Against Tight COVID Measures’.

And another in Montreal on 8 August 2020.

See ‘Thousands rally in downtown Montreal to protest Quebec’s mandatory mask rules’.

On 9 August 2020, 6-7,000 people attended a mega-Church service, despite threats from the police about exceeding the limit of 100, without maintaining social distancing or wearing masks.

See ‘Defiance! 6,000 Attend “Illegal” California Church Service’.

On 16 August 2020, thousands of people gathered under the giant Spanish flag that decorates Colon Square in the centre of Madrid to protest against the restrictions imposed to supposedly combat the ‘coronavirus pandemic’. See ‘“Freedom!” Demonstrators Gathered in Madrid Against Wearing of Masks’.

John C.A. Manley argues that getting accurate printed information before the eyes of people is important if we are to counter the elite’s propaganda bombardment through the corporate media. See ‘Protest against COVID Disinformation and Social Engineering’.

Research indicates that two-thirds of people in the UK are unwilling to be vaccinated and many of these would go to prison rather than submit to vaccination. See ‘Britons would “go to prison before being injected” as distrust of Covid vaccine grows’.

Of course, this position already has a strong basis in international law given that everyone has the right to accept or reject medical procedures in accordance with the Nuremberg Medical Code 1947 – see ‘Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code’– and article 6.1 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.

This is worth remembering given that, apart from the purpose of vaccination mentioned above, ‘the US government has just granted big pharma immunity from liability claims if the vaccine produces damaging side effects’ – see ‘Europeans Are Waking Up to Government Covid Tyranny. Why Are We Still Asleep?’

– and other countries are likely to follow suit, despite the extensively documented record of vaccines causing devastating harms including massive lethality. For a taste of the vast literature on this point, see ‘Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination’.

As Dr Stefan Lanka has explained about vaccines generally:

Only ignorant people who blindly trust in the state authorities who are ‘testing’ and approving the vaccines can regard vaccination as a ‘small harmless prick’. The verifiable facts demonstrate the danger and negligence of these scientists and politicians, who claim that vaccines are safe, have little or no side-effects and would protect from a disease. None of these claims is true and scientific. See ‘The Misconception Called “Virus”: Measles as an example’.

Anyway, there are many options and resistance is taking many forms, including individual actions of enormous variety. And they are not all done with great fanfare. People are conducting street parties, joining protests they would not normally attend or just going about their business as if the lockdowns were not in place.

Of course, there is no point pretending that all of this is happening without police repression. At the moment, however, it seems that Melbourne, the capital city of the state of Victoria in (mainland south-eastern) Australia, takes the prize for the most repressive government and police response in a so-called ‘democracy’. See ‘Letters From Melbourne, a “Ghost Town Police State” Under Brutal Covid Lockdown’.

As an aside, it is worth remembering this as you ponder your own response to this coup: People who are terrified will believe the elite-driven narrative promulgated by elite agents such as the World Health Organization, governments and the corporate media. It is those people who can investigate and still think for themselves on whom our resistance must be built. So seek out and work with those in the latter category as a priority. It might not seem like it at times but they are everywhere, as the examples above illustrate.

Resisting the Elite Coup Strategically

While the resistance so far has been crucially important, my own hope is that we can build on this while also tackling each of the key threats to human survival.

If we are to do this effectively, it would be useful to start by giving yourself time to focus on feeling your emotional responses – fear, anger, sadness, pain, dread…. – to whatever is generating an emotional reaction: living in a confined space, someone in your household, wearing a mask, Covid-19, the elite coup, the imminent threats of extinction or anything else. See ‘Putting Feelings First’.

This is always invaluable so that you can engage meaningfully and strategically in the effort, whatever issue you choose to fight.

So once you have a clearer sense of your emotional reactions to this knowledge and have allowed yourself time to focus on feeling these feelings, you will be in a far more powerful position to consider your response to the situation. And, depending on your interests and circumstances, there is a range of possible responses that will each make an important difference.

Fundamentally, you might consider making ‘My Promise to Children’ which will include considering what an education for your children means to you, particularly if you want powerful individuals – not ones who are submissively obedient to elite directives and project their fear onto blameless but ‘legitimized victims’ – who can perceive reality and resist violence. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

You might consider supporting others to become more powerful. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

You might also consider how your diet and healthcare could usefully be revised to empower you to resist medical propaganda, particularly given the extensively documented death-dealing for which corporate medicine is responsible. See, for example, ‘Pharma Death Clock’.

If you wish to strategically resist the elite coup, you can read about nonviolent strategy, including strategic goals for doing so, from here: Coup Strategic Aims.

Remaining pages on this website fully explain the twelve components of the strategy, as illustrated by the Nonviolent Strategy Wheel, as well as articles and videos explaining all of the vital points of strategy and tactics, such as those to help you understand ‘Nonviolent Action: Why and How it Works’ and ‘Nonviolent Action: Minimizing the Risk of Violent Repression’.

Given the complexity of the configuration of this conflict, however, which involves the need to fight simultaneously to retain our essential humanity, defeat the elite coup and avert near-term human extinction, it is important that our tactical choices are strategically-oriented (as are those listed on the Strategic Aims page nominated above). Hence, three further considerations assume importance.

First, choose/design tactics that have strategic impact, that is, they fundamentally and permanently alter, in our favor, the power relationship between the elite and us.

Second, when tactical choices are made, focus them on undermining the elite coup, not just features of it, such as ‘social distancing’ or the lockdowns. At its most basic, this can be achieved by using tactical choices that mobilize people to act initially, as is happening, but then inviting them to consider taking further, more focused, action as well (such as those nominated in the strategic goals referenced above). This is important if our actions are to have impact on key underlying measures, such as those being taken by the elite to advance the fourth industrial revolution, including the robotization of humans for war-fighting.

Third, choose/design tactics that also have strategic impact on the greatest threats to human survival, including the collapsing biodiversity on Earth, the threat of nuclear war, the climate catastrophe and the deployment of 5G. Given the incredibly short timeframe in which we are now working to avert human extinction, while people are mobilizing it is important to use this opportunity to give them the chance to perceive the ‘big picture’ of what is taking place – beyond lockdowns and other measures supposedly being used to tackle Covid-19 – and to act powerfully in response.

Fortunately, as more people become aware of the deeper strands of what is taking place, the energy to break the lockdowns, resist other limitations on our rights and freedoms (such as contact tracing, Covid-19 testing/temperature checks, mask-wearing and vaccinations) as well as resist the coup itself will gather pace. As I have previously outlined, using a locally relevant focus, or perhaps several, for which many people would traditionally be together – a cultural, religious or sporting event, a nonviolent action, a community activity such as working to establish a community garden to increase local self-reliance, a celebration and/or a return to work – we can mobilize people to collectively resist. As has been happening.

If you wish to focus on powerfully resisting one of the primary threats to human existence – nuclear war, the deployment of 5G, the collapse of biodiversity and/or the climate catastrophe – you can read about nonviolent strategy, including strategic goals to focus your campaigns, from here: Campaign Strategic Aims.

You might also consider joining those who are powerful enough to recognize the critical importance of reduced consumption and greater self-reliance as essential elements of these strategies by participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’. While you over-consume or are dependent on the elite for your survival, in any way, you are vulnerable.

Conclusion

There is no SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is no Covid-19 disease. Therefore, you cannot be tested for it, you cannot ‘prevent’ infection by social distancing, wearing a mask, vaccination or being under house arrest. You cannot ‘catch’ a virus that does not exist.

Meanwhile, the elite coup to deny you your rights as a free, autonomous human being tightens its grip, inflicts enormous psychological and physical violence in a staggering variety of forms on those imprisoned in their homes (if they have one), kills those throughout Africa, Asia and elsewhere unable to survive in the severely disrupted global economy – see ‘WFP chief warns of “hunger pandemic” as Global Food Crises Report launched’ and ‘COVID-19 could kill more people through hunger than the disease itself, warns Oxfam’– and accelerates the rush to extinction on four separate counts.

You can submit to tyranny or you can resist it.

And if you cannot do it for yourself, do it for the children. They deserve a better world than the short-lived one that is rapidly unfolding.

---

ANNEX

In addition, you are welcome to consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Or, if you want something simpler, consider committing to:

The Earth Pledge 

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

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

*

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

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

The COVID-19 pandemic did not stop U.S. protectionism and its trade disputes with the rest of the world, especially with China and the European Union. In actual fact, it deepened the conflict. This behaviour anticipates very complicated post-pandemic international trade, which can exacerbate the protectionist tendencies of developed economies and, therefore, affect the global recovery.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) now estimates a drop of up to 18.5% in the exchange of goods and services internationally for this year. Instead of a framework for cooperation and coordination to address the global crisis caused by COVID-19, the U.S. has complicated cooperation between powers.

World trade fell sharply in the first half of the year, due to the impact of the pandemic on the world economy. WTO economists estimate that the volume of trade will fall sharply in 2020, but it is unlikely it will be the worst-case scenario forecast made in April, which expected a contraction of 32%. According to WTO statistics, the volume of merchandise trade declined 3% in the first quarter. Initial estimates for the second quarter point to a year-on-year decline of 18.5%.

“The collapse in trade we are currently witnessing reaches historic levels; in fact, it is the most pronounced that we have evidence for. But there is an important positive side to this phenomenon, and that is that it could have been much worse,” said Director General Roberto Azevêdo.

The very sharp drop in the GDP of most countries due to the pandemic has immediately caused a sharp decline in international trade. The French-based Argentine economist Bruno Susani wrote that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump seeks to organize world trade based on the needs of maintaining its economic dominance.

A 2014 document from the Argentine Foreign Ministry warns that the established rules favour a small but very powerful group of developed economies and does not prevent the U.S. from being the most demanding country in the WTO and the main violator of the organization’s regulations. The U.S. deploys a wide range of illegitimate barriers to impede the entry of certain imported products that could compete with its domestic production.

The U.S. has the most experience in applying protectionist barriers and employs a broad set of trade-distorting measures, such as tariff caps on certain primary products, tariff quotas, export subsidies and technical barriers, among others. While postulating free trade in international forums, the U.S. has protectionist measures for its local markets.

In the last two years, the Trump administration accounts for half of the complaints that have been presented to the WTO. The U.S. has received the largest number of lawsuits in the history of the WTO, with 121 accusations. It is also the one that has lost the most cases in the WTO. Washington has been convicted in 75% of cases. This behaviour is accompanied by a series of commercial reprisals initiated by the U.S.

The U.S. does not only have a trade war with China, a country that is considered a threat, but Washington also has established trade restrictions with European countries, South Korea, Brazil and other countries that are supposedly considered as allies.

The decision by Trump to raise tariffs on steel and aluminium, and the consequent response of the European Union to raise tariffs on other U.S. goods, was a breach of the rules of coexistence in international trade between allies. Protectionist measures are placed whenever the interests of U.S. companies face a difficult situation to maintain their position in the domestic market or to preserve dominance in international markets.

Economist Silvio Guaita explained that the U.S. represents 25% of the world Gross Product, a percentage that is higher if the productions of subsidiaries and affiliates of its multinationals installed in other countries are counted. Its economy is important but is no longer the sole economic engine of the world since China and its area of ​​influence in Asia have also become an important driver of the international economy. That is why the protectionist policy and the trade war waged by the U.S. can provoke a slow exit from the current global crisis.

Among the 500 largest companies in the world, according to Forbes, there are already almost as many Chinese companies as American. In practice, this crisis has shown that China plays a more important role in global production, trade, tourism, and commodity markets today compared to the U.S.

Since 2018, the U.S. has been increasing trade disputes, especially with China. At the beginning of this year, before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, they had reached an agreement in principle, with important conditions for China. But after that deal, the Trump administration accused China, without any evidence, of spreading the coronavirus. This confrontational strategy has another front – ​​technology and telecommunications. Trump restricted Chinese telecommunications company Huawei, which is ahead in developing 5G technology compared to U.S. firms. The White House argues that this decision was due to a threat to its “national security.”

In this instance of dispute between the two powers, there is no WTO and no other international body with powers to intervene and stop this escalation that puts the stability of the world economy at risk. By maintaining such an aggressive policy, the U.S. is only hindering the global economic recovery as we slowly begin approaching the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

On Baghdad’s al-Rashid street, stalls, tea houses and restaurants serve unmasked customers in crammed markets in spite of COVID-19 rapidly spreading among the populace. This busy street in Baghdad is a testament to pre-existing governance failure that has been felt in many developing countries reeling from the impact of COVID-19 on their economies.

Nearby at al-Rusafi Square, exhausted porters pulling back-breaking cargo intersect in a cobweb of traffic threads under the scorching sun of Iraq’s merciless summer. A horse on a leash looks on as drivers of taxis-turned-buses yell for the last passenger to fill an empty seat. Honking mingles with a stream of slurs spouted off by an angry driver who wants through, but cannot. A daily repertoire of mayhem plays on, and the din resonates across the square where car bombs incinerated many humans in recent years.

People most vulnerable to poverty are presented with no alternatives encouraging them to stay indoors. The absence of financial support is pushing them to resume their labor in risky environments. While easing movement restrictions enables daily workers to provide for their families, authorities have not provided any mobile health awareness teams in packed markets, nor arranged the distribution of increasingly-expensive face masks.

In Iraq, as is the case elsewhere in countries facing the multifaceted challenge posed by the pandemic, fragile groups of people are left to fend for themselves as the government kneecaps itself in the race to contain the spread of the COVID-19 infection.

“We would die of hunger”

For residents of the many impoverished areas of downtown and eastern Baghdad, staying indoors is an unattainable luxury. “We would die of hunger,” says Mohammed Turki, a 44-year-old porter sitting on the edge of a nearby ally.

Turki has been working as a porter for the past sixteen years, at best earning somewhat around $20 a day. But “that’s if I could find work,” he says. Otherwise, his daily wage ferrying merchandise in Baghdad’s markets doesn’t exceed $8– barely enough to feed his four children.

Today, one pack of surgical masks costs around $13 in Baghdad.

Around noon, shop owners at and nearby al-Rusafi Square who complain of plunging sales roll down the shutters. The economic consequences of COVID-19 cast a pall over many livelihoods.

Echoing World Bank projections that poverty will increase by the double in 2020, a report by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning, with support of UNICEF and other organizations, found that “an additional 4.5 million (11.7%) of Iraqis risk falling below the poverty line as a result of the socio-economic impact of COVID-19. This sharp increase would bring the national poverty rate to 31.7% from 20% in 2018.”

In post-invasion Iraq, consecutive governments have either failed or lacked the will to diversify the country’s oil-dependent economy. They kept the national industry and agriculture in limbo and turned their eyes on flooding the Iraqi market with imported goods instead.

A recent study by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on the impact of COVID-19 and the drop in oil prices says, “high levels of conflict, coupled with the COVID-19 outbreak and the drop in oil revenues, can further increase extreme poverty.”

View of al-Rusafi Square in Baghdad, Iraq on 14 July 2020 | Picture by Nabil Salih. All rights reserved

Ali Tawfiq is one of those at risk of sliding deeper into poverty if a full lockdown to curtail the spread of COVID-19 is imposed again. He sees no alternative but to pull a handcart through crowded markets to care for himself, his blind father, and two disabled brothers: a vendor and a porter.

“I am the one who supports my family. Not showing up at the market means I will not be able to eat or drink,” he says.

Legacy of war

Nineteen-year-old Tawfiq is from generations of downtrodden victims of the war the US and its allies waged against Iraq in 2003. He started working as a porter at the age of ten. Few years into the occupation, he lost his sister in a terrorist attack. “My sister died in a car bomb explosion in al-Mansour in 2007. She was only ten,” he says.

The CNN report earlier this week alleging that Iran paid bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops aims to reinforce the narrative that Tehran supports “terrorists”, portray the country as an obstacle to peace in Afghanistan, and lastly prompt multilateral sanctions pressure upon it.

Diana Johnstone has written a compelling and insightful book. It is mostly a review and analysis of significant events from the past 55 years. It concludes with her assessment of different trends that are being debated on the Left today including “identity politics”, Antifa and censorship.  This is a book to be read, enjoyed and discussed.  

“Circle in the Darkness” gives glimpses into Johnstone’s personal life. She was born in St. Paul, Minnesota and grew up there and in Washington DC. She studied and taught at the University of Minnesota before moving and living most of her life in Europe – mostly in France with stints in Germany and Italy.

Her parents divorced when she was young. She had a special love and connection with her father who, ironically, was an analyst for the Pentagon.  Evidently he also had an open and critical mind, writing the memoir “From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning”.

Diana had a daughter at a relatively young age and largely raised her on her own. She finished her PhD in French literature, then worked as a teacher, translator,  photographer and journalist.

There are interesting observations and comparisons. As Diana and her daughter moved between Minnesota and France, she compared the different educational systems. She notes, “There is a tendency in American grade schools for the kids to gang up against whichever unfortunate schoolmate has been selected by class bullies for tormenting ….. from my observation it is not like this in France.”  She also describes the difficulties being a single mother before it was more common.

The book is full of insights based on her first hand experience living in Yugoslavia as a young exchange student, being a photographer for Associated Press, translating news reports for Agence France Presse,  reporting on the end of the Cold War for “In These Times” and being press officer for the coalition of Green Parties in the newly formed European Union.

Grass Roots Activism

One theme running through the book is the need to reach out and engage with regular people. She recounts her experiences opposing the US war on Vietnam.  Johnstone and her allies launched a campaign to educate and engage with regular Minnesotans, to explain what was happening in Vietnam and why the war should be opposed. She helped organize teams of students and teachers who went door to door in Minneapolis. Later, they sent a citizens delegation to Paris to meet with and hear from the Vietnamese representatives. Afterward, they reported back to communities throughout the state and country. Johnstone says these actions did not get the media attention but deepened opposition to the war in profound ways.  The students and teachers going into the neighborhoods had to educate themselves in advance; they learned from the questions (and sometimes opposition) of community members; the delegation which met the Vietnamese representatives in Paris were deeply impressed and conveyed their experience on their return.

Johnstone is an unusually perceptive analyst. For example, her analysis of the Watergate scandal and Nixon resignation raises important but overlooked issues. Rather than seeing this as the hallmark of investigative journalism, she notes that it established the model of journalism relying on unidentified government sources. Looking back, the Watergate scandal effectively deflected attention from the ongoing slaughter in Southeast Asia. “Getting rid of Nixon was a brilliant coup that united generations, torn asunder by opposing attitudes toward the war …..Watergate washed away the national sins. It prepared America to be ‘born again’ first as the innocent Gerald Ford and then as the good Christian Jimmy Carter, champion of human rights.”  Moreover “The shenanigans around Watergate were a distraction from the most significant acts of the Nixon administration, in particular the shakeup of the world economy by the August 1971 decision to suspend (meaning to end) the convertibility of the dollar into gold. This was a direct result of the huge U.S. debt resulting from the cost of the Vietnam War.”

The author has a stark assessment of what happened to the Left. “As for the American antiwar movement, half a century later, it has vanished almost without a trace as an influential political force. There are perhaps more intelligent critics of war than ever before, but they are largely confined to the virtual world of the web, without significant impact on a political system which is totally integrated into a military industrial complex that relies on endless conflicts.”

Critical International Events

Through her work at Associate Press and Agence France Presse, Johnstone saw how stories are selected and prioritized depending on establishment bias. She also saw how the media can promote certain types of protest leaders. There are critical assessments of some protest leaders who became famous including Daniel Cohn Bendit. She gives a scathing critique of celebrity French philosopher Bernard Henri Levy.

Johnson has valuable insights on many events over the 1970’s and 80’s.  A few examples are

• the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme, who was likely behind it  and how it has led to Swedish subservience to the US
• the causes and consequences of the assassination of Aldo Moro by ultra-leftists in Italy
• the murder of Palestinian moderate Dr. Issa Sartawi at a Socialist Party conference
• the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II by a Turkish militant and the propaganda campaign trying to link him to Bulgaria and Soviet Union
• the growing influence of Israel in western foreign policy

In the 1980’s and early 1990’s,  Johnstone watched closely, interviewed key players and reported on the rise of detente between the USA and Soviet Union She concludes, “Not enough credit is given to Mikhail Gorbachev and to the 1980s peace movement”.

The book is subtitled “Memoirs of a World Watcher”. Johnstone describes how radical islamists were used to undermine the socialist Afghanistan government beginning 1979.  When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US had no restraints. She summarizes “Mikhail Gorbachev was a naive negotiator, outfoxed by the Americans”  and “The total surrender of ‘real existing’ communism in the East contributed to the defeat of the Western Left”.

In 1991 the US seemingly invited Saddam Hussein to go into Kuwait, then built up a huge force to expel and then massacre thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers. With operation “Desert Storm” viewed as a military success,  President Bush declared  “The Vietnam syndrome is over!”

Yugoslavia and “Humanitarian Imperialism”

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, neoliberal economic policies quickly dominated the globe. The European Union was formed in 1992.  Johnstone describes how the EU imposed rules and requirements that favored private banks and institutions and restricted or prevented state intervention and solutions.  Yugoslavia, as the sole remaining socialist holdout, was under increasing pressure and media attack.

Johnstone describes how “humanitarian imperialism” emerged at this time.  With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needed a new mandate and reason for existing.  They found this new purpose in media distortion and demonization of Serbia and Yugoslavia. NATO promoted the “Kosovo Liberation Army” and other divisive elements then bombed Serbia for 78 consecutive days. Yugoslavia was broken into pieces.

In 2002 Johnstone wrote a book about the NATO attack, western propaganda and show trial. Her book is titled “Fool’s Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions”. She was attacked in the media for challenging the dominant assumptions about the conflict. She responded to the attacks saying,” I do not deny atrocities, but unlike others I give them a political context.”  Others strongly defended her. Canadian law professor Michael Mandel wrote, “Fools Crusade is not only the definitive work on the Balkans Wars, it is also an inspiring example of how to rescue truth from the battlefield when it has become war’s first casualty”.

Western media distortion and intervention in Yugoslavia went almost unopposed. The antiwar movement was widely confused and silent.  This was followed by the US invasions of Afghanistan then Iraq.

Along with media distortions and comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust,  there emerged the justification for violating national sovereignty based on the “Right to Protect” (R2P). This was the pretext for overthrowing the Libyan government of Moammar Gadhafi.  Johnstone discusses how R2P has been used to confuse and silence antiwar forces, even some prominent traditional antiwar analysts. Johnstone has interacted with Noam Chomsky many times over decades and is overall very positive. But she notes that “even he might get something wrong”.  She documents how the co-author of  “Manufacturing Consent” was evidently fooled into believing media reports from Benghazi Libya. Chomsky said the western sponsored uprising was “wonderful”. It is now clear that media reports and NGO accusations from Benghazi were false.  They were the pretense to launch the NATO campaign to overthrow the government.

Western intervention, including the sponsorship of terrorist armies in Syria, has been sold to the unwitting public using this model.  Wherever the US and NATO wish to intervene, there is a “humanitarian crisis” and “responsibility to protect”.

Critical Current Issues

“Circle in the Darkness” analyzes many current issues of contention and debate on the left. She argues that suppression of debate and free speech, whether by the Right or Left, is counter-productive. She also argues that violence and vandalism hurts the progressive cause even when it gives a spurt of publicity and media attention.  She describes many examples over the past 50 years and how frequently the instigators were government or police agents.

Johnstone describes the spectacular growth of the “Yellow Vest” movement in France. She documents how it began, how it was supported and joined by common people and how it reached across party lines.  She contrasts the broad support of the Yellow Vest movement with narrow support of the student protests of May 1968.  She writes,  “Sociologically, this revolt was the opposite of May ’68. Instead of privileged students, imagining a non-existent working class revolution in a time of prosperity, this was the working class itself , in hard times.”

Johnstone describes how French police then attacked the Yellow Vest protesters with many injuries and even deaths. She writes, “Curiously, all this heavy handed repression totally failed to prevent masked ‘Black Bloc’ members from taking advantage of this opportunity to attack the police, set fires, break shop windows ….. Police did nothing to prevent unidentified intruders from invading the ground floor of the Arc de Triomphe to smash up a statue of Marianne…. It is noteworthy that almost all the seriously injured were peaceful Yellow Vest protesters, whereas the Black Blocs often got away unscathed. Perhaps the Black Blocs believe they are fighting the system. Whatever their intentions, they have served as a useful auxiliary to government repression.” 

Johnstone notes the massive media effort to control popular thoughts and anger. “The mainstream media have moved farther and farther away from informing the public and nearer to instructing them in what they should think and do.” She thinks the Left is also infused with dogma.  Diana Johnstone recounts the falling out with Counterpunch magazine after they published a “barrage of attacks” on the analyst and writer Caitlin Johnstone (no relation).  “That was indeed the start of Caitlin’s rise to great prominence in anti-war circles and beginning of CounterPunch’s decline from ‘fearless muckraking’ to snide sniping at the genuine heirs to the independent spirit of the founder, Alexander Cockburn. The gist of the CounterPunch attacks on the Australian Johnstone were that she dared say she would join even with someone on the right against war. That is simple good sense, but it was picked up by the Antifa purification squad as proof of tendencies toward fascism. When I saw them coming after Caitlin, I figured they’d be coming after me, and that my association with CounterPunch was soon coming to an end.”

Johnstone argues in favor of working for peace with all forces which agree on that issue, whether or not they agree on all issues of “identity politics”.  She argues that we should not be distracted from the root causes of war and social inequality.  When the Left focuses on the fringe right, the establishment is not only happy, they encourage and promote this diversion.

“The specialty of the AntiFa is to situate the threat of tyranny on the powerless margins of society – from isolated groups of costume party neo-Nazis to outspoken persons on the left accused of ‘red-brown’ tendencies. This amounts to keeping the Left herded into its sheep pen, while the wolves roam freely.”

Johnstone is  hopeful and encouraged by two things: a new generation of truth seekers and the fact that life is full of surprises.

This book is full of insights and analysis about where the world is at and how we got here. It includes important ideas and thoughts about what we can do to resist the drift toward global war and catastrophe. Above all, Diana Johnstone argues for the importance of discussion, debate and keeping it real.

*

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.

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

Diana Johnstone is a Research Associate of the Centre for research on Globalization (CRG).

---

Circle in the Darkness: Memoir of a World Watcher

Author: Diana Johnstone

Publisher: Clarity Press

Click here to order.

.

.

.

On July 29, YouTube terminated Del Bigtree’s “The Highwire” account after he posted a video of Del and me discussing my debate with Alan Dershowitz on vaccine mandates. YouTube also purged hundreds of other truthful videos on vaccines.

YouTube’s owner, Google, is effectively a vaccine company. Two subsidiaries of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, market and manufacture vaccines: Calico and Verily. Arthur Levinson, Genentech’s former CEO, runs Calico, an anti-aging drug company while Verily teams with Pharma to conduct drug and vaccine clinical trials.

In 2016, Alphabet inked a $715 million deal with GlaxoSmithKline to create Galvani, another venture to develop bioelectronic medicines and vaccines and to mine medical information from Google customers. Google’s Customer Services President, Mary Ellen Coe, sits on Merck’s board.

In 2016, Google partnered with Sanofi launching Onduo, a virtual diabetes clinic and in 2018 in another business that uses analytics to develop new drugs and vaccines.

In 2018, Google invested $27,000,000 in Vaccitech to make vaccines for flu, MERS, and prostate cancer. Vaccitech calls itself “the future of mass vaccine production.” In 2020, Vaccitech started work on a COVID vaccine. Google claims to provide politically and commercially neutral searches, but it systemically manipulates search results to suppress accurate vaccine safetyand efficacy information and steers users toward deceptive and fraudulent Pharma propaganda.

Google’s algorithms censor negative information about COVID vaccines and positive information about therapies like hydroxychloroquine that compete with the vaccines in development. Google censors reports that diminish public panic about COVID-19. Google’s definition of “misinformation” is “any information, even if accurate and true, which criticizes vaccination products.” Facebook and Google hired “FactChecker” (Politifact) to censor vaccine misinformation.

Politifact was launched by a grant from the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest vaccine promoter. Google’s orchestrated censorship across social media is crippling legitimate debates over international vaccination policies. This is a crisis for liberal democracies.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

Every summer is hot, and every summer there are heatwaves, but what we are witnessing in 2020 is rewriting all of the rules.  It has been blistering hot across the Southwest, and record after record is being broken.  In a year when we have had a seemingly endless series of things go wrong, we definitely didn’t need a historic heatwave to hit us, and it is causing all sorts of problems.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like we will be getting any relief for at least a few more days, because it is being reported that record-setting heat is “expected to last throughout the week”…

As many as 52 million people remain under heat alerts in the West on Monday, where some could see temperatures between 110 and 130 degrees. The heat is expected to last throughout the week, possibly setting more than 100 new daily record highs.

A high temperature of 100 degrees is really hot, a high temperature of 110 degrees is dangerously hot, a high temperature of 120 degrees is catastrophically hot, and a high temperature of 130 degrees is not supposed to happen.

But it just did.

On Sunday, the high temperature in Death Valley reached 130 degrees…

A temperature of 130 degrees Fahrenheit (54.4 degrees Celsius) recorded in California’s Death Valley on Sunday by the US National Weather Service could be the hottest ever measured with modern instruments, officials say.

The reading was registered at 3:41 pm at the Furnace Creek Visitor Center in the Death Valley national park by an automated observation system — an electronic thermometer encased inside a box in the shade.

Prior to Sunday, modern instruments had never measured a temperature that high anywhere in the world.

The old all-time global record of 134 degrees has stood since 1913, but the validity of that old record has been heavily disputed…

In 1913, a weather station half an hour’s walk away recorded what officially remains the world record of 134 degrees Fahrenheit (56.7 degrees Celsius).

But its validity has been disputed for a number of reasons: regional weather stations at the time didn’t report an exceptional heatwave, and there were questions around the researcher’s competence.

In any event, everyone can agree that what happened on Sunday was truly a historic event, and it definitely wasn’t an isolated incident.

Just one day before, we witnessed a new daily record high temperature in Sacramento…

Downtown Sacramento set a new record-high temperature of 111 degrees on Saturday, during what is the biggest heatwave of the year so far in the area.

And that came on the heels of Palm Springs absolutely smashing a daily record on Friday…

Palm Springs shattered the previous record of 117° for today’s date by recording 120° this afternoon! Thermal set a record for the ‘highest minimum’ for the days date with a low temperature of just 92° this morning.

Needless to say, all of this heat is putting an enormous amount of strain on California’s power system as people endlessly stay indoors and try to cool off.  In fact, things have gotten so bad that authorities just announced “the first rolling blackouts in the state since 2001”…

As California struggles to rebound from the coronavirus pandemic, wilting heat and wildfires, it’s facing another dangerous crisis: blackouts.

As temperatures broke records across the state, California energy officials announced the first rolling blackouts in the state since 2001 and warned that the state was bracing for what could be the largest power outage it has ever seen, likely on Monday.

Do you remember those crazy days back in 2001?

It seems like it was just yesterday that the Enron scandal erupted, but it really was almost 20 years ago.

Where has the time gone?

Officials are hoping that the rolling blackouts in California will be limited to this week, but they aren’t making any promises.

Meanwhile, record high temperatures are also happening in Nevada.  Las Vegas has been absolutely baking, and new record highs were being anticipated for both Monday and Tuesday…

It’ll be record-hot on Monday and Tuesday in Las Vegas, according to the National Weather Service, as southern Nevada bakes beneath a heat wave that tied a high-temperature mark on Sunday.

The expected high Monday was 114 degrees (45.56 Celsius) at McCarran International Airport, well above the current record temperature of 111 degrees set Aug. 17, 1939, meteorologist Dan Berc said.

And over in Phoenix, there have already been eight days this year with a high temperature of at least 115 degrees, and that breaks the old record that was set in 1974…

According to the National Weather Service in Phoenix, Phoenix reached 115°F during the afternoon hours of August 17, breaking a record set in 2013.

On August 14, Phoenix tied a record for the date with a high of 117 degrees (47 Celsius). Friday was the eighth day in 2020 with a high of at least 115 degrees (46 Celsius), beating the old record of seven days in 1974, the National Weather Service said.

Quite a few years ago I was in Phoenix during a heatwave, and I remember absolutely scorching the bottoms of my feet when I walked along a concrete path without any shoes on.

Dangerous heat is a constant reality this time of the year in Phoenix, but residents have learned how to live with it.

However, the record heat that we are seeing this year combined with extremely dry conditions have created an ideal environment for giant dust storms, and the millions of people living in the area have been warned that some are likely in the days ahead.

Throughout the Southwest, we are starting to see alarming patterns emerge.  If you look at the latest U.S. Drought Monitor map, you will notice that nearly the entire Southwest is already in some stage of drought right now.  In the 1930s, very high temperatures and exceedingly dry conditions for months on end combined to create “the Dust Bowl”, and many are concerned that something similar may now be starting to happen.

Even if you are not yet convinced that a new “Dust Bowl” is coming, everyone should be able to agree that what we are witnessing in the Southwest right now is very, very unusual.

In so many ways, our world seems to be going completely nuts right now, and many believe that this is just the beginning.

The good news is that September is coming, and that means that the weather in the Southwest should begin to cool off a bit.

But throughout this year it has just been one crisis after another, and we shall see what else 2020 has in store for us in the months ahead.

*

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.

Michael Snyder’s brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com. He publishes thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News which are republished across other news outlets.

Featured image is from EOTAD

The UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) on Tuesday found Salim Jamil Ayyash guilty of conspiracy to kill former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri and 21 others in a 2005 bombing.

There was insufficient evidence against three other men charged as accomplices in the bombing and they were acquitted, the tribunal found.

Judges said they were “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt” that the evidence showed that Ayyash possessed “one of six mobiles used by the assassination team” and ruled he was guilty of committing a terrorist attack and of murder.

They were also satisfied that the 56-year-old Ayyash “had associations with Hezbollah”.

Hariri’s son, Saad, also a former Lebanese prime minister, said he accepts the verdict and said it was time for the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement to assume responsibility.

“Hezbollah is the one that should make sacrifices today,” he said. “I repeat: we will not rest until punishment is served.”

Earlier on Tuesday, the court said there was no evidence the leadership of Hezbollah or the Syrian government were involved in the killing.

Hariri, who had close ties with the United States, Western and Gulf Arab allies, was seen as a threat to Iranian and Syrian influence in Lebanon.

“The trial chamber is of the view that Syria and Hezbollah may have had motives to eliminate Mr Hariri and his political allies, however, there is no evidence that the Hezbollah leadership had any involvement in Mr Hariri’s murder and there is no direct evidence of Syrian involvement,” said Judge David Re, reading a summary of the court’s decision.

Billionaire Hariri’s assassination plunged Lebanon into what was then its worst crisis since the 1975-90 civil war, leading to the withdrawal of Syrian forces and setting the stage for years of confrontation between rival political factions.

Hezbollah has denied any involvement in the 14 February 2005 bombing.

The case has been overshadowed by the Beirut blast earlier this month, the largest in Lebanon’s history, that killed 178 people and drew outraged demands for accountability.

During the trial, victims spoke powerfully in court about lost family members.

The reading of the verdict, which was scheduled to last six hours, was being broadcast by video, with only a handful of public and press allowed into the courtroom due to the coronavirus pandemic.

‘Chief defendant had Hezbollah associations’

DNA evidence showed the blast that killed Hariri was carried out by a male suicide bomber who was never identified.

Prosecutors used mobile phone records to argue that the men on trial, Ayyash, Hassan Habib Merhi, Assad Hassan Sabra and Hussein Hassan Oneissi, carefully monitored Hariri’s movements in the months leading up to the attack to time it and to put forward a fake claim of responsibility as a diversion.

Along with Ayyash, judges also said on Tuesday they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Oneissi was the main user of another of the phones.

However, they said they were not satisfied with the evidence linking the phones with the two other suspects, Merhi and Sabra.

Bombing ‘mastermind’

The judges said evidence also linked phones to the alleged mastermind of the bombing, Hezbollah commander Mustafa Badreddine – who was indicted by the court but killed near Damascus in May 2016.

Prosecutors said Ayyash was a ringleader of the group, while Oneissi and Sabra allegedly sent a fake video to the Al-Jazeera news channel claiming responsibility on behalf of a made-up group. Merhi had been accused of general involvement in the plot.

While prosecutors had shown that the suspects used mobile phones to coordinate the attack, the judges said on Tuesday that they did not sufficiently connect the suspects to a false claim made immediately after the attack by people who must have known Hariri would be killed.

“The prosecution has therefore not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt [against three suspects’] participation in the false claim of responsibility for the attack on Hariri,” said Judge Janet Nosworthy.

Court-appointed lawyers had said there there was no physical evidence linking the defendants to the crime and they should be acquitted.

‘Lebanon needs to see law and justice’

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Friday he was not concerned with the trial and that if any members of the group were convicted, it would stand by their innocence.

Hezbollah’s Al Manar TV and the pro-Damascus Al Mayadeen channel did not cover the trial, which other broadcasters in Lebanon were airing live.

Beirut tour guide Nada Nammour, 54, speaking before the reading of the verdict began, told Reuters that the crime should be punished.

“Lebanon needs to see law and justice… We were born in war, we lived in war and will die in it, but our children deserve a future,” she said.

The verdict in The Hague may further complicate an already tumultuous situation after the 4 August blast and the resignation of the government backed by Hezbollah and its allies.

Port blast in focus

The judgment had initially been expected earlier this month, but was delayed after the port explosion.

The investigation and trial in absentia of the four Hezbollah members has taken 15 years and cost roughly $1bn.

It could result in a guilty verdict and later sentencing of up to life imprisonment, or acquittal.

The hybrid court, with Lebanese criminal law and a mix of international and Lebanese judges, could serve as a model if Beirut decides to prosecute this month’s explosion, Reuters reported.

Some Lebanese say they are now more concerned with finding out the truth behind the Beirut port blast.

“I do want to know what the verdict is… but what matters now is who did this [port blast] to us because this touched more people,” Francois, a volunteer helping victims in a ruined district, told Reuters.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

The U.S. Postal Service is under threat of collapse and privatization. This comes after years of federal political maneuvering that has effectively depleted revenues and staffing – issues now amplified by new cuts to overtime worker pay and slowed delivery.

This matters now more than ever as the COVID-19 pandemic rages, and ahead of November elections when many Americans anticipate voting by mail in order to stay safe.

But the impacts of degrading the USPS go beyond simply making mail service less reliable and hindering the ability of Americans to fairly exercise their right to vote.

As an urban designer and scholar of American cities, I have long witnessed the effects that these kinds of intentional public sector degradations have on the social and physical fabric of American cities.

The post office shapes American public and private life in cities and towns, large and small. A dismantled USPS erodes American social ties, neighborhoods and even families.

A democratizing institution

The post office is what urban designers call a “local public anchor institution.” These are the shared civic buildings, services and spaces accessible by all and benefiting all, and they also include public schools, libraries and parks. They support the population without discrimination, through economic downturns and even during pandemics.

There was a time when institutions like the post office served as the civic and economic backbone of the country. After the Great Depression, investing in the USPS was a key element of the New Deal’s massive employment policy agenda and national civic building and arts programs. Those investments built avenues to middle-class jobs for minorities and veterans – opportunities that the USPS still provides today.

There’s a democratizing quality to the service. No matter what city or suburb you live in, everyone can recognize the ubiquitous blue mailboxes, which enable all citizens to send mail to any location on Earth.

While the mailboxes unite the country under one aesthetic, individual post offices highlight the rich diversity of American regionalism.

On Nantucket, the post office is a grey, weathered, cedar-shingled bungalow. Along the Detroit River, it’s a boat – with its own floating ZIP code and “mail-in-the-pail” system that delivers mail to and from ships.

In Chicken, Alaska, the post office is a log cabin, and La Jolla, California, residents recently fought to save their tile-roofed southern California Mission-style branch.

These quirky local anchors connect people to particularities of time and place. Significantly, in 2012 the National Trust for Historic Preservation added historic post offices to their list of endangered buildings.

Meanwhile the bigger, main post offices like those in St. Louis, Washington, D.C. and New Orleans are treasured architectural marvels that span entire city blocks. Built at the turn of the 20th century and now on the National Register of Historic Places, their grand designs represent ambitious public investment and confidence in the government’s role to foster trade, commerce and communication.

St. Louis’ old post office is on the National Register of Historic Places. Library of Congress

Eroded ideals

Are those ambitions already defeated?

Like all U.S. public institutions, the post office has endured decades of defunding. The 1970 Postal Reorganization Act, for example, established the USPS as a government agency that, even though it would remain under control of Congress, would not be able to receive any tax revenue. In 2006, the USPS was further undermined by a Republican-led congressional mandate requiring it to pre-fund 75 years of retiree pensions.

As the USPS has been steadily hollowed out, its collective assets have been leased or auctioned off to private developers.

The D.C. Post Office – built in 1899 – is now a Trump Hotel. Chicago’s Old Main Post Office, now under private ownership, recently vied to become Amazon’s second headquarters.

If the architectural design of public buildings serves as an outward expression of how a government values its people and places, it seems as though recent administrations have thought less and less of regular Americans and good urbanism.

Many post office branches built in the last 30 years are cheap and formulaic skeletons of their prior incarnations. You can find them in strip malls.

These bland buildings align with corporate imperatives that excise certain design elements for the sake of economic efficiency. Solid wood, high ceilings, natural light or design particulars in tune with local conditions are usually the first to go. This happens even though, as a public good, the USPS cannot technically – nor should it ethically – compete with private companies.

What are we left with when collective anchors are no longer designed as aspirational, creative places for public life to play out? Can you find a contextually designed FedEx store that reflects the same kinds of optimism and durability of early U.S. post offices?

Reinforcing our social networks

Even as the richest aesthetic dimensions of the post office are cut from budgets, its social benefits live on. Mail carriers have unexpectedly helped people trapped or caught in house fires, and have even aided victims of human trafficking. For one 11-year old stuck at home during the pandemic, her mail carrier became a new pen pal and friend.

Many smaller town post office branches double as social hubs. In Truxton, Missouri, the post office is also the news center, a bus shelter and after-school stop for kids to get candy.

Public institutions like the Postal Service allow people to forge new relationships outside of their normal circles. My mom texts her Northern Virginia mailwoman, Carla. Letter carriers, some of whom have walked the same route for years, watch families grow and change.

These moments of social solidarity enrich life in cities and towns in the same way that architecture does.

Today the USPS stands as one of the last public, civic institutions left in American cities and towns. Unlike libraries, schools or parks, the USPS does not receive external private philanthropic support. This is just as well, since subsidies and outsourcing can influence decision-making and cloud accountability.

As the Postal Service teeters – economically sabotaged and on the brink of being sold off – it’s all-the-more needed to preserve the durable, social, accessible, sustainable and beautiful cities and towns that citizens deserve.

*

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.

Patty Heyda is Associate Professor of Urban Design and Architecture, Washington University in St Louis.

Featured image: The J.W. Westcott II is the country’s only floating ZIP code. cactuspinecone/flickr, CC BY

“Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

And so it begins again, the never-ending, semi-delusional, train-wreck of an election cycle in which the American people allow themselves to get worked up into a frenzy over the misguided belief that the future of this nation—nay, our very lives—depends on who we elect as president.

For the next three months, Americans will be dope-fed billions of dollars’ worth of political propaganda aimed at keeping them glued to their television sets and persuading them that 1) their votes count and 2) electing the right candidate will fix everything that is wrong with this country.

Incredible, isn’t it, that in a country of more than 330 million people, we are given only two choices for president? How is it that in a country teeming with creative, intelligent, productive, responsible, moral people, our vote too often comes down to pulling the lever for the lesser of two evils?

The system is rigged, of course.

It is a heavily scripted, tightly choreographed, star-studded, ratings-driven, mass-marketed, costly exercise in how to sell a product—in this case, a presidential candidate—to dazzled consumers who will choose image over substance almost every time.

As author Noam Chomsky rightly observed,

“It is important to bear in mind that political campaigns are designed by the same people who sell toothpaste and cars.”

In other words, we’re being sold a carefully crafted product by a monied elite who are masters in the art of making the public believe that they need exactly what is being sold to them, whether it’s the latest high-tech gadget, the hottest toy, or the most charismatic politician.

This year’s presidential election, much like every other election in recent years, is what historian Daniel Boorstin referred to as a “pseudo-event”: manufactured, contrived, confected and devoid of any intrinsic value save the value of being advertised.

After all, who wants to talk about police shootings, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, school-to-prison pipelines, overcriminalization, censorship or any of the other evils that plague our nation when you can tune into a reality show carefully calibrated to appeal to the public’s need for bread and circuses, diversion and entertainment, and pomp and circumstance.

But make no mistake: Americans only think they’re choosing the next president.

In truth, however, they’re engaging in the illusion of participation culminating in the reassurance ritual of voting. It’s just another Blue Pill, a manufactured reality conjured up by the matrix in order to keep the populace compliant and convinced that their vote counts and that they still have some influence over the political process.

It’s all an illusion.

The nation is drowning in debt, crippled by a slowing economy, overrun by militarized police, swarming with surveillance, besieged by endless wars and a military industrial complex intent on starting new ones, and riddled with corrupt politicians at every level of government.

All the while, we’re arguing over which corporate puppet will be given the honor of stealing our money, invading our privacy, abusing our trust, undermining our freedoms, and shackling us with debt and misery for years to come.

Nothing taking place on Election Day will alleviate the suffering of the American people.

Unless we do something more than vote, the government as we have come to know it—corrupt, bloated and controlled by big-money corporations, lobbyists and special interest groups—will remain unchanged. And “we the people”—overtaxed, overpoliced, overburdened by big government, underrepresented by those who should speak for us and blissfully ignorant of the prison walls closing in on us—will continue to trudge along a path of misery.

With roughly 22 lobbyists per Congressman, corporate greed will continue to call the shots in the nation’s capital, while our so-called representatives will grow richer and the people poorer. And elections will continue to be driven by war chests and corporate benefactors rather than such values as honesty, integrity and public service.

Just consider: while billions will be spent on the elections this year, not a dime of that money will actually help the average American in their day-to-day struggles to just get by.

Conveniently, politicians only seem to remember their constituents in the months leading up to an election, and yet “we the people” continue to take the abuse, the neglect, the corruption and the lies. We make excuses for the shoddy treatment, we cover up for them when they cheat on us, and we keep hoping that if we just stick with them long enough, eventually they’ll treat us right.

When a country spends billions of dollars to select what is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified homecoming king or queen to occupy the White House, while tens of millions of its people live in poverty, nearly 18 million Americans are out of work, and most of the country and its economy remain in a state of semi-lockdown due to COVID-19 restrictions, that’s a country whose priorities are out of step with the needs of its people.

Then again, people get the government they deserve.

No matter who wins the presidential election come November, it’s a sure bet that the losers will be the American people if all we’re prepared to do is vote.

As political science professor Gene Sharp notes in starker terms,

“Dictators are not in the business of allowing elections that could remove them from their thrones.”

To put it another way, the Establishment—the shadow government and its corporate partners that really run the show, pull the strings and dictate the policies, no matter who occupies the Oval Office—are not going to allow anyone to take office who will unravel their power structures. Those who have attempted to do so in the past have been effectively put out of commission.

So what is the solution to this blatant display of imperial elitism disguising itself as a populist exercise in representative government?

Stop playing the game. Stop supporting the system. Stop defending the insanity. Just stop.

Washington thrives on money, so stop giving them your money. Stop throwing your hard-earned dollars away on politicians and Super PACs who view you as nothing more than a means to an end. There are countless worthy grassroots organizations and nonprofits working in your community to address real needs like injustice, poverty, homelessness, etc. Support them and you’ll see change you really can believe in in your own backyard.

Politicians depend on votes, so stop giving them your vote unless they have a proven track record of listening to their constituents, abiding by their wishes and working hard to earn and keep their trust.

It’s comforting to believe that your vote matters, but Franklin Delano Roosevelt was right:

“Presidents are selected, not elected.”

Despite what is taught in school and the propaganda that is peddled by the media, a presidential election is not a populist election for a representative. Rather, it’s a gathering of shareholders to select the next CEO, a fact reinforced by the nation’s archaic electoral college system. In other words, your vote doesn’t elect a president. Despite the fact that there are 218 million eligible voters in this country (only half of whom actually vote), it is the electoral college, made up of 538 individuals handpicked by the candidates’ respective parties, that actually selects the next president.

The only thing you’re accomplishing by taking part in the “reassurance ritual” of voting is sustaining the illusion that we have a democratic republic.

In actuality, we are suffering from what political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page more accurately term an “economic élite domination” in which the economic elite (lobbyists, corporations, monied special interest groups) dominate and dictate national policy.

No surprise there.

As an in-depth Princeton University study confirms, democracy has been replaced by oligarchy, a system of government in which elected officials represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen.

We did it to ourselves.

We said nothing while our elections were turned into popularity contests populated by individuals better suited to be talk-show hosts rather than intelligent, reasoned debates on issues of domestic and foreign policy by individuals with solid experience, proven track records and tested integrity.

We turned our backs on things like wisdom, sound judgment, morality and truth, shrugging them off as old-fashioned, only to find ourselves saddled with lying politicians incapable of making fair and impartial decisions.

We let ourselves be persuaded that those yokels in Washington could do a better job of running this country than we could. It’s not a new problem. As former Senator Joseph S. Clark Jr. acknowledged in a 1955 article titled, “Wanted: Better Politicians”:

“[W]e have too much mediocrity in the business of running the government of the country, and it troubles me that this should be so at a time of such complexity and crisis… Government by amateurs, semi-pros, and minor-leaguers will not meet the challenge of our times. We must realize that it takes great competence to run a country which, in spite of itself, has succeeded to world leadership in a time of deadly peril.”

We indulged our craving for entertainment news at the expense of our need for balanced reporting by a news media committed to asking the hard questions of government officials. The result, as former congressman Jim Leach points out, leaves us at a grave disadvantage:

“At a time when in-depth analysis of the issues of the day has never been more important, quality journalism has been jeopardized by financial considerations and undercut by purveyors of ideology who facilely design news, like clothes, to appeal to a market segment.”

We bought into the fairytale that politicians are saviors, capable of fixing what’s wrong with our communities and our lives, when in fact, most politicians lead such sheltered lives that they have no clue about what their constituents must do to make ends meet. As political scientists Morris Fiorina and Samuel Abrams conclude,

“In America today, there is a disconnect between an unrepresentative political class and the citizenry it purports to represent. The political process today not only is less representative than it was a generation ago and less supported by the citizenry, but the outcomes of that process are at a minimum no better.”

We let ourselves be saddled with a two-party system and fooled into believing that there’s a difference between the Republicans and Democrats, when in fact, the two parties are exactly the same. As one commentator noted, both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by the corporate elite, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.

Then, when faced with the prospect of voting for the lesser of two evils, many simply compromise their principles and overlook the fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Perhaps worst of all, we allowed the cynicism of our age and the cronyism and corruption of Washington, DC, to discourage us from believing that there was any hope for the American experiment in liberty.

Granted, it’s easy to become discouraged about the state of our nation. We’re drowning under the weight of too much debt, too many wars, too much power in the hands of a centralized government, too many militarized police, too many laws, too many lobbyists, and generally too much bad news.

It’s harder to believe that change is possible, that the system can be reformed, that politicians can be principled, that courts can be just, that good can overcome evil, and that freedom will prevail.

Yet I truly believe that change is possible, that the system can be reformed, that politicians can be principled, that courts can be just, that good can overcome evil, and that freedom can prevail but it will take each and every one of us committed to doing the hard work of citizenship that extends beyond the act of voting.

A healthy, representative government is hard work. It takes a citizenry that is informed about the issues, educated about how the government operates, and willing to make the sacrifices necessary to stay involved.

Most of all, it takes a citizenry willing to do more than grouse and complain.

The powers-that-be want us to believe that our job as citizens begins and ends on Election Day. They want us to believe that we have no right to complain about the state of the nation unless we’ve cast our vote one way or the other. They want us to remain divided over politics, hostile to those with whom we disagree politically, and intolerant of anyone or anything whose solutions to what ails this country differ from our own.

What they don’t want us doing is presenting a united front in order to reject the pathetic excuse for government that is being fobbed off on us.

So where does that leave us?

We’d better stop hanging our hopes on a political savior to rescue us from the clutches of an imperial president.

It’s possible that the next president might be better, but then again, he or she could be far worse.

Remember, presidential elections merely serve to maintain the status quo. Once elected president, that person becomes part of the dictatorial continuum that is the American imperial presidency today.

If we are to return to a constitutional presidency, “we the people” must recalibrate the balance of power.

The first step is to start locally—in your own communities, in your schools, at your city council meetings, in newspaper editorials, at protests—by pushing back against laws that are unjust, police departments that overreach, politicians that don’t listen to their constituents, and a system of government that grows more tyrannical by the day.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the only thing that will save us now is a concerted, collective commitment to the Constitution’s principles of limited government, a system of checks and balances, and a recognition that they—the president, Congress, the courts, the military, the police, the technocrats and plutocrats and bureaucrats—answer to and are accountable to “we the people.”

This will mean that Americans will have to stop letting their personal politics and party allegiances blind them to government misconduct and power grabs. It will mean holding all three branches of government accountable to the Constitution (i.e., vote them out of office if they abuse their powers). And it will mean calling on Congress to put an end to the use of presidential executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements as a means of getting around Congress and the courts.

As historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. concludes:

“I would argue that what the country needs today is a little serious disrespect for the office of the presidency; a refusal to give any more weight to a President’s words than the intelligence of the utterance, if spoken by anyone else, would command… If the nation wants to work its way back to a constitutional presidency, there is only one way to begin. That is by showing Presidents that, when their closest associates place themselves above the law and the Constitution, such transgressions will be not forgiven or forgotten for the sake of the presidency but exposed and punished for the sake of the presidency.”

In other words, we’ve got to stop treating the president like a god and start making both the office of the president and the occupant play by the rules of the Constitution.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

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].

Boris Johnson may not fight the 2024 general election, and his heart might not be in staying the full term, an expert has suggested.

Professor Steven Fielding, a professor of political history at the University of Nottingham, explained:

“We’re not even sure he’ll be in charge for that long”.

He told Newsweek:

“The talk around him and the nature of the COVID crisis itself means you’ve got to really want to be in government and really apply yourself. There are things about Johnson that people have questions about — his capacity and whether he wants to do this [in the long term].”

Johnson in recent months has been accused of a lack lustre approach to governing, like across the pond with Donald Trump. He has been criticised for regular holidays, long weekends, and even three hour power naps during the day.

But not only are there questions about whether Johnson wants to server the full time, he said that he could be forced out like his predecessor Theresa May if the tensions in his cabinet become too much.

“Whatever Boris wants to do, there are people around him who don’t want to do the same,” he explained.

“People like [home secretary] Priti Patel and other ministers around the cabinet table are not happy with big government or even a relatively modest government. There are so many tensions in the Conservative Party about all sorts of things and there are questions about the person in charge about whether he really is in charge.”

Last month a leading polling expert revealed that Keir Starmer could win an election if one is held imminently.

Peter Kellner, former president of polling company YouGov, told The New European that the Labour leader could have enough support to build an electoral consensus between different parties to enter Downing Street.

Ben Page from Ipsos Mori, however, told Newsweek his company’s data suggests that Johnson could still be an electoral asset at the next election, and the public remain relatively supportive of the PM.

He explained:

“The hill [opposition party] Labour has to climb, the fact that Johnson remains well ahead of [Labour leader] Keir Starmer on who would make best prime minister, the lack of progress so far in Labour being seen as ready to govern all suggest that at least in polling terms, Johnson can win. But, of course, a year is a long time in politics.”

But there are warnings that Johnson should ignore the red wall voters at his own peril, with those who have previously backed Labour but supportive of Brexit likely to decide the prime minister’s future.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook

The article below is only an excerpt, you may download full document at the link provided at the bottom.

Introduction

Within 10 years we have reached a point at which we can say: We have done our best to get Rosalie Bertell´s knowledge distributed in the world. In addition, we have contributed to this with our Information-Letters in different languages, public speeches, and the spreading of a lot of additional information on current debates and facts (www.pbme-online.org).

Why do people not want to know about the violence that is committed against Mother Earth?

Is it a taboo to reveal a secret?

One thing, however, has never been understood properly: Dr. Bertell´s knowledge has, so far, not become the issue of an open public debate. Not only the powers that be, but also the social movements of today have not allowed this to happen. Very often, people reject this knowledge right away, because it is shocking to them. A first reaction typically consists of fleeing from it instead of trying to learn and doing something about it. Most of them simply deny the possibility that something like „military geoengineering“ may even exist. In an effort to avoid confronting these facts they grasp the term prepared from above for the purpose of doing away with this sort of “evil knowledge“ and call it a ”conspiracy theory”!

So, even Rosalie Bertell who was a person beyond any possible suspicion of working at the levels of conspiracy theories, has been interpreted as such. Obviously, this could not be further from the truth, but it serves the interests of those who possibly don´t want the truth to be known.

The truth to be known are the facts about the system we live in, which in itself is based on different forms of direct and structural violence against life itself, against nature and against human beings! This truth is a secret and thus it has become a taboo to speak about these facts. Whenever this taboo is violated, we have observed, there is always a prompt reaction to stop any further discussion of it.

I have come to the conclusion that the truth about the system we live in, if we want it or not, is so horrible that nearly everyone tries to avoid seeing it, because otherwise:

• s/he would feel either very uncomfortable, and even guilty, or
• would feel ridiculous by turning out powerless in spite of feeling rather powerful, instead, and/or
• s/he would suddenly feel deprived of a generally assumed protection of life from above or elsewhere, causing fear, and/or
• s/he would have to bury his or her assumptions about the validity of the general ”values“ the system preaches, e.g. rights and justice, freedom and democracy, or peace and happiness, and/or
• s/he, taking the ”evil knowledge“ seriously, would have to stand up immediately in order to stop the violence the system is committing against life, nature and humanity. This, however, is felt as a too heavy burden to take over…

In the meantime we know where this violence of our ”system“, our modern civilization, is based on. It is rooted in the system of ”patriarchy“, as I call it.

The intention of patriarchy is to change all of life, nature and humanity, in fact the entire society into a ”man-made“, artificial one, i.e. not allowing life to exist any longer in its organic ways on this Planet earth, and in natural and motherly ways. The man-made world is by definition a pater-arché one, a ”creation“ of so-called fathers instead of mothers and Mother Nature. In order to reach this patri-archal utopia, which, by the way, is several thousands of years old, in its course much violence has already been applied, indeed. This violence has turned into a trauma, and at the same time, it is considered forbidden knowledge and is suppressed. It has been hidden on all levels and cannot possibly be addressed openly! As long as this patriarchal civilization has not succeeded in transforming life, nature, humans, the whole world – and the Planet itself – into a completely man-made, patri-archal world, violence will continuously be applied as a necessary means of achieving its dangerous goals. It is for these reasons that people are not allowed to recognize the direct and structural violence inherent in the system!

This mental paradox is the secret of patriarchy. Because, the patriarchal narrative tells us there is no violence, the transformation-process from the natural to the artificial is one to the better and higher. Today it is called progress!

The taboo consists of revealing the violence applied in its course to an allegedly better and higher world, so that this world may not appear anymore as the better and higher one, given the price of destruction paid for it.

The secret to be revealed tells us that violence does not lead to better and higher worlds at all, but to what it produces – namely destruction! Destruction is the overall outcome of this ”alchemical“ – as I call it – transformation process by violence. This is its logic, and nobody is allowed to see it and to name it. Reflecting about the patriarchal violence against nature, the earth, life and the people, seeing it and speaking about it, not to mention acting against it – these are the heaviest taboos in this patriarchal system. This is the ”evil“ knowledge, the forbidden one, the forgotten one, the knowledge driven into the underground and thus made subconscious! I call it the ”collective subconscious“. As we all have experienced patriarchal violence, we recognize at once, perhaps unconsciously, when it comes to its revelation! We are panicking with it, because then danger is near and has to be averted. We have to protect ourselves against the danger of meddling with patriarchal systemic violence which would destroy us! Everyone seems to know it, because nearly everybody reacts the same way, when it happens!

It is clear now how difficult it is to acknowledge what Rosalie Bertell is teaching us. She teaches us that in the meantime patriarchy, in the form of the military and the MIC, has started to destroy our very living conditions and the Planet itself! So, we are literally forced to do something against it if we want to continue living on this earth! This means that we have to address patriarchy and its systemic, direct and structural violence, running the risk of becoming the ones who break the taboo, revealing and naming the secret!

Continue reading, download the whole “10th Anniversary” Information-Letter 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 PBME.

Prof. Claudia Von Werlhof, is a distinguished author, professor of political science and women’s studies, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image is from Media Lens

Many voices have been quick to enter the chorus of commentators hypothesizing the manifold possible causes of the devastating explosions which occurred on the afternoon of August 4 in Beirut which has led to mass anarchy and the surprising resignation of the government on August 11th.

While I have no great novel contribution to offer in that growing array of hypotheses (which are slowly turning into noise), I would like to share an insight which addresses a too-often-overlooked aspect of the role of Lebanon in the Great Game. Before proceeding, it is useful to hold in the mind several points of certainty:

1) The official narrative of a chance mishap of Turkish fireworks instigating the detonation of the 2700 tons of ammonium nitrate which had been sitting at the Port of Beirut for six years is entirely unbelievable.

2) This event should not considered in any way separated from the anomalously large pattern of explosions and arson which have spread across the Arab and African worlds in recent weeks.

3) This pattern of chaos must itself be seen in the context of the clash between two systems: The collapsing NATO unipolar alliance on the one side and the New Silk Road-led multipolar alliance on the other.

The Matter of Causality

The Middle East has been labelled the “geopolitical pivot” of the world island by devout adherents to the Hobbesian worldview of Halford Mackinder such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger and Bernard Lewis. Today it is understood that whomever can either stabilize or destabilize this region can control the levers for the “world island” (Africa, Europe, and Eurasia)… and as Mackinder once said “who controls the world island, controls the world.”

In the case of Lebanon, the role that this region plays as “Pearl on the New Silk Road”, and intersection of all major civilizations of the globe, has shaped global policy considerations in Washington, London and Israel for the past several years. The destructive events underway Lebanon cannot be separated from the breathtaking spread of Belt and Road projects across Iraq, Iran, Syria and other Arab nations.

More than Coincidence

In the weeks surrounding the Lebanon disaster, Iran found herself the target of a vicious sequence of attacks as arson and explosions were unleashed beginning with the June 26 explosion at the Khojir Missile production complex, the June 30 explosion at a medical clinic killing 19, a July 2 explosion at the Natanz nuclear facility which set Iran’s centrifuge production schedule back by months and the July 15 fires at the Bushehr Aluminum plant. Additionally, and the UAE experienced its own anomalous fires which ravaged one of the most important markets in Dubai (luckily empty due to Covid-19) on August 5.

If any of these anomalies were taken individually, “chance” could always be blamed as culprit. However when one takes them all together and recognizes the revolutionary BRI-connected agreements currently being finalized between both China and Russia with Iran does one get a solid idea of the deeper causality underlying these apparently separate situations of chaos.

Iran and the New Silk Road

The fact is that the long awaited $400 billion China-Iran economic and security pact which is in its final stages of negotiation includes not only important oil for infrastructure agreements which will extend advanced rail and new energy grids to Iran. This program also includes an important military/security partnership which will dramatically transform the “rules of the game” in the middle east for generations. Elements of this pact include not only defense and intelligence sharing infrastructure, but also also bolster China’s new digital currency the e-RMB which will circumvent western controls on trade.

Meanwhile Russia’s announced extension of the 20 year security/economic partnership agreement first signed in 2001 by Presidents Rouhani and Putin will certainly be finalized in the coming months. Iran has also made it’s interests in acquiring Russia’s S400 system well known and all geopoliticians understand well that this system which is spreading fast across all of Eurasia from Turkey to South Korea renders America’s F-35s and THAAD missile systems impotent and obsolete.

If the China-Russia-Iran triangle can be firmly established, then not only does America’s sanctions regime policy disintegrate, but a vital platform of Middle Eastern development will be established to better spearhead the growth of transport and advanced development corridors from China to the east (and Africa) along the New Silk Road. Since November 2018 an Iran-Iraq-Syria railway has taken great strides towards implementation as part of middle east reconstruction funded by Iran and ultimately connecting to Syria’s Lattakia Port as a hub to the Mediterranean and a 32km Shalamcheh-Bashra railway is in an advanced phase of development with Iran’s Minister of Roads and Urban Development Abbas Ahmad stating:

“Iran’s railway system is linked to railways of central Asia, China and Russia and if the 32 km Shalamcheh-Basra railway will be constructed, Iraq can transfer goods and passengers to Russia and China and vice versa.”

While the 32 km rail line would be phase one, the 2^nd phase is scheduled to be a 1545 km rail and highway to the Syrian Port.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria regional participation in the broader New Silk Road is incredibly important, especially since Iraq signed a September 2019 Memorandum of Understanding to join the BRI under a new infrastructure-for-oil program. This plan involves China’s reconstruction of the war-torn region under a multiphase program of hard infrastructure (rail, roads, energy and water projects), and soft infrastructure (hospitals, schools and cultural centers).

Similarly, China has made it intention to bring real reconstruction programs to Syria are also well known and President Bashar Al Assad’s long overdue Four Seas Strategy first announced in 2004 (and sabotaged with the Arab Spring) is finally coming back on line. President Assad had won 7 countries over to sign onto it’s construction by 2010 and entailed connecting all four major water systems (Mediterranean, Caspian, Black Sea, and Persian Gulf) together via rail and infrastructure corridors as a driver for win-win cooperation and regional modernization. Assad had said of the project in 2009 “once we link these four seas, we become the unavoidable intersection of the whole world in investment, transport and more.”

A fuller video of this important project can be viewed here:

Lebanon: Pearl of the New Silk Road

Lebanon’s participation in this long-awaited process should be obvious to all, sharing as it does a major border with Syria, hosts 1.5 million Syrian refugees and also a vital port to the Mediterranean making it a keystone of east-west development. Connecting this emerging zone of development to Africa where the Belt and Road has emerged as a leading force of change and hope in recent years, Lebanon finds itself among the most strategic keystones.

Designs for rail connecting Lebanon’s Port of Tripoli through Jordan and thence through Egypt would be create a new positive field of prosperity which could dramatically change the rules of the Middle East and Africa forever.

On June 17, 2020 the Chinese Embassy publicized an offer to extend BRI projects to Lebanon featuring a modern railway connecting coastal cities in the north with Tripoli through Beirut to Naquora in the south. China’s National Machinery IMP/EXP Corporation also offered the construction of three new power plants of 700 MW each, a new national energy grid and port modernization. The Embassy’s press release stated:

“The Chinese side is ready to carry out practical cooperation actively with the Lebanese side on the basis of equality and mutual benefit in the framework of joint work to build the Belt and Road… China is committed to cooperation with other nations mainly through the role of its companies, the leading role of the market, and the catalytic role of government and commercial operation. Chinees companies continue to follow with interest the opportunities of cooperation in infrastructure and other fields in Lebanon.”

These offers were applauded by Hassan Nasrallah (leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah and partner in the coalition government) who had been an outspoken advocate of Lebanon’s participation in the BRI for years. Nasrallah has also advocated liberating Lebanon from the IMF whose structural adjustments and conditionality-laden investments have resulted in the small country’s debt exploding to over 170% of its GDP with nothing to show for it.

It is noteworthy that the same day China made its offers known publicly, Washington imposed the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act to punish all who wish to trade with Syria which itself has not only further crushed Syria’s cries for economic reconstruction, but had taken direct aim at Lebanon which sees 90% of Syrian goods flow through its borders to the Mediterranean.

When Chinese delegations first made their vision for the BRI’s extension to Lebanon known in March 2019 where the Arab Highway from Beirut to Damascus and rail to China was floated, western stooge Saad Al Hariri said no, preferring instead to sign onto a $10 billion IMF plan. Over a year later, not one iota of infrastructure was built. Secretary of State Pompeo played a major role at keeping Lebanon from “going east” as Nasrallah and even President Aoun had desired when he stated in a March 2019 press conference “Lebanon and the Lebanese people face a choice: bravely move forward as an independent and proud nation or allow the dark ambitions of Iran and Hezbollah to dictate your future.”

Pompeo’s obsessive drive to eliminate Hezbollah and especially the influence of Nasrallah in Lebanon has less to do with any perceived threat Israel claims to its existence and everything with Hezbollah and Iran’s embrace of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

When Chinese offers were renewed in June 2020, Pompeo’s stooge David Schenker (Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs) gave a June 23 interview stating that Hezbollah “is not an organization that seeks reform, but rather one that lives on corruption”. Schenker warned Lebanon from falling into the “China Trap” and said that Nasrallah’s demands that Lebanon “look east” was “shocking”.

Without going into a lengthy refutation of the “China debt trap” argument (which is really just the effect of western imperialists projecting their own dirty practices onto China’s BRI), it is sufficient to say that it is a 100% myth. A summary overview of Chinese investments in Africa which are numerically similar to American investments demonstrates that the difference is found entirely in QUALITY as China uniquely invests in real construction, manufacturing and even African banking which are verboten by all imperialists who only wish to use Africa as a looting ground for cheap resources and cheaper labor.

Speaking to this issue, and the hope for Lebanon more broadly the BRIX Sweden’s Hussein Askary stated:

“It is becoming obvious that a tiny country like Lebanon, but fully sovereign and independent can break the back of a global empire by opting to follow the path of progress, national sovereignty and international cooperation according to the win-win model offered by China. This does not mean cutting all bridges to the west. It is necessary to keep those that are in the true interest of Lebanon and its people. If the U.S. and Europe wish to change their policies and join China in offering Lebanon power, transport, water and agro-industrial investments, the Lebanese people and leadership would take them with open arms”.

*

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.

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.

Don’t miss this historic debate between Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

With the current COVID crisis dominating headlines at national and local levels, the topic of vaccines is now front and center.

The two attorneys debate a range of issues including vaccine mandates, the PREP Act, the lack of vaccine safety studies, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, and HHS’s failure to act on provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Are compulsory vaccines even legal? Should any government be able to force medical procedures on families?

An insightful discussion that no one contemplating vaccine safety should miss.

*

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 Natural News

Continuando a análise começada na primeira parte deste artigo – Monopólio, desemprego e desigualdade: faces da crise capitalista (I) –, vejamos como a crise do trabalho (desemprego) e a crise ambiental se relacionam, constituindo-se como duas faces da “crise estrutural capitalista”.[*]

 ***

Pandemia de 2020, crise econômica mundial de 2008, inundações e secas, crise de fome de 2007 cujo resultado foi a marca histórica de um bilhão de famintos, devastação das florestas e poluição dos oceanos, degradação de culturas e povos reduzidos gradativamente à dependência e miséria: o que liga estes fenômenos é que todos eles são resultados do chamado “progresso capitalista”.

“Progresso” que, longe de ser um efetivo “desenvolvimento” humano – aprofundamento das liberdades, melhorias na cultura, saúde, educação, emancipação, prazer, tempo livre –, pelo contrário, é apenas um eufemismo com que se oculta um caótico “avanço tecnológico” e um  “crescimento econômico” sem planejamento racional. 

Neste processo de crescimento concorrencial e desordenado (nomeado pelos capitalistas de “livre-mercado”), o capital, a partir de um controle cada vez maior da natureza (de que explora matérias-primas) e do próprio homem (de quem explora a força de trabalho), segue “avançando” sempre mais por sobre os recursos do planeta e seus diversos povos.

Bastante análogo a um tumor cancerígeno, o capitalismo se amplia de modo desgovernado, consumindo em sua “metástase” tudo à sua volta, a ponto de ameaçar o próprio “corpo” que o sustenta: o ser humano e o planeta.

Este processo irracional e fundamentalmente insustentável já tinha sido percebido por Karl Marx ainda no século XIX, quem apesar de não ter visto o cenário limite que hoje podemos vislumbrar, conseguiu descrevê-lo em seus traços preponderantes, como se explana neste artigo. 

Duas faces da crise estrutural: desemprego e devastação ambiental

Para se compreender o problema do “progresso” capitalista, é preciso observar algumas características fundamentais deste modo de produção, sobretudo o conceito de crise estrutural do sistema – que se refere a uma crise “lógica” intrínseca a este modo de produção. Para além de suas frequentes crises socioeconômicas “cíclicas”, a crise estrutural é um problema da própria irracionalidade interna do capitalismo. Isto porque seu mecanismo de funcionamento pressupõe e mesmo diviniza um eterno “crescimento econômico” –  como se se pudesse crescer infinitamente, como se o planeta não tivesse os limites territoriais e energéticos que tem. 

Os resultados disto, visíveis no cotidiano dos noticiários e em grande medida já revelados e mensurados por cientistas, em linhas gerais são: o aumento irreversível da população sem emprego, cronicamente excluída do sistema; a destruição ambiental a um nível que ameaça a própria vida sobre a Terra, ou ao menos a maior parte de sua população.

Como mostrado na primeira parte dessa análise, com o avanço da tecnologia e da automação dos processos produtivos, por um lado o capital tende a se concentrar ainda mais (em mãos de poucos e poderosos monopólios); por outro, o “exército industrial de reserva” cresce vertiginosamente, lançando à completa exclusão social uma massa cada vez mais impactante de trabalhadores, que nunca reaverão seus postos (“desemprego estrutural”).

Consequências nítidas desse movimento são, dentre outras:

i) a precarização do trabalho (terceirizações, uberização, redução de direitos trabalhistas);

ii) aumento do abismo social entre ricos e pobres;

iii) fome em níveis jamais constatados ao longo da história;

iv) e também a degradação ambiental.

Sim, além do ser humano, a natureza também é vítima preferencial do capital, pois se naquele o capital encontra força de trabalho para explorar, nesta ele encontra matérias-primas para pilhar.

Deste modo, na medida em que cresce a automatização, os capitalistas veem a taxa de lucro ser gradativamente diminuída. Como reação de desespero, e para estender o prazo do problema, o capital tem diversos artifícios, tais como:

i) suprimir direitos sociais conquistados ao longo de séculos (trabalhistas, previdenciários);

ii) inflar artificialmente sua fortuna  (bolhas de crédito, dinheiro sem lastro);

iii) provocar guerras para o aquecimento do mercado (renovação bélica, desova de armas, seguida da reconstrução civil dos países destruídos);

iv) conquistar belicamente ou por pressão econômica novos territórios cujos recursos possam ser explorados, coagindo nações para que aceitem seu modelo exploratório (agronegócio, mineração, etc), cujo ganho rápido por vezes seduz governos periféricos, enquanto o grosso dos lucros vaza desses países (que têm seus solos e subsolos devastados) sob a forma de matérias-primas (commodities), que irão alimentar sobretudo a grande indústria do centro capitalista (EUA, UE, etc).

Com este fenômeno de avanço das fronteiras do capital por sobre terrenos ainda pouco explorados, ocorre que milhões de pequenos camponeses são expulsos de suas terras, ou obrigados a ingressar forçadamente no sistema, endividando-se (em  nome da “competitividade”) e logo quebrando, diante das concorrências maiorais. 

Um dos resultados disso é que o camponês, sem ter para onde ir, por vezes é forçado a optar pela migração para áreas florestais – caso da Amazônia, cuja fronteira agrícola vem sendo impulsionada por gente do Cerrado, expulsa pelo poder do agronegócio. 

Outro grave problema ambiental – talvez o pior – é o aquecimento climático global, fruto de uma produção industrial mal planejada que não visa satisfazer ao homem, mas ao lucro, processo que advém da ideia absurda de se perseguir sempre o “crescimento econômico”, ainda que o planeta seja restrito em recursos (que já se aproximam de seu esgotamento).

Não cabe nesse texto um debate sobre todas as implicações e causas da crise ambiental, mas diante do atual panorama de caos sanitário, vale ainda mencionar que segundo relatório do Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente, diversas das epidemias mais graves que ameaçaram o mundo nas últimas décadas (ébola, gripe aviária, síndrome respiratória aguda grave, febre do Nilo, zika, e agora, até onde se sabe, inclusive a covid-19), são consequências da degradação da natureza:  “75% das doenças infecciosas emergentes são zoonóticas” – ou seja, transmitidas por animais a humanos, devido especialmente à aproximação de espécies silvestres das metrópoles, motivadas pela destruição de seus habitats naturais.

Marx e a crise socioambiental: o debate O’Connor-Bellamy Foster 

Vejamos agora como Karl Marx, já em seu tempo, percebia o problema ambiental (que então, com a ampliação desmesurada da indústria, se iniciava); e como dois destacados marxistas dedicados ao tema socioecológico, James O’Connor e Bellamy Foster, compreendem as contribuições de Marx ao tema, e a relação que há entre a “crise estrutural” (relativa à lógica interna do capitalismo) e a crise ambiental (consequência do “crescimento” irracional). 

***

Até meados do século XX, a crise ambiental não foi observada com a gravidade que merece. O debate ambiental ganha peso nas últimas décadas do século à medida que os desastres naturais se tornam evidentes, e que se percebe que isto se configura em uma restrição estrutural ao “progresso” capitalista.

No âmbito do pensamento marxista, o interesse pela questão obtém força nos anos 1980, quando é fundada a revista de ecologia-socialista “Capitalism, Nature, Socialism: a journal of socialist ecology” (1988), projeto liderado por O’Connor, no qual se destaca também Elmar Altvater, e que seria acompanhado de perto – embora não sem divergências – por Bellamy Foster e outros marxistas [1]. 

Os movimentos revoltosos que se espalham pelo planeta por volta de 1968 são um marco deste processo, o que amplia o debate público sobre a questão do meio ambiente e impulsiona o desenvolvimento de pesquisas acadêmicas. 

Assim, o questionamento sobre os “limites ecológicos” do crescimento econômico e suas relações com o “desenvolvimento humano” é reintroduzida no debate científico, após um significativo hiato separando esse evento de contestação popular, da obra de Karl Polanyi – quem em 1944, na obra A grande transformação, tratou das formas como a ampliação do mercado debilitou as próprias condições sociais e ambientais. 

O nível da discussão desse período, porém, ainda era bem fraco, tendo como linhas principais o “naturalismo burguês”, o “neomalthusianismo”, a “tecnocracia do Clube de Roma” ou o purista “ecologismo profundo” – como mostra O’Connor, fundador da corrente marxista ecológica, que começa a modificar este cenário cognitivo superficial [2]. 

O’Connor e o “ecologismo marxista”

Para o sociólogo e economista estadunidense, a base para se pensar a questão é se perceber que nem a força de trabalho, nem a dita “natureza externa” são algo “produzido” pelo capital (embora sejam tratadas como mercadorias). 

O’Connor afirma que, para se analisar a raiz das contradições capitalistas, devem ser levadas em conta as “condições de produção” (que Polanyi chamou “mercadorias fictícias”, e que não se relacionam diretamente com a lei do valor trabalho, estudada por Marx). 

Pode-se dividir essas “condições” em três tipos: 

i) as “pessoais” (ligadas à reprodução da força de trabalho);

ii) as “naturais-externas” (campos, florestas, rios, recursos energéticos);

iii) as “gerais-comunitárias” (infraestrutura, edificações urbanas, etc).

É importante frisar aqui que Marx, já em sua época, tinha se dado conta que a “agricultura” e a “silvicultura capitalistas” eram severamente daninhas à natureza – pois que arruinavam a “qualidade da terra” e prejudicavam a saúde do próprio homem. 

O’Connor, entretanto, acredita que Marx, apesar de suas percepções iniciais, não chegou ao ponto de estabelecer propriamente a “conclusão” do problema, ou seja: a de que os novos métodos agrícolas (ecologicamente prejudiciais) viessem a produzir um aumento dos “custos” dos elementos usados pelo capital [3]. 

Ou de outro modo, diz O’Connor, Marx não teria captado que os tais “limites naturais” (autogerados pelo crescimento da produção capitalista) viriam a se tornar obstáculos “físicos”, levando o sistema a uma crise distinta daquela do “trabalho abstrato” (que é tratada na obra marxiana e depois amplamente debatida pelos marxistas). 

A este “limite físico”, O’Connor denomina “segunda contradição” do capitalismo, contrastando-a com a “primeira” (que resulta da, antes explicada, “tendência decrescente da taxa de lucro”). À “primeira contradição”, ele associa o movimento trabalhista de classes; já à “segunda”, ele relaciona o surgimento dos “novos movimentos sociais” (coletivos de resistência às diversas formas com que o capital agride as “condições de produção”).

O’Connor divide estes novos movimentos sociais, segundo suas relações motivadoras, do seguinte modo: 

i) as de “condições pessoais”, relacionadas a movimentos como o feminista, o negro, e o dos povos indígenas, dentre outros;

ii) as “comunitárias”, associadas a movimentos urbanos, de habitação, etc.;

iii) as “naturais” – ligadas a problemas ambientais e que são a origem do “ecologismo”.

Deste modo, o marxista ianque, ainda que considere ambas as “contradições” capitalistas como faces da crise estrutural – ou seja, processos que levam o sistema a um limite –, sugere porém que, em seu tempo (fim do século XX), a “segunda contradição” (analisada pela então emergente “teoria ecologista marxista”) já teria um protagonismo mais decisivo para a crise capitalista contemporânea, do que a “primeira contradição” (a “do trabalho”, criticada desde há muito mais tempo por variadas correntes marxistas) [4]. 

Bellamy Foster e a ecologia desenvolvida por Marx 

Conterrâneo de O’Connor e também um dos grandes impulsionadores da crítica ecológica de corte marxista, Bellamy Foster contrapõe-se à teoria de seu colega e do grupo de pesquisadores de sua citada revista. Propõe uma discussão “radical”, que se apoie em contornos da realidade mais nítidos, verificando sua “raiz”, conforme deve se dar em um procedimento de investigação pautado pelo método dialético que Marx e Engels iniciaram.

Ainda que valorize certos aportes dos chamados “ecologistas marxistas”, Foster entende que essa corrente peca por “economicismo” e por “funcionalismo”, perspectivas que considera “pouco dialéticas”.

Para Foster, O’Connor parte de uma premissa errônea, ao achar que conforme o capitalismo se visse transtornado pela degradação ambiental, existiria uma “tendência” de que o próprio capital tentasse resolver esse problema (gerador de aumento dos custos produtivos). Desse ângulo, poderia se supor uma abertura para que os movimentos sociais viessem a pressionar o capital, com vistas a que as “externalidades” (ligadas às “condições naturais-externas”) fossem devidamente pagas pelos capitalistas. 

Para Bellamy Foster essa conjectura não tem lastro na realidade. Citando uma ideia do grupo dos “verdes alemães” – segundo a qual o capital só irá reconhecer que “dinheiro não se come”, quando “a última árvore já tenha sido cortada”, ele argumenta que a devastação ambiental já é extremamente séria, ainda que não tenha chegado ao nível de restringir “suficientemente” as “condições de produção”. 

Como exemplos de sua tese, destaca que “50% das espécies” da Amazônia estão ameaçadas de extinção, sem que isso tenha efetivamente afetado a produção capitalista; ou ainda, que o buraco da camada de ozônio, que põe em xeque a própria sobrevivência da espécie, não será argumento suficiente para que os donos do mundo abdiquem de sua destrutiva competição por lucros. 

Estas ideias que se centram apenas na “contradição ambiental”, diz Foster, contraditoriamente acabam por “minimizar as dimensões reais da crise ecológica”. Além disto, há problemas empíricos na teoria de O’Connor, pois não existem evidências de que a escassez natural já seria atualmente uma real barreira para o capital, quando o consideramos em sua totalidade – já que ainda há bastante território a se conquistar, além dos variados artifícios com que o poder do sistema logra se abster desses chamados custos externos [5].

Assim sendo, Foster entende que a Terra, hoje, ainda é um grande presente nas mãos dos capitalistas, e antes que o capital seja “sensibilizado” pelo desastre ecológico, boa parcela da natureza e da humanidade terão sido exterminadas por essa prática irracional. 

Ele nota ainda que, mesmo em um cenário limite, as elites sempre tramarão formas para poder estender por mais tempo sua insanidade (como um exemplo simbólico, veja-se os monumentais diques de proteção construídos nas terras baixas da riquíssima Holanda). 

A tese de Foster é a de que a chamada “primeira contradição” (ligada ao trabalho), ao contrário do que pensa O’Connor, continua a ser a principal causa da crise estrutural capitalista, antes da “segunda” (ambiental). Apesar disso, ele não aprecia essa ideia algo “dualista”, que divide em categorias quase isoladas os antigos e os novos movimentos sociais (uma visão unilateral das complexas causas do problema).

Foster considera que esse enfoque de O’Connor é “economicista”, pois que trata os novos movimentos sociais (advindos da “segunda contradição”) como sendo hoje supostamente “mais importantes” à resistência popular, legando assim a um plano secundário as lutas de classes – o que acaba por reduzir a centralidade da categoria da práxis, um dos cernes do pensamento marxista. 

Como o próprio Marx analisou o problema ambiental

Vejamos agora o que o próprio Marx pensou sobre a questão ambiental. Conforme o levantamento que Foster realizou em seu impactante livro A ecologia de Marx (2000), Marx e Engels, na obra A ideologia alemã, quando abordam a evolução histórica da divisão do trabalho, não expõem apenas as “formas de propriedade” (burguesa, feudal, estatal, comunal, tribal), mas também dão destaque ao começo do antagonismo entre a cidade e o campo, fenômeno que se consolidaria “plenamente” sob o modo de produção capitalista, com sua divisão do trabalho entre agrícola e industrial-comercial, o que gera enormes conflitos. 

Marx desenvolve esse tema em O capital, denominando “fratura metabólica” a essa contradição original do capitalismo – que separa o homem da terra, alienando-o da base material que sustenta sua existência. 

A partir dessas constatações, Marx passa a elaborar uma pioneira “teoria da sustentabilidade”, em escritos nos quais aborda “diretamente” problemas hoje bem atuais, tais como os seguintes (citados por Foster): “condições sanitárias”, “contaminação”, “desflorestamento”, “desertificação”, “inundações”, “reciclagem de nutrientes”, “diversidade de espécies”.

Anteriormente, em seus Esboços da crítica da economia política (ou Grundrisse), Marx já tinha discutido como as mudanças na propriedade fundiária, durante o capitalismo, levaram ao alijamento dos “filhos da terra”, do “peito em que se criaram”, fazendo com que inclusive o “próprio trabalho do solo” viesse a ser alienado, tornando-se uma fonte de “subsistência mediada”, “dependente” das relações sociais. 

A conclusão a que Marx chega é a de que, para se poder superar o capitalismo, é preciso: que o “trabalho assalariado” seja abolido, criando-se para em seu lugar uma comunidade de trabalhadores associados; mas também, que seja posto um basta na alienação dos seres humanos com relação à terra que nos alimenta a todos.

Tendo em conta estas concepções de vanguarda presentes na obra marxiana, Foster defende que o pensador alemão desenvolveu efetivamente uma “teoria ecológica” – e uma teoria “completa” –, diferentemente do que crê O’Connor; ainda que Marx tenha escolhido não se focar na especificidade de como os “custos ecológicos” influenciam de modo direto a economia (fato que, não obstante, já em seu tempo ele observou e comentou, caso da crise dos solos que ficou evidente a partir dos anos 1840). 

Ao invés de enveredar por uma análise “economicista” (que restringiria a verificação das contradições ecológicas), diz Foster, Marx se volta “cada vez mais” a uma reflexão sobre a “regulação” racional do metabolismo entre o ser humano e o meio ambiente, ou seja, o que hoje chamamos de “sustentabilidade” – algo que não será possível, senão através da superação do “trabalho alienado”. 

Em suma: Marx opta por investigar a questão de modo ampliado – “totalizante” –, sem se restringir às categorias isoladas com que o cientificismo moderno (de perspectiva positivista) divide artificialmente a realidade. Para ele, a questão básica para a construção de uma sociedade evoluída – comunista – passa justamente pelo estabelecimento de um metabolismo homem-natureza mais racional. 

Hoje, a crise ambiental atingiu um estágio perigoso, o que Marx não poderia ter adivinhado em seu século. Porém, o núcleo da questão ecológica é ainda a antinatural separação entre campo e cidade. Isto, afirma Foster, não só ou prioritariamente por causa dos impactos na produção industrial; a devastação da natureza é um problema vasto e repleto de implicações que, tendo sido criado pela própria “estrutura” do capitalismo, não poderá ser estudada apenas pelo viés “econômico”: é preciso entendê-la também como problema “social” e “cultural”: como um fenômeno dialético, conflitivo, que é ao mesmo tempo humano e natural. 

Contudo, para se alcançar tal entendimento, é preciso superar-se os atuais modelos cognitivos da “ciência dominante” – que em seu reducionismo tende a compartimentar em categorias estanques o conhecimento, como se pode verificar na divisão rudimentar (que seria ingênua, não fora interessada) entre ciências naturais e ciências humanas – o que, como se sabe, sustenta o tecnicismo e alienação intelectual da sociedade moderna capitalista. 

Yuri Martins-Fontes

Imagem : Ilustração de Karl Marx com barba de grama / Reprodução: ecossocialismooubarbarie.wordpress.com

Notas

[*] As duas partes deste artigo se baseiam em capítulo da seguinte investigação pós-doutoral (em vias de publicação): MARTINS-FONTES, Yuri. “Marxismo e saberes originários: das afinidades entre os outros saberes e a concepção histórico-dialética”. Em Relatório Final de Pesquisa de Pós-Doutorado 2015/2017 [supervisão: professor Paulo Eduardo Arantes]. São Paulo: Departamento de Filosofia da Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas da Universidade de São Paulo, junho de 2017.

[1] Destacados marxistas trataram da relação entre crise estrutural e a questão ecológica já por volta dos 1990 (caso de Mészáros e Postone), mas não desenvolveram o tema, priorizando investigações sobre a crise do trabalho alienado.

[2] O’Connor, “Las condiciones de producción por un marxismo ecológico”, em O’Connor e Alier (orgs.), Ecología Política. Ver também: Wilson Ferreira de Oliveira, “’Maio de 68′: Mobilizações ambientalistas e sociologia ambiental”, em Mediações, v.13, n.1-2, 2008 (Dossiê: “40 anos de Maio de 1968”).

[3] Como coloca Engels, Marx concebeu sua teoria não como “doutrina”, mas como “método”; ver “Carta a Werner Sombart” (11/03/1895); e G. Foladori, “Questão ambiental em Marx”, em Crítica marxista.

[4] O’Connor, “Las condiciones de producción por un marxismo ecológico”, obra cit.

[5] Foster, “Capitalismo y ecología: la naturaleza de la contradicción” (2002); e La ecología de Marx: materialismo y naturaleza [2000]. 

The bountiful new book, Rita Blitt: Around and Round (Tra Publishing, 2020), looks back at the long and prolific career of this notable American artist. If Blitt’s work is about anything then it is about the exuberance, the joy, the sometimes almost mad ecstasy of creative spontaneity. Much of her work is suffused with a kind of wild and kinetic extemporaneity, which seems to resound with a forceful but unforced “Yes!” – a Yes to life, a Yes to the world, a Yes to the here and now, the living moment pregnant with infinite possibility. Her gestural art is dynamic, uninhibited, and no less sensuous for being abstract. In the improvisational, rhythmic musicality of her paintings, Blitt expresses with unerring directness the energy and intensity of embodied imaginative experience.

We can find the precursors to Blitt’s work in the Abstract Expressionists, in Jackson Pollack, and certainly Franz Kline. But perhaps the most revealing historical antecedent for appreciating Blitt is the often overlooked but immensely important Swedish artist, Hilma af Klint – the first Western painter to produce non-representational, or abstract art. For af Klint, painting was a way of communicating the hidden, spiritual nature of Reality, which could only be conveyed non-representationally. One of the techniques she utilized was automatic drawing – what some might call doodling, but which is in essence a way of “creating art without conscious thought.”

For Blitt, this is indeed the seedbed for everything else that grows and follows in terms of artistic production. Her immense, even heroic, sculptures – dozens of which can be found around the world – have their origin in automatic drawings. “My spontaneous lines are the essence of me…” This automatism is a technique which seems especially well-suited to allowing the artist herself to become a pen or brush in the hands of something if not higher, then certainly more primitive, more primordial than her conscious ego or empirical self.

Rita Blitt paints with two hands – which is not to say she can paint with either hand; but that she paints with both hands simultaneously. Just as a musician uses two hands to play an instrument. And the comparison is both telling and illustrative. Music, and dance, are extraordinarily important for gaining a full understanding of Blitt’s work and her achievement as an artist and a painter. One of the ways in which Blitt is perhaps most indebted to Pollack is that, like Pollack, her paintings record not an experience so much as an event, an action – or, if you prefer, a dance. A choreographer recalls being in the studio with Blitt and “she was moving as fast as the dancers, sweating too, whipping out drawing after drawing.”

Some of Blitt’s most arresting work is accomplished with only bold black lines – such as the Copland Appalachian Spring Series (1995). Sometimes she will add a smattering of color, with dashes and flakes of bright yellow and red – as, for example, in the collage series Feeling the Music (2008). But Rita Blitt is also a consummate colorist, quite capable of departing from the gestural spontaneity which is most characteristic of her work. In the 1980s, she embarked on the Oval series, which included a number of pastels and paintings, and were far more chromatic than linear, recalling the ‘color-field painting’ of Mark Rothko. Among the most successful of these is the oil on canvas Finding Center (1983), with its womb-like pointed oval, and striking use of modulated yellows. Blitt would return repeatedly to this form; for example, in the pastels Seeking Inner Peace II (1984) and The Glow of Red (1984), both of which demonstrate her profound sense of color.

The richness and variety of Blitt’s color palette is on full display in such works as Aspen Morn (1964) and Hand of G-d (Beyond) (1990). These acrylic paintings push the bounds of landscape art so much so that they verge on abstraction. Hillside, trees, sky, and sun seem almost ready to dissolve into each other, as if we are witnessing these scenes in a kind of dream. Rita’s brush is intoxicated by the delirious beauty it wants to capture. These and other paintings inspired by the Aspen countryside – including the all but abstract Happy Rocks (1966) – reveal a deep and abiding love of the natural world.

Rita Blitt: Around and Round is a richly satisfying book, not least because it spans seven decades in the career of this artist, from the 1950s up until the present, including paintings from 2019. At nearly 90 years of age, Blitt has revealed herself to be a prolific, dynamic and varied artist, comfortable working with different media and on vastly different scales. What unites her body of work is first and foremost that she is essentially an affirmative artist. Her work is joyous, celebratory, and even “a search for the sublime.”

In drawing, painting and sculpture, Blitt is a tireless, indefatigable but always honest investigator of the power and significance of line, and linearity. In the hands of an artist a line can function like a lock-pick in the hands of a thief. What the artist will deftly reopen is that secret storehouse of Being, a treasure that the world wants to hide and at the same time unfold – renewing in the process nothing less than the mystery and wonder of our communion with the wellspring of Life. In Rita’s hands, lines may undulate, and flow, curve, swerve, dart, or recede, halt, break, veer off or return. They can surprise, delight, soothe or unsettle. They can be bold or delicate, fine as thread or thick as rope. They are, however, always her own – a truthful exploration and expression of our being in the world.

For Rita Blitt, art is music, art is dance – which is just to say, art is life. Drawing, painting, and sculpture are ways that we remind ourselves of what it feels like to be alive, to be truly and immensely alive. Her work has the merit of insisting that to be a living part of humanity is to be an embodied being, sensuous, and awake to each of our senses. Rita paints with both her hands just as we grasp the world with both our hands. Her work is a testament to the artist’s incessant striving towards the fullness of existence; an unfettered expression of the infinite bursting forth from our finite selves, and the inexhaustible wonder that stirs within the very core of our being.

*

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.

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Tech giants tend to cast thin veils over threats regarding government regulations.  They are also particularly concerned by those more public spirited ones, the sort supposedly made for the broader interest.  Google has given us an example of this in an open letter published on August 17 to all Australians – the generosity that comes with transparency – that does not shy away from a degree of menace.  Penned by the company’s Australasian managing director Mel Silva, it starts with a note of warning on accessing the Google website, a white exclamation mark framed by a pyramid of yellow. “The way Aussies search every day on Google is at risk from new Government regulation.” 

Google’s terse and syntax-challenged response was directed at the draft News Media Bargaining Code developed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and released on July 31.  Digital platforms have made all the running of late, extinguishing media outlets in an exercise of withering effectiveness, while subjugating others.  Along the way, a myth has been created: the idea of small news producers and users, treasured and promoted. 

The code seeks to grant news media businesses the power to individually or collectively bargain with Google and Facebook over revenue for news that is included on their platforms.  As the ACCC explains, the imbalance between digital platforms and conventional media outlets has arisen because of the “less favourable terms for the inclusion of news on digital platform services”.  The ACCC would have responsibility to administer and police the code, while the Australian Communications and Media Authority would be the gatekeeper over which media news businesses would qualify to use the scheme. 

To qualify, such outlets must, for instance, “predominantly produce ‘core news’, and publish this online”. They must “adhere to appropriate professional editorial standards” and “maintain editorial independence from the subjects of their news coverage.”  A local ingredient is also added: that they “operate primarily in Australia for the purpose of serving Australian audiences,” with annual revenue exceeding A$150,000 for the most recent financial year or three out of five most recent financial years.  

Google regards the Code as nothing less than a satanic imposition on the free flow of information by a state authority. But more to the point, it is a challenge to the way it has sought to cultivate its own licensing arrangements with publishers, known as the Publisher Curated News initiative.  Brad Bender (where to they find them?), Vice President of Product Management News, discussed the plan in a company statement on June 25, 2020.  “The program will help participating publishers monetize their content through an enhanced storytelling experience that lets people go deeper into more complex stories, stay informed and be exposed to a world of different issues and interests.”   

Bender, in gibbering like this, shows little understanding of his material.  The quality of news should be shorn of storytelling of an enhanced nature.  Dull facts do not necessarily make for poor reading.  But we do live in the age of Donald Trump and Silicon Valley oligopolies, where, like hormone pumped meat, the taste often matters more than the health of the content.  And complexity is not exactly high on that list of preferences. 

The PCN initiative has already yielded various deals with outlets that have done their bit in improving the Australian media stable: The Saturday Paper’s publisher Schwartz Media, Crikey publisher Private Media and InDaily publisher Solstice Media.  Unsurprisingly, Google is using them as paragons of how the negotiated model, free of regulator meddling, works.

According to Silva, permitting the Australian authorities to go ahead with the measure would dramatically worsen Google Search and YouTube and “could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free service to use at risk in Australia.”  This is markedly amusing, given that Google and that other behemoth, Facebook, is very much into the business handing over the details of consumers to third parties, a practice often excused by complex consent agreements. 

The company contends that hefty news media businesses will be unduly advantaged.  All others who have a website, small business or YourTube channel will suffer.  The big entities would “artificially inflate their ranking over everybody else, even when someone else provides a better result.”  Silva suggests that Google is more than generous to news sites as it is, paying them millions of dollars and sending “them billions of free clicks every year.”  To give news site providers a leg-up via government regulation would “put our free services at risk.”

The head of YouTube APAC, Gautam Anand, has also used talk that sits oddly with the Silicon Valley monsters: fairness.  The Code, he argues, would “create an uneven playing field when it comes to who makes money on YouTube.”  The ones to benefit from it will be those “big news businesses who can demand large amounts of money over and above what they earn on the platform” thereby leaving less for “you, our creators, and the programmes to help you develop your audience in Australia and around the globe.”

This has been dismissed as disinformation and piffle by the ACCC.  In a statement released on the same day of Google’s letter it attempted to put to bed claims that the company would find itself having to charge for gratis services.  “Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services such as Google Search and YouTube, unless it chooses to do so.”  Nor will Google “be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so.”

The ACCC has its ardent supporters.  The appropriately named Bridget Fair of Free TV Australia called Google’s letter the product of “a monopolist flexing its considerable muscle” in its attempt to retain “excessive profits.”  The note was “straight out of the monopoly 101 playbook trying to mislead and frighten Australians to protect their position as the gateway to the internet.”  She defends the proposed ACCC code as “ensuring a free and vibrant Australian news media sector into the future.”  Any data Google agreed to supply “would have to be under existing Australian privacy laws.”

While there is much to encourage in terms of having a vibrant media sector of boisterous and inquiring voices, anyone vaguely familiar with the Australian news scape will be aware that it tends towards the yawningly monochrome.  Google’s disingenuous point is that such big leaguers are bound to run off with the revenue loot ahead of smaller news providers, making the situation worse.

The ACCC is accepting public submissions regarding the Code till August 28.  Google has already made its view clear: a shot of threatening fury that government regulations of this sort will unduly hinder the “experience” it provides its users and benefit big fish news outlets.  But the ACCC, this small, relatively miniscule entity in the global regulatory landscape, is spoiling for a fight.

*

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]

Featured image is from Pixabay

When repeated ad nauseam, Big Lies take on a life of their own.

Before the television age arrived, famed actor/humorist Will Rogers once said: “All I know is what I read in the papers.”

He might have added that mind manipulation gets most people to believe almost anything, no matter how false.

In July, the NYT falsely claimed that “Russia secretly offered (the Taliban) bounties to kill US troops” in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon denied the claim. So did the NSA, saying it had no corroborating intelligence that suggests it. The CIA declined to comment at the time.

The Times then backed off from its initial claim, shifting the narrative to Russia paying “Taliban-linked militants to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan (sic),” using a middleman “contractor (sic).”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry slammed the accusation. Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov minced no words, calling the claim “100 percent bulls..t.”

What goes around comes around — the same accusation repeated, this time by CNN against Iran, saying:

“US intelligence indicates (that) Iran paid bounties to Taliban for targeting American troops in Afghanistan (sic),” adding:

“(A)t least six attacks (were) carried out…last year…(b)ounties…paid by a foreign government identified to CNN…as Iran (sic).”

“The name of the foreign government that made these payments remains classified” — a clear red flag.

The same US intelligence earlier claimed Russian US election meddling, never providing evidence to corroborate the accusation because none existed then or now.

There was no Russian US election meddling, no evidence suggesting foreign interference from any source in US elections earlier or ahead.

When accusations aren’t supported by credible proof, they’re groundless. No legitimate tribunal would accept them.

Iran is the region’s leading proponent of peace, stability, and cooperative relations with other countries, threatening none — except in self-defense if attacked, it legal UN Charter right.

In all US preemptive wars of choice against invented enemies,  notably post-9/11, no evidence suggests a foreign nation paid individuals in targeted countries to kill US troops.

Iran hasn’t attacked another nation in centuries. Claiming it paid Taliban fighters or anyone else to target US forces anywhere is unsupported by cold hard facts.

US officials and establishment media specialize in managed news misinformation, disinformation, fake news and Big Lies.

Falsely accusing Iran of paying Taliban fighters to kill US forces is part of the Trump regime’s “maximum pressure” on the country that’s all about wanting its sovereign government, free from US control, transformed into a vassal state, its resources handed to Western business interests, its people relegated to serfdom.

Using CNN as a transmission agent, the Big Lie about Russia paying bounties to the Taliban that died shifted to blaming Iran — same accusation, same fake news, different targeted country.

CNN’s report came out Monday, following Washington’s most humiliating ever Security Council defeat.

One nation alone, the Dominican Republic, supported its attempt to extend a UN arms embargo on Iran that expires on October 18.

In response, Trump vowed to unilaterally invoke the JCPOA snapback provision this week.

It lets any of its signatories reimpose veto-proof sanctions on Iran that were null and void when the agreement took effect in January 2016.

By unlawfully abandoning the JCPOA in May 2018, the Trump regime lost the right under SC Res. 2231 to invoke snapback.

Only Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany may legally invoke the provision.

They unanimously oppose this action because it would undo years of diplomatic efforts that went into establishing the JCPOA they want preserved.

Trump has no legal authority to invoke snapback — so if takes this step, it’ll be extrajudicial, breaching Security Council Res. 2231, which of course was violated by his abandonment of the JCPOA, a binding international agreement on all nations.

Taliban fighters need no foreign monetary incentive to target US forces, at war on Afghanistan and occupying parts of it illegally since October 7, 2001.

Time and again, Iran, Russia, China, and other nations on the US target list for regime change are falsely accused of all sorts of things they had nothing to do with.

Alleged Iranian bounties to Taliban fighters is the latest US fake news about the country that’s no more credible than countless other debunked accusations.

In June 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported without proof that “Tehran…quietly increased its supply of weapons, ammunition and funding to the Taliban, and is now recruiting and training their fighters (sic).”

The story died, the latest fake news about Iran surfacing on Monday.

Tehran’s new Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh succeeded Seyed Abbas Mousavi, following his appointment as Islamic Republic envoy to Azerbaijan.

Khatibzadeh dismissed the claim of his government supplying arms  to the Taliban for any purpose, saying:

“What is going on in Afghanistan today is the result of the US’ warmongering acts and interference in the affairs of Afghanistan,” adding:

“The accusations leveled by the state secretary of the United States is sort of shifting the blame onto others and an attempt to divert public opinion of the Afghan people from Washington’s assistance to Daesh (ISIS).”

“The US has not still given the public opinion an explanation for the nature of the helicopters flying in the airspace of Afghanistan under the control of NATO for supporting Daesh.”

Khatibzadeh responded to Pompeo saying the following:

“(W)e know the history (sic). We know that the Russians have armed the Taliban in the past (sic).

“We know that the Iranians continue to arm them today (sic). So we know these facts (sic).”

Pompeo’s fake news about Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and other nations was repeatedly exposed and debunked.

Time and again, both right wings of the US war party falsely accuse other nations for their own high crimes of war and against humanity.

*

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 OneWorld

Congress decided to go on vacation while millions of U.S. workers are in economic limbo and while the United States continues to engage in criminal activity, such as when it seized four Iranian oil tankers that were on their way to Venezuela last week.

Yet the focus of the corporate press was on one story: Joe Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris as his running mate.

Amid this clear contradiction, we are not going to waste any space on the merits of Biden’s decision except to raise one question: For the people of the global South suffering because of U.S. sanctions, subversions, war and threats of war, will it matter who is sitting in the White House in January?

For the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP), both parties represent the interests of rapacious capital that have decided that force, coercion, lawlessness and war are the tools that must be deployed in order to hold on to the advantages they enjoy in the international order. For us, it doesn’t matter who sits in the White House in January because the criminality of the U.S. state will continue.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris—representing the neoliberal, transnational wing of capital—already have their marching orders.

The Obama-Biden administration oversaw U.S.-supported and/or -initiated coups in Brazil, Egypt, Honduras and Ukraine; intensified regime-change efforts in Iraq, Iran and Syria; attempted coups in Venezuela; the destruction of Libya; expanded drone warfare across northern Africa and western Asia; and a 1,900 percent increase in military activities in Africa through the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). If history is a guide, nothing will be different if Biden and Harris are in the White House.

Regardless of who is in office, the wars, inhumane sanctions, death and destruction in what Frantz Fanon referred to as the “zones of non-being”—those spaces occupied by the non-European peoples of the world—will continue.

But what we also continue is the resistance. BAP will not collaborate with either of the parties. As an alliance, we maintain our independence. Individual members can do as they like. We say “No Compromise, No Retreat: Defeat the War on African/Black People in the U.S. and Abroad” and liberate all the laboring and oppressed 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.

Five Moroccan authors have announced their decision to boycott an Emirati literary prize in objection to the UAE’s “normalization” deal with Israel, Spanish newspaper EFE reported Saturday.

According to the report, the Moroccan writers all expressed their dismay and disappointment at the UAE for abandoning the Palestinian cause. It transpired in the writers’ individual statements that commitment to the Palestinian cause is of utmost importance to them.

‘Modest show of solidarity’

Writer Yahya Ben El Oualid announced his stance on his Facebook page, according to the same source. In his message, El Oualid revealed that he entered the UAE’s prominent Sheikh Zayed literary contest one month ago with his most recent book on “Arab intellectuals.”

A report released by Oxfam in July 2020 states, “COVID-19 is deepening the hunger crisis in the world’s hunger hotspots and creating new epicentres of hunger across the globe. By the end of the year 12,000 people per day could die from hunger linked to COVID-19, potentially more than will die from the disease itself.” Like other regions in the world, Latin America, too, is set to witness the intensification of an already-existing hunger crisis with the number of people facing severe food insecurity increasing from 4.3 million in 2019 to 16 million in 2020, an increase of 269%.

Unprotected from the various global setbacks, Guatemala is also experiencing the pain of a hunger crisis exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. In June 2020, the World Food Programme (WFP) wrote the following about Guatemala: “With 2.3 million people in food insecurity nation-wide…and an additional 2.3 million people directly affected by the COVID-19 crisis, it is estimated that in the next 4 months, 800,000 people will be in severe food insecurity and need of food assistance”. In June 2020, 1.2 million people were in need of emergency food aid, an increase of 570,000 from the beginning of the year. At the end of May 2020, more than 15,000 cases of acute malnutrition were reported among children, exceeding the total number for the year 2019. In urban and peri-urban areas, the number of people requiring food assistance will double or triple in 2020. In Chiquimula, for example, there are 221 children with acute malnutrition, an increase of 56.6% from the last year. In the municipality of Camotán, there are 67 cases of malnutrition, an astronomic increase from 18 cases the previous year.

Angela Naletilic, Deputy Director for Action Against Hunger in Central America, says that

“More than half of Guatemalan households are having difficulty accessing markets and four out of ten families are using coping strategies that leave them worse off, such as depleting their savings or selling some of their assets,”.

Due to disruptions in supply chains, there has been a spike in food prices in Guatemala, further pushing the country into a 2008-like food price crisis where a 34% increase in the price of yellow maize plunged 450,000 Guatemalans into poverty. As a result of the aggravating hunger pandemic in Guatemala, protests have been staged and according to an agitator,

“We are dying not only from the virus but also from hunger, poverty, forgetfulness of the state, exploitation by businessmen, and corruption by politicians and the military”.

The present-day hunger crisis in Guatemala is a result of long-term, neoliberal policies, oriented towards the economic subordination of the country as a stable periphery for the global imperialist empire. Beginning roughly from the 1980s and 1990s, the country has witnessed the large-scale economic entrenchment of a neoliberal food system characterized by the growth of agro-export crops (mainly palm oil and sugarcane), decreasing land for domestic food crops and a grotesque land concentration in the hands of the few. In Guatemala, two-thirds of the agricultural land is dominated by 2.5% of the country’s farms, less than 1% of landowners hold 75% of the best agricultural land, 90% of rural inhabitants live in poverty, 27% of rural dwellers do not own land and more than 500,000 campesino families live below the level of subsistence. The average minimum landholding necessary for family subsistence in the country is between 4.5 and 7 hectares. In 1979, “88 percent of productive farm units were less than family subsistence size, holding 16 percent of arable land, while 2 percent of units held 65 percent of arable land…Between 1964 and 1979 the number of farms of less than 3.5 hectares doubled; between 1950 and 1979, the average farm size among those with less than 7 hectares fell from 2.4 to 1.8 hectares.” Through this drastic decrease in the size of landholdings, approximately 96% of farm units (comprising 20% of all agricultural lands) fell into the subsistence or below-subsistence categories in 1998.

Export-oriented Agro-industrialization in Guatemala

The undermining of subsistence and food security by land concentration has been accompanied by the destabilization of maize-self sufficiency and the concomitant substitution of food crops with agro-export crops. Maize in Guatemala is grown on one-third of the agricultural land and accounts for 91 per cent of the total cereal area in the country. It is also used in the making milpa, an ancient polycultural system of beans, maize and a variety of native greens. In the 1961-1990 period, maize imports had accounted for less than 4% of total consumption. Since then, imports have increased exponentially, accounting for one-third of the domestic supply. Whereas 98% of Guatemala’s total maize consumption during the 1980s was domestically produced, the proportion has declined to an average of 76% since 1990. This undermining of domestic maize production capabilities has occurred through reductions in agricultural expenditures and credits. Between 1983 and 1987, state credit for maize, beans and rice fell by 40%.

Withdrawal of state support for traditional maize farmers combined with the introduction of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) of 2004 to disrupt traditional agricultural practices. The free trade agreement allowed “US agribusiness to flood the markets with subsidized grains, further undermining local production. Extreme poverty spiked by 10 percentage points between 2006 and 2014”. While Guatemala farmers stopped receiving any support from the state, American corn farmers continued to “receive both direct subsidies (an average of $28,000 per farmer, which is more than five times Guatemala’s per capita GDP)…and indirect supports (like cheap water for irrigations and cheap oil made into fertilizers)”. As a result of this serious disparity, U.S. imports to Guatemala grew by 90 percent in less than a decade after DR-CAFTA, the sales of American produce in maize, wheat, and soy reaching $1.1 billion in 2014. From 649 Metric Tons (MT) in 2004, Guatemala’s maize imports have grown to 1600 MT in 2019. Currently, 4 of the top 5 exports of Guatemala are agricultural products, an indication of the economic extensiveness of DR-CAFTA.

The systematic dismantling of domestic maize production has paved the way for the installation of an export-oriented agricultural model comprising predominantly of palm oil and sugarcane. In 2008, the government of Guatemala considered 1,101,604 hectares, or thirty-seven per cent of the country’s total farmland, to be suitable for sugarcane and oil palm cultivation. In 2010, 102,000 hectares had been planted with oil palms and the area expansion from 2000 to 2010 was 590%. Between 2000 and 2016, palm oil production in Guatemala climbed six-fold, making it the second-largest oil palm producer in Latin America. The expansion of sugar-cane plantations in Guatemala occurred between 2001 and 2012, leading to a 55% increase in production area and a 46% increase in production volume. Total production in 2012 reached 2.5 million tons of sugar, of which 61 per cent were exported, and the total area amounted to 256,000 hectares. Annually, Guatemala produces over 2.7 million MT of sugar, ranking as the second largest sugar exporter in Latin America and fourth in the world.

Through the expansion of oil palm and sugarcane, food insecurity has heightened. The planting “of oil palm and sugarcane over lands previously dedicated to peasant and small-scale capitalist farming is eroding local wage labor opportunities because it is much less labor-intensive…oil palm and sugarcane require 52 and 36 working days per hectare/year respectively, while, for instance, the two annual maize harvests require 112 and chili cultivation 184 working days.” Substitution of food crops “by the corporately owned plantations [of palm oil and sugarcane] diminishes the employment and income opportunities of small-scale corn producers, regional traders and micro-entrepreneurs. These losses are not sufficiently compensated by the jobs and incomes offered by the agribusiness companies. The assertion that the highly capitalized agribusiness is a source of additional incomes and employment is not true in the case of Guatemala.”

Guatemala’s Annual Agricultural Survey of 2013 has found that a continuous growth of agro-export land surface in ten years, from 2003 to 2013, has coincided with a 26% decrease in the total agricultural employment. When income decreases, people are unable to afford food items and presently, half of the population is not able to afford the basic food basket. In addition to the loss of income, sugarcane and palm oil cultivation have “contributed to the disappearance of certain nutritious foods…compromised ecological resources (e.g. water, forest, and soils), and heightened the region’s exposure to external shocks (e.g. oil palm price fluctuations). Furthermore, food insecurity is exacerbated by the scalar incongruence between (beyond-community) food system threats, shocks and stresses, and (primarily within-household) adaptation strategies in relation to self- and market- provisioning of food.”

Violence, Securitization and Environmental Disaster

Palm oil and sugarcane plantations, apart from leading to market-oriented de-peasantization, also cause displacement, environmental disasters, economic uncertainty and consequently, food insecurity. In the Polochic Valley, for example, negotiations between campesino communities, state agencies, and the Chabil Utzaj sugar cane company fell apart in March 2011 “as at least 14 violent evictions were carried out between January and March 2011 on land claimed by the company. Community corn fields were destroyed in Canlún during the blitz, and private security guards returned to attack campesinos from the group on 21 May, killing Oscar Reyes with 12 gunshots and wounding at least three others”.

Through the use of violence against campesinos cultivating maize and other food crops, the sugar cane company was able to displace the peasants from their own lands, eliminate domestic food production in the region, force the campesinos into being dependent on imported food for consumption and exploit the rising food prices of the 2007-2008 period. Not having any disposable income as a result of crop destruction, the evicted campesinos were left in a state of intense food insecurity wherein the rising food prices disallowed them from achieving a basic subsistence level.

Like sugarcane, palm oil monocultures, too, are associated with environmental disasters, violence and food insecurity. A farmer settled in southwest Peten talks about how palm oil companies, through their securitization and militaristic regulation of agricultural lands, create barriers for food production: “When I want to go to my land, they don’t let me; I have to ask permission to harvest my corn or take out firewood or construction wood. I have to give accounts of what I take. This is what the company has done. They made it private property and planted palm on both sides of the road and don’t let anyone pass anymore. The security guards inspect what I carry in my bag when I go to my field in the morning; they write down my name and my identification number and they repeat this in the afternoon, too.” Many a times, palm oil companies don’t have the consent of the community and operate without any governmental licenses. According to a person living in the Polochic Valley,

“In 1996 the palm [cultivation] began [here], without the consent of the communities … they just came, planted their palm, and put up their factory. They didn’t ask if it’s okay or what the communities think about it …. At first, they said it is going to bring development and it’s a good process. But the truth is, there’s no development – rather, it’s a disaster.”

Along with securitized regulation and the violation of free, prior and informed consent, palm oil production is also linked to environmental disasters and the contamination of the Río la Pasió River in the Sayaxché municipality is a paradigmatic example of such catastrophes. In May 2015, the oxidation lagoons (containing wastes from oil mills and chemicals for fertilizers and pesticides) of the company Reforestadora de Palma S.A. (REPSA), a subsidiary of the biggest producer of palm oil in Guatemala, the Olmeca group, overflowed due to heavy rains and spilled their contents (mainly malathion) into the surrounding areas. As a result of this spillover, four severe effects were produced: “1) an at least 150 km-long section of the [Río la Pasió] river damaged; 2) between 13 to 17 communities [of the Sayaxché municipality]directly affected (more than 12,000 persons) along with, indirectly, the whole department [of Petén] ; 3) fish populations of at least 23 species identified by a government institution decimated as a result of the toxic spill; and 4) the possibility that the river’s ecosystem would never recover”.

Out of the 23 species decimated by the spillover, six were endangered species and six had economic value for the communities. With the deaths of the economically valuable fishes, there has been a concomitant loss of 8 million euros. In addition to ecological-economic loss, the malathion overflow has heavily impacted the communities living in the department of Peten since exposure to the chemical “interferes with the normal functioning of the nerves and the brain; and exposure to very high levels in air, water, or food for a short time can cause shortness of breath, chest tightness, vomiting, cramps, diarrhea, blurred vision, excessive sweating, dizziness, unconsciousness, and death.” Melding and synchronizing the all-pervasive effects of the malathion spillover, Saúl Paau, a community Leader, characterizes it as a crime against humanity:

“We can categorize the case as a crime against humanity, because not only are various species of our rivers being killed, but the river is also part of our historical culture, it is part of our territory, we feed on it, and with pollution and fish mortality today the food security of each and all the 116 thousand inhabitants that live in the municipalities of Sayaxché is violated…The issue of the breakdown of the ecosystem and the environment is not only water and fish, it is air, is human health, environmental health ”.

The ecological catastrophe in the Sayaxché municipality was in the making for many years since the palm oil project of REPSA did not have an approved Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and despite this the Guatemalan state allowed the company to carry out its operations. Américo González López, Mayor of the Manos Unidos Cooperative, talks about how the RESPA palm oil project in the Sayaxché municipality was flawed from the beginning and had state protection for whatever plunder it did in the region: “This case [contamination of Río la Pasió] proves that MARN [Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources] has failed and that the municipality has failed. The people of the area were not consulted about the project in spite of the fact that it was a project with a huge environmental impact. How is it possible that this type of situation was not foreseen? Or that now the government doesn’t know what to do to mitigate the harm done? This shows that the EIS were not real. They monopolize the water. They divert the river water to their greenhouses or for watering the palm trees, and the rivers are drying up. In the 48 years I have lived here, I have never seen river levels so low. The watering holes in our pasturelands have dried up and that has never happened before. They took down too many trees, and now they are using too much water.” The disruption of hydrological dynamics by palm oil companies is not an isolated event and the destruction of water balances is a part and parcel of palm oil production which has an extremely high water requirement of 5500 m3 /ton of crop yield – about five times that of maize.

Various organizations have attempted to protest the unencumbered pillage of REPSA and to bring attention to the irreparable ecological damage being done by the company.  A local community group called the Commission for the Defense of Life and Nature, for instance, took legal action and won a court ruling that called the spill as an “ecocide” and asked the company to suspend operations for six months at the Sayaxché palm plantation in Petén. But these judicial decisions have been overturned by violence linked to RESPA. Subsequent to the court ruling, three environmental defenders were kidnapped and a fourth activist, named Rigoberto Lima Choc, a 28-year-old schoolteacher from Champerico who had filed the complaint, was killed. After this spate of violence, REPSA continued with its palm oil business. Along with overt violence, REPSA is also utilizing informational platforms, confrontational tactics and securitization strategies to quell long-term resistance against its environmentally disastrous operations. Lorenzo Pérez, Coordinator of the National Council of Displaced Persons of Guatemala, says,

“Other companies sit down at the dialogue table and are more respectful, but REPSA doesn’t want to meet with the people. They have security personnel who take videos and photos of journalists. They are currently harassing journalists and have an ongoing REPSA radio campaign to convince people of their good image. People are aware of the impact they are having, but in order to keep their job, they don’t say anything. Some time ago when 15 workers tried to form a union, they were fired.”

Meanwhile, the people of Sayaxché continue to suffer from the ecocide and the statement of María Margarita Hernández de Herrera, a 45-year-old Q’eq’chi Mayan woman, living with her husband and three children in the village of Canaán, in Sayaxché, Petén, expresses the long-term repercussions of the river contamination for the livelihoods of many:

“This [river contamination] is the most difficult thing for a community that lives surrounded by [palm oil]plantations, because we’ve lost the lands where we used to cultivate our crops; and with the contamination of the river, we can no longer fish and prepare the catch alongside the river to eat with our beans. The entire environment is contaminated because now we have constant infestations of flies in our food, on our fruits, so we have to take special care that the children don’t get sick. We see that the color and the smell of the river has changed; our water sources have diminished; and when we wash our clothes and bathe our children in the river, we get skin lesions, diarrhea, nausea.”

In its 1989 annual report, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) had blamed the structural adjustment policies of the 1980s for the death of hundreds of thousands of children in the Global South. Instead of using bland, benumbed and bureaucratic jargon, it had used unequivocal terms to condemn the cruelty of structural adjustment programs:

“It is essential to strip away the niceties of economic parlance and say that what has happened is simply an outrage against a large segment of humanity. The developing world’s debt, both in the manner in which it was incurred and in the manner in which it is being ‘adjusted to’ is an economic stain on the second half of the twentieth century. Allowing world economic problems to be taken out on the growing minds and bodies of young children is the antithesis of all civilized behavior. Nothing can justify it. And it shames and diminishes us all.”

The words used by UNICEF back then in 1989 resonate loudly with the current situation in Guatemala. In this country, the prevalence of stunting in children under 5 is one of the highest in the world at 46.5% nationally. The stunting rate rises to 70% in some departments and 90% in the hardest hit municipalities. In 2019, food insecurity had worsened as more than 78% of the corn and bean harvest was lost in the year, affecting 250,000 people. Child malnutrition also increased from 60% in 2016 to 69% in 2019. Silveria Pérez, a mother of four living in a rural Guatemalan community, says,

“You’re told your child is malnourished. You get scared and wonder if your child is going to die. You can’t sleep because you’re thinking about what you can do. But as you have no money, there’s no way he’ll get better.”

All this is slated to aggravate in the coming months as neoliberal capitalism, unable to look beyond the narrow horizons of profit maximization, fails to tackle the hunger crisis and becomes “an outrage against a large segment of humanity”.

*

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.

On August 9, presidential elections were held in Belarus with five candidates bidding to be head of state. According to the Central Election Commission, the incumbent president, Alexander Lukashenko, won in the first round with over 80% of the votes. Mass protests began in Belarus right after the announcement of the preliminary election results. People went to the streets, expressing their dissatisfaction with the results of the elections that they believe were unfair. Mass protests turned into riots and there were clashes between rioters and the police. Many people were detained and injured, and two protestors died.

Representatives of the European Union and the U.S. stated that they did not consider the presidential elections fair and appealed to the Belarusian authorities to have a second election. As both the EU and U.S. condemned Lukashenko’s re-election, it was therefore unsurprising that the deputy head of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paweł Jabłoński, stated that Poland did not want the EU to limit itself to only introducing sanctions against Belarus, as he claims it will push Belarus deeper into the sphere of Russian influence.

Tomorrow’s EU summit to discuss the situation in Belarus, and possibly pass sanctions, resulted from Warsaw’s call for prompt action, and above all, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki who personally exerted pressure immediately after the Belarusian elections.

“We do not want the EU’s reaction to be limited only to presenting an idea for sanctions and adopting a joint statement, which is obviously needed, but to give Belarusians something more,” said Paweł Jabłoński in an interview with PAP. “The point is that we should present a real offer to resolve this conflict in a stable and lasting manner, and this is only possible if we, as the EU, offer Belarus a real perspective of cooperation if a solution based on dialogue is reached.”

Jałoński also pointed out that EU member states should jointly adopt a common position on the events in Belarus.

“We will want to send a signal that if Belarus begins the process of reforms leading to a system in which citizens decide on the direction of changes, the EU is ready for real cooperation with Belarus – primarily economic,” said Jabłoński, adding that “Belarusians should be able to choose their own development path and have a real choice here – our role is to propose this choice.”

This suggests that Warsaw’s main concern is to see the liberalization of the Belarusian economy to follow the same path as the other post-Soviet countries in Eastern Europe. The World Bank estimates that 75% of industrial output comes from state-owned companies, with the state sector employing about half of the Belarusian workforce. Because of this, unemployment in Belarus was at 4.6% in 2019, significantly lower than neighboring Ukraine (8.8%), Latvia (6.52%) and  Lithuania (6.35%), with only Poland having a lower figure at 3.47%. Belarus is also capable of consistent GDP growth without having to rely on remittances like its neighboring countries which are also experiencing population decline due to immigration.

Effectively, what Lukashenko has done is protected the country from neo-liberal policies that spread throughout Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, which resulted in many of the industries being shut down or privatized, impoverishing much of the population. Because of this action, Lukashenko earned the nom de guerre of “the last dictator of Europe” and Belarus the title of “mini-Soviet Union.”

Although Lukashenko has a complicated relationship with Moscow, one that can be cold at times, but generally speaking, Belarus, which gets its etymology from “White Rus(sia)”, has positive relations with its larger neighbor. Lukashenko, who at times panders towards the West, has amicable relations with Syria, Venezuela and other states that are targeted by the U.S. and Western Europe. Due to Lukashenko’s strong relations with these states and his sternness in preventing the liberalization of the economy, it is expected that when an opportunity is presented for the West, a Maidan-like event will begin in Belarus.

Although Poland is pushing for a Maidan-like event to occur, it is not the only neighbor of Belarus that wants this. A faction of the Homeland Union-Lithuanian Christian Democrats in the Seimas, the unicameral parliament of Lithuania, called for the immediate announcement of Lithuanian sanctions against the 39 most influential representatives of the “Alexander Lukashenko regime,” as they termed it.

“Lithuania must clearly, quickly and unambiguously formulate and consolidate strategic provisions for the Belarusian regime at the European Union and transatlantic level, be an icebreaker in the fight for freedom and against tyranny. Sanctions must also send a signal to other influential members of the regime that continue to support Lukashenko, will mean a stalemate and further sanctions against a wider range of the current elite,” said leader of the Seimas opposition, Gabrielius Landsbergis.

It was recently revealed that Lithuania had a key role in the Ukrainian Maidan events, and Poland’s involvements are also well noted. It is unsurprising that both countries are once again united in their demands to escalate tensions and hostilities with Belarus in their mad drive in what they perceive to be the de-Sovietizing and de-Russification of Eastern Europe. Perceiving that Russia and Belarus could be a threat to their security, both Warsaw and Vilnius have taken the opportunity to escalate the protests through rhetoric in the hope that a Maidan-like event will occur in Belarus, thereby further weakening Russian influence in Eastern Europe.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Any comment on regional implications of the Agreement is, of course, highly speculative as the real reasons for such an initiative are rarely disclosed by those with the power of decision. In this case the uncertainties are magnified by some central ambiguities in the language of the text, especially the word ‘suspend’ in relation to Israeli plans to annex portions of the West Bank. This territory is considered internationally to be part of Occupied Palestine, and by Israel as ‘disputed territory.’

I would offer the following tentative reactions to the Agreement: Israel was motivated by Netanyahu’s effort to justify a delay in fulfilling his election promise to annex large portions of the occupied West Bank territory belonging to Palestine, and the Agreement provided a basis to claim compensatory benefits. Netanyahu was also under pressure to convince Israelis that he could be an effective leader, and achieve peace and security in the region while under indictment for corruption and without making concessions to the Palestinians. The Agreement can be viewed as a victory for hard line reactionary Israeli politics, and also pleased Trump by allowing him to claim credit for brokering a deal that is being touted as a ‘breakthrough’ for ‘peace.’ In this usage, peace refers to Israel/Arab relations, and ignores the unresolved conflict with the Palestinian people and their leadership.

It is less clear what motivated the UAE to act at this time. There is speculation that once ‘peace’ with Israel is achieved, the UAE will be eligible to buy advanced weapons systems from the U.S., including the latest military drones. The UAE may have also wanted to strengthen the anti-Iran coalition while Trump remains the American president, fearing that if Biden wins the November election, he might restore the agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program negotiated during the Obama presidency but repudiated by Trump. It is also plausible that the UAE is making a move to establish its leadership among Gulf countries, and getting out from beneath Saudi Arabia’s shadow.

It is possible in order to reach a common understanding the parties agreed not to specify what was meant by the word ‘suspend’ in relation to formal annexation by Israel of West Bank territory. It is also possible that a confidential understanding among the three parties was reached that the annexation freeze would be maintained for at least six months, and that during the next six months could be ended by Israel with U.S. approval, after one year, could be ignored by Israel in moving forward with annexation.

This is the normalization of relations mediated by Trump and this agreement is to be signed in the White House. What propaganda will Trump use for this issue in the presidential election?

As Trump has already claimed, this will be presented to the American people as a demonstration of the effectiveness of Trump’s deal-making diplomacy, as well as securing a victory for Israel in its efforts to achieving normalization with Arab countries without allowing the formation of an independent sovereign Palestine. The location of the signing ceremony at the White House will be a high-profile photo op for Trump, and will be conveyed to the world as a sign of continued American leadership in the search for stability in the region in ways that preserve the strategic interests of the U.S. and Israel. Whether many Americans will be very impressed by such PR showmanship remains to be seen. Some liberal American anti-Trump voices have joined in celebrating the Agreement, including a feverish puff piece by the influential NY Times opinion writer Thomas Friedman that misleadingly treats the Agreement as a ‘geopolitical earthquake’ with a positive and unifying impact on the entire Middle East. Little attention has so far been devoted in the West to how the agreement harms the Palestinian struggle for basic rights or bears on the efforts to exert pressure on Iran to conform to Western priorities.

This agreement, on the other hand, shows the concern of the UAE and Saudi Arabia about a US without Trump. In fact, by bringing Israel into clear security and political relations, the two countries will have more support from the US government. What is your assessment?

It seems that this is an accurate, but not central consideration. These leading Gulf countries had long been cooperating with Israel in a variety of ways, including establishing economic and diplomatic links, cyber-security, and joining forces to exert pressure on Iran and to lend support to anti-government forces in Syria. It is doubtful that the Biden presidency would have challenged these political orientations if he is elected, although a changed leadership would likely review whatever promises or commitments Trump made to induce the UAE to sign the Agreement, and openly break ranks on whether to normalize Arab relations with Israel without the prior commitment by Israel to accept a Palestinian state on the territories occupied in 1967. It remains unclear whether Saudi Arabia was a silent partner to this initiative or feared that it might spark anti-regime activism within its own country, and encouraged UAE to take the lead.

The UAE has announced that the annexation plan has been canceled under this agreement. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the plan to annex the West Bank was still on the table and had only been postponed. What is your assessment?

There seems little doubt that the two parties to the August 13^th Agreement want to put forward divergent interpretations of what was agreed upon as it bears on the Netanyahu/Trump endorsement of annexing those portions of occupied Palestine on which unlawful Israeli settlements are currently situated. The UAE to hide its abandonment of the Palestinians in their struggle for basic rights seeks to claim that obtaining the Israeli pledge to suspend its annexation plan preserves the hope for a Palestinian state that encompasses the entire West Bank. In contrast, Israel wants to convince especially its settler movement that the suspension is temporary, and when an opportune moment arises, annexation will go forward on the basis of the assertion of Israeli sovereignty. It should be understood that the territory in question has already been annexed by facts on the ground, and what is pledged by Israel is the ambiguous pledge to ‘suspend’ formal annexation for an unspecified time. The shift from de facto to de jure annexation seems to be connected with the readjustment downwards of Palestinian expectations in the event that some kind of negotiations between Israel and Palestine are resumed in the future. It may be relevant to recall that the UN partition resolution (GA Res. 181) looked to confer about 56% of Palestine to Israel after the end of the British Mandate. At the end of the 1948 War Israel increased its territorial scope to 78% of Paleestine, and it was presupposed in diplomacy that Israel would be expected to retain the territory gained by military operation and Palestinians lowered their goals to achieving statehood on the remaining 22%, which was again further eroded by the outcome of the 1967 War, and subsequent developments (including settlements, separation barrier, and other encroachments, all unlawful).

Doesn’t this agreement mean the failure of the deal of the century? Because the lands that are to be occupied by Israel according to the deal of the century apparently cannot join according to this agreement (According to the announcement of the United Arab Emirates, of course).

In my judgment this UAE/Israel Agreement should not be regarded as the failure of the deal of the century, but its indirect and partial implementation, which looked to vest Israeli sovereignty in 30% of the West Bank. Although Israel has agreed to suspend annexation, I think the best interpretation is that this is a temporary commitment that will be altered within a year, and then a gradual renewal of annexation will go forward, possibly without needing or seeking U.S. approval. The UAE may object, especially if Netanyahu moves too soon to revive annexation plans, but is unlikely to undo the Agreement so long as it serves its regional strategic interests. The UAE, together with other major Arab governments, had long ago abandoned meaningful support for the Palestinian struggle and adopted policies that moved by stages toward the sort of cooperation that is now normalized and endorsed openly in the Agreement, which has the blessings of Washington and allows Israel to reassure Israelis that it is enhancing security and lessening its sense of being a regional pariah.

An alternative view of the Israel/UAE Agreement is to view it as a Plan B that is designed to hide the provisional failure of the parties and the world to accept the Trump plan (From Peace to Prosperity). The new approach pretends that the Agreement is a ‘HUGE’ contribution to peace, as Trump claimed in a tweet. The Palestinians, Turks, and Iranians know better! Also, noteworthy, the parties ignored the relevance of international law. Annexation, whether de facto or de jure was in violation of international humanitarian law, and so Israel & Trump are rewarded for agreeing to suspend what amounts to a ‘money laundering’ operation even if no money was involved.

*

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.

Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, an international relations scholar, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, Distinguished Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies, UCSB, author, co-author or editor of 60 books, and a speaker and activist on world affairs. In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to two three-year terms as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and associated with the local campus of the University of California, and for several years chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His most recent book is On Nuclear Weapons, Denuclearization, Demilitarization, and Disarmament (2019).

Featured image is from American Herald Tribune

On December 6, Venezuelans will go to the polls to elect a new National Assembly. Since the last election in 2016, self-declared interim president and opposition leader Juan Guaidó has seen his domestic popularity—and his standing among many foreign nations—slide.

In fact, upon Guaidó’s return last year from an international tour—financed by the United States—to seek backing for more sanctions and the ouster of elected president Nicolás Maduro, Guaidó was booed out of the Caracas airport. Such was the anger of ordinary Venezuelans against an individual who recently signed a contract with US-based mercenaries to overthrow the government in a bizarre failed plot that has come to be known as the “Bay of Piglets.”

Now, Guaidó and right-wing factions within the National Assembly are boycotting the elections, as opposition leaders have vowed not to recognize the “false” electoral body designated by the Supreme Court. The Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (United Socialist Party of Venezuela, or PSUV) and its allies are expected to win on December 6.

While Guaidó’s standing in Venezuela is currently at rock bottom, the self-declared interim leader has also seen much of his international support evaporate. According to an August 14 press statement issued by the US State Department entitled “Joint Declaration of Support for Democratic Change in Venezuela”:

We call on all political parties and institutions in Venezuela to engage promptly in, or in support of, a process that will establish a broadly acceptable transitional government that will administer free and fair presidential elections soon and begin to set the country on a pathway to recovery. For a peaceful and sustainable resolution of the crisis, a transitional government is needed to administer presidential elections, so that no candidate has an improper advantage over others.

For its part, Global Affairs Canada (GAC) issued an identical statement, calling for a “swift and peaceful transition to democracy” in Venezuela.

Like Venezuela’s opposition leaders, US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will not recognize the upcoming legislative elections. They have instead demanded “a process that will establish a broadly acceptable transitional government that will administer free and fair presidential elections,” which are not yet due, and which would necessarily exclude Maduro. This is the usual formula: one that establishes a pretext for more sanctions, violent regime-change actions and open coup attempts, all geared to stoke a revolt among the Venezuelan people and a mutiny among the armed forces.

However, the press statement issued by the US State Department and GAC is notable because of the dwindling number of ally countries that are now “committed to the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.” What used to be a long list of more than 50 nations is now down to just 19: Albania, Australia, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

This is a far cry from the formerly extensive coalition of dozens of states that have heretofore unequivocally recognized and supported Guaidó. The State Department could not even get sign-on from all of the members of the Lima Group—the multilateral body consisting of 14 countries, including Canada, that is dedicated to a “peaceful exit to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.” Thus, the list of partner states now includes Israel, along with some of the most servile allies of the US (and notable violators of human rights and democracy) such as Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, and Haiti.

More intriguingly, the two rivals to Canada’s defeated bid for a United Nations Security Council Seat last June, Norway and Ireland, do not appear on the list of countries dedicated to “an end to the Maduro dictatorship.” This appears to vindicate those who had lobbied the UN and other international organizations to reject Canada’s campaign for a UNSC seat, citing the Trudeau government’s support for anti-democratic actions in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Haiti, to name just a few examples.

Even many in the US Congress admitted the failure of the Trump administration’s Venezuela policy in a recent hearing.

“Our Venezuela policy over the last year and a half has been an unmitigated disaster,” said Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut and a member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “If we aren’t honest about that, then we can’t self-correct.” Murphy continued, declaring that US support for Venezuela’s opposition forces has handed Maduro an opportunity to label Guaidó an ‘American patsy’ while hardening support for his government around the world.

Ironically, Trump may have been better off if he considered some of the diplomatic overtures coming from within the Venezuelan government. Its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jorge Arreaza, wrote an op-ed for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), stating,

“Trump would do better if he followed his initial instinct of talking to President Maduro. A respectful dialogue with Venezuela is what is really in the interest of the United States.”

It is not surprising that Senator Murphy’s admission of failed coup attempts at a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on August 4 has become a popular YouTube video. During the hearing, Murphy pressed Special Representative for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, on the administration’s disastrous policy on Venezuela, which has “left America in a weaker position, failed to restore democracy, and allowed the humanitarian situation to worsen.” Murphy continued:

[W]e thought that getting Guaidó to declare himself president would be enough to topple the regime. Then we thought putting aid on the border would be enough. Then we tried to sort of construct a kind of coup in April of last year, and it blew up in our face when all the generals that were supposed to break with Maduro decided to stick with him in the end… I think this is just a prescription to get stuck in a downwards spiral of American policy from which we cannot remove ourselves.

The Canadian media should take a similarly critical stance toward the Trudeau government’s dubious attempts to oust the Maduro regime, including its failure to condemn Guaidó for his partnership with armed US mercenaries to foment a violent coup within Venezuela. Anything less is an endorsement of generations of failed US-led policies in Latin America, ones that have contributed to violence and destabilization throughout the entire hemisphere.

Join the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute (CFPI) on Thursday, August 20, for an historic event featuring Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza, who will speak directly from Caracas on Canada’s interference in Venezuela and the Trudeau government’s support for self-declared interim president Juan Guaidó. The event is sponsored by Canadian Dimension. You can register for the webinar 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 Canadian Dimension.

Featured image is from Sky News

US cold war on China risks turning hot if bipartisan hardliners in Washington push things too far.

Their hostile actions are all about wanting China’s development, growth, and prominence on the world stage undermined.

Since Trump took office, scores of Chinese tech-related companies were blacklisted from doing business in the US.

Falsely accused of threatening US national security, ByteDance’s TikTok video-sharing firm has been on the Trump regime’s target list for months.

It poses no security threat to the US or any other countries.

Yet last December, the Pentagon banned its use by military personnel on government-issued devices.

Congressional legislation was introduced to prohibit federal employees from using TikTok on government devices.

The DNC warned against using the video-sharing platform.

It’s hugely popular with over 100 million US users, countless millions more worldwide — why it’s drawn scrutiny in Washington.

Targeting the firm and many other Chinese tech-related ones is part of US war on the country and its enterprises by other means.

It’s all about wanting corporate America to have a competitive advantage.

Claiming targeted Chinese firms pose a national security threat is cover for what’s really going on.

The CIA reportedly indicated that it found no evidence of Beijing getting TikTok user information from the company.

Trump paid no attention. Last week by executive order, he gave ByteDance 90 days to divest from TikTok, overriding his earlier 45 day ultimatum.

Like most everything he says, the EO falsely said he acted “to deal with (a) national emergency” when none exists with the firm, its parent company or China.

He lied claiming “the spread in the United States of mobile applications developed and owned by companies in the People’s Republic of China continues to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States (sic).”

He falsely said that user data collected by TikTok “threatens to allow (Beijing) access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”

No evidence corroborates the claim. The CIA refuted it.

Trump is congenital liar, a disgrace to the office he holds, contemptuous of the rule of law, sovereign nations not controlled by the US, and ordinary people everywhere — at home and abroad.

ByteDance didn’t respond to Trump’s EO. Last week, it issued a statement saying the following:

It’s “committed to continuing to bring joy to families and meaningful careers to those who create on our platform for many years to come,” adding:

“We will pursue all remedies available to us in order to ensure that the rule of law is not discarded and that our company and our users are treated fairly – if not by the (regime), then by the US courts.”

China seeks cooperative relations with the US and other countries.

Trump regime and congressional hostility toward Beijing make achieving this objective with Washington unattainable.

What Trump calls a “plague” unleashed by China and other Big Lies widens the breach between both nations, heightening the risk of direct confrontation.

On August 17, China’s official People’s Daily accused the US of waging cold war on the country, including by McCarthyite tactics, adding the following:

“Recently a group of former statesmen and scholars from 48 countries initiated an online event themed ‘A new Cold War against China is against the interests of humanity.’ ”

“A joint statement named ‘No to the New Cold War’ was issued in 14 languages, which epitomized a strong call for the US side to stop forming an anti-China coalition and dividing the world.”

The initiative and similar ones fall on deaf ears in Washington — letting nothing interfere with advancing its imperial aims.

A Final Comment

Surprisingly in late July, the pro-war, pro-US corporate empowerment, pro-dirty business as usual Brookings slammed Pompeo’s recent address in Yorba Linda, CA that focused on China bashing, saying the following:

Pompeo “engaged in doublespeak.”

He called for “organiz(ing) the free world, while alienating and undermining” it.

He “extol(ed) democracy while aiding and abetting its destruction .”

He “praise(d) the Chinese people while (claiming) ill intent of Chinese students who want to come to America.”

He’s loyal to Trump “who cares not one whit for democracy, dissidents, freedom, or transparency overseas.”

The same goes for Pompeo, other regime hardliners, and most congressional members.

“Pompeo has some nerve to now claim that what is upside down is right side up.”

Brookings also slammed China. It supports Washington’s imperial agenda.

It takes issues with actions by Trump, Pompeo, and likely others in his regime — while ignoring their war on humanity at home and abroad.

*

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 InfoBrics

Some Americans continue to believe that when they go to the internet they will get a free flow of useful information that will guide them in making decisions or coming to conclusions about the state of the world. That conceit might have been true to an extent twenty years ago, but the growth and consolidation of corporate information management firms has instead limited access to material that it does not approve of, thereby successfully shaping the political and economic environment to conform with their own interests. Facebook, Google and other news and social networking sites now all have advisory panels that are authorized to ban content and limit access by members. This de facto censorship is particularly evident when using the internet information “search” sites themselves, a “service” that is dominated by Google. Ron Unz has observed how when the CEO of Google Sundar Pichai faced congressional scrutiny on July 29^th together with other high-tech executives, the questioning was hardly rigorous and no one even asked how the sites are regulated to promote certain information that is approved of while suppressing views or sources that are considered to be undesirable.

The “information” sites generally get a free pass from government scrutiny because they are useful to those who run the country from Washington and Wall Street. That the internet is a national security issue was clearly demonstrated when the Barack Obama Administration sought to develop a switch that could be used to “kill it” in the event of a national crisis. No politician or corporate chief executive wants to get on the bad side of Big Tech and find his or her name largely eliminated from online searches, or, alternatively, coming up all too frequently with negative connotations.

Google, for example, ranks the information that it displays so it can favor certain points of view and dismiss others. Generally speaking, “progressive” sites are favored and conservative sites are relegated to the bottom of the search with the expectation that they will not be visited. In late July, investigative journalists noted that Google was apparently testing its technical ability to blacklist conservative media on its search engine which processes more than 3.5 billion online searches every day, comprising 94 percent of internet searching. Sites targeted and made to effectively disappear from results included NewsBusters, the Washington Free Beacon, The Blaze, Townhall, The Daily Wire, PragerU, LifeNews, Project Veritas, Judicial Watch, The Resurgent, Breitbart, Drudge, Unz, the Media Research Center and CNSNews. All the sites affected are considered to be politically conservative and no progressive or liberal sites were included.

One has to suspect that the tech companies like Google are working hand-in-hand with some regulators within the Trump administration to “purge” the internet, primarily by removing foreign competition both in hardware and software from countries like China. This will give the ostensibly U.S. companies monopoly status and will also allow the government to have sufficient leverage to control the message. If this process continues, the internet itself will become nationally or regionally controlled and will inevitably cease to be a vehicle for free exchange of views. Recent steps taken by the U.S. to block Huawei 5G technology and also force the sale of sites like TikTok have been explained as “national security” issues, but they are more likely designed to control aspects of the internet.

Washington is also again beating the familiar drum that Russia is interfering in American politics, with an eye on the upcoming election. Last week saw the released of a 77 page report produced by the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) on Russian internet based news and opinion sources that allegedly are guilty of spreading disinformation and propaganda on behalf of the Kremlin. It is entitled “Understanding Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem” and has a lead paragraph asserting that “Russia’s disinformation and propaganda ecosystem is the collection of official, proxy, and unattributed communication channels and platforms that Russia uses to create and amplify false narratives.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, The New York Times is hot on the trail of Russian malfeasance, describing the report and its conclusions in a lengthy article “State Dept. Traces Russian Disinformation Links” that appeared on August 5^th.

The government report identifies a number of online sites that it claims are actively involved in the “disinformation” effort. The Times article focuses on one site in particular, describing how “The report states that the Strategic Culture Foundation [website] is directed by Russia’s foreign intelligence service, the S.V.R., and stands as ‘a prime example of longstanding Russian tactics to conceal direct state involvement in disinformation and propaganda outlets.’ The organization publishes a wide variety of fringe voices and conspiracy theories in English, while trying to obscure its Russian government sponsorship.” It also quotes Lea Gabrielle, the GEC Director, who explained that “The Kremlin bears direct responsibility for cultivating these tactics and platforms as part of its approach of using information and disinformation as a weapon.”

As Russia has been falsely accused of supporting the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the existence of alternative news sites funded wholly or in part by a foreign government is not ipso facto an act of war, it is interesting to note the “evidence” that The Times provides based on its own investigation to suggest that Moscow is about to disrupt the upcoming election. It is: “Absent from the report is any mention of how one of the writers for the Strategic Culture Foundation weighed in this spring on a Democratic primary race in New York. The writer, Michael Averko, published articles on the foundation’s website and in a local publication in Westchester County, N.Y., attacking Evelyn N. Farkas, a former Obama administration official who was running for Congress. In recent weeks, the F.B.I. questioned Mr. Averko about the Strategic Culture Foundation and its ties to Russia. While those attacks did not have a decisive effect on the election, they showed Moscow’s continuing efforts to influence votes in the United States…”

Excuse me, but someone writing for an alternative website with relatively low readership criticizing a candidate for congress does not equate to the Kremlin’s interfering in an American election. Also, the claim that the Strategic Culture Foundation is a disinformation mechanism is overwrought. Yes, the site is located in Moscow and it may have some government support but it features numerous American and European contributors in addition to Russians. I have been writing for the site for nearly three years and I know many of the other Americans who also do so. We are generally speaking antiwar and often critical of U.S. foreign policy but the contributors include conservatives like myself, libertarians and progressives and we write on all kinds of subjects.

And here is the interesting part: not one of us has ever been told what to write. Not one of us has ever even had a suggestion coming from Moscow on a good topic for an article. Not one of us has ever had an article or headline changed or altered by an editor. Putting on my ex-intelligence officer hat for a moment, that is no way to run an influencing or disinformation operation intended to subvert an election. Sure, Russia has a point of view on the upcoming election and its managed media outlets will reflect that bias but the sweeping allegations are nonsense, particularly in an election that will include billions of dollars in real disinformation coming from the Democratic and Republican parties.

Putting together what you no longer can find when you search the internet with government attempts to suppress alternative news sites one has to conclude that we Americans are in the middle of an information war. Who controls the narrative controls the people, or so it seems. It is a dangerous development, particularly at a time when no one knows whom to trust and what to believe. How it will play out between now and the November election is anyone’s guess.

*

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 Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

It is now official: Dr. Anthony Fauci has been “sidelined” by president Trump. This is nothing new. 

Dr. Fauci has not been fired as head of the NIAID. Moreover, it is unclear whether this new appointment will trigger a significant shift in US government policy regarding Covid-19.

While Dr. Fauci no longer briefs Trump, he nonetheless continues to play a key role. He interfaces with key health agencies of the US government, foundations, the US Congress, not to mention his links to Big Pharma. He has played a central role in the media disinformation campaign.

.

He is firmly supported by the Democratic Party. Trump has not fired him. And Fauci has no intention to resign from his position as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) which plays a central role in the management of the pandemic together with the CDC headed by Dr. Robert R. Redfield.

.

Both the NIAID and the CDC are corrupt entities. A relentless fear campaign is ongoing sustained by fake data and manipulated death certificates. 

.

What is required is an independent commission of inquiry.

.

Dr. Scott Atlas, who has now joined the covid task force as advisor to the White House  “warns against coronavirus overreaction and hysteria, pushes for the reopening of schools and sports leagues, and downplays the need for broader testing to root out the virus.” (Politico)

.

The fear campaign must be ended. It is based on lies and fabrications. Censorship of medical doctors should also be addressed.

.

The crucial issues are the reopening of the US economy which is absolutely fundamental together with the repeal of social engineering, the reopening of schools, colleges and universities.

.

The lockdown triggers a process of disengagement of human and material resources from the productive process. The real economy is brought to a standstill. Curtailing economic activity undermines the “reproduction of real life”. This not only pertains to the actual production of the “necessities of life” (food, health, education, housing) it also pertains to the “reproduction” of  social relations, political institutions, culture, national identity. … The lockdown destroys the very fabric of civil society. …

There are conflicts within the capitalist system which are rarely addressed by the mainstream media. Billionaires, powerful banking and financial institutions (which are creditors of both governments and corporations) are waging an undeclared war against the real economy. Whereas the Big Money financial and banking establishment are “creditors”, the  corporate entities of the real economy which are being destabilized and driven into bankruptcy are “debtors”.

This diabolical process is not limited to wiping out small and medium sized enterprises. Big Money is also the creditor of  large corporations (including airlines, hotel chains, hi tech labs, retailers, import-export firms, construction firms, etc.) which are now on the verge of bankruptcy. (Michel Chossudovsky, May 1, 2020).

Ironically, these corporate interests are not taking a firm stance against the lockdown.

.

The lockdown of the US economy should not be an election issue. It must be repealed as part of a national consensus. Paralyzing economic activity is not a solution. Quite the opposite.

.

The Joe Biden election campaign is being pressured to retain the lockdown of the US economy as a means to resolving the covid-19 pandemic. What utter nonsense.

.

The closure of the economy is the cause of mass poverty and unemployment. Ironically, Joe Biden is supported by sectors of the “Left” as well as the AFL-CIO which represents millions of American workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the lockdown.

.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 18, 2020

***

Read Rep. Ron Paul’s incisive analysis. 

Good News: Fauci’s Out and Common Sense Might be Returning 

August 17, 2020

These days it seems there is not much good news out there. People are still panicked over the coronavirus, governments are still trampling civil liberties in the name of fighting the virus, the economy –already teetering on the edge of collapse – has been kicked to the ground by what history may record as one of the worst man-made disasters of all time: shutting down the country to fight a cold virus.

That’s why we’ll take good news wherever we can get it, and President Trump’s hiring of Dr. Scott Atlas to his coronavirus task force may just be that good news we need. As the media has reported, President Trump has sidelined headline-hogging Anthony Fauci in favor of Atlas, the former Stanford University Medical Center chief of neuroradiology.

Recall, Fauci was the “expert” who told us a few months ago that we would never be able to shake hands again.

Fauci’s advice, forecasts, and assessments proved to be wildly wrong, contradictory, and just plain bizarre: Don’t wear a mask! You must wear a mask. Masks are important as symbols. Put on goggles. Stay home! Churches must be severely restricted but Black Lives Matter marches and encounters with strangers met over the Internet are perfectly fine.

When Anthony Fauci demanded a lockdown of the economy for an indefinite period he actually seemed oblivious to the havoc it would wreak on the economy and on people’s lives. People like Fauci and others who demanded lockdowns and stay-at-home orders were still collecting their paychecks, so what did they care about anyone else?

Dr. Scott Atlas is not only a former top physician and hospital administrator: as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution he also understands the policy implications of locking a country down.

On April 22, Dr. Atlas wrote an op-ed in The Hill titled, “The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation.” In the article he made five main points that are as true today as when he wrote them: an overwhelming majority of people are at no risk of dying from Covid; protecting older people prevents hospital overcrowding; locking down a population actually prevents the herd immunity necessary to defeat the virus; people are dying because they are not being treated for non-Covid illnesses; we know what part of the population is at risk and we can protect them.

Imagine how many thousands of lives could have been saved had the Administration listened to Dr. Atlas back in April. CDC Director Robert Redfield admitted last month that lockdowns were killing more Americans than Covid. “First do no harm” was thrown out the window and nearly six months of wrong-headed policy has done perhaps irreparable harm to the country.

South Dakota and Sweden did virtually nothing to lock down or restrict their populations and they actually fared better than lockdown states in the US. They had lower death rates, their hospitals were never over-run with Covid patients, and they have an economy to go back to.

We very much hope that Dr. Atlas will not “moderate” his message to please the blob in Washington. Trump’s Covid policies to this point have caused more harm than good. With Fauci out of the driver’s seat we finally have a chance of turning things around.

*

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 Twitter

As the House Democratic leadership calls members back to Washington, D.C. for an emergency vote on legislation to reverse Postmaster General Louis DeJoy‘s disruptive and possibly illegal policy changes, a coalition of progressive advocacy groups is planning demonstrations across the country as part of an urgent effort to remove DeJoy and “save the post office” from President Donald Trump.

The protests are set to take place at post offices across the nation on Saturday, August 22, the same day the House is expected to vote on Rep. Carolyn Maloney‘s (D-N.Y.) Delivering for America Act, which would bar any changes to USPS service standards until the end of the coronavirus pandemic.

“At 11 am (local time), we will show up at local post offices across the country to save the post office from Trump and declare that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy must resign,” said the organizers of Saturday’s demonstrations.

Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn, tweeted Sunday that

“it’s going to take everyone, on multiple fronts, to save our Postal Service and our democracy.”

Voicing support for the demonstrations, former Office of Government Ethics director Walter Shaub said

“you’re either in the last days of this republic or you are going to endure the inconvenience (maybe hardship) of defending it.”

“We have a narrow window to stop a wannabe dictator from sabotaging our elections,” Shaub added. “Your country needs you now.”

Saturday, August 22 show up to #savethepostoffice. Pledge to join: https://t.co/3n1uFns6R7

At 11 a.m. (local time), we will show up at local post offices across the country to save the post office from Trump and declare that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy must resign. https://t.co/Wol4MuOGEN pic.twitter.com/MXYZ0hR4IZ

— MoveOn (@MoveOn) August 16, 2020

The nationwide demonstrations were announced days after Trump openly admitted he is blocking emergency funding for the Postal Service in an effort to hinder mail-in voting. According to the Washington Post, the Postal Service recently warned 46 states that “it cannot guarantee all ballots cast by mail for the November election will arrive in time to be counted.”

On Sunday, as Common Dreams reported, top congressional Democrats demanded that DeJoy testify next week on his “sweeping operational and organizational changes at the Postal Service” that have caused major mail backlogs across the country. DeJoy—a Trump donor with millions invested in USPS competitors—has conceded (pdf) that his changes have disrupted USPS mail service but called the delivery slowdowns “unintended consequences.”

In addition to alarming postal workers who are experiencing DeJoy’s changes firsthand, the postmaster general’s new policies have sparked nationwide outrage as reports abound of prescription medicine delays, removal of mailboxes in several states, and abrupt cuts to post office hours.

Over the weekend, demonstrators gathered outside DeJoy’s Washington, D.C. condo to protest his actions:

If Postmaster General Louis DeJoy wasn’t awake, he is now. A protest led by @ShutDown_DC is currently outside his Kalorama condo. #SaveUSPS pic.twitter.com/ptU2n1UP7d

— Cory Gunkel (@CoryGunkel) August 15, 2020

In a statement requesting DeJoy’s testimony at an August 24 hearing, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Maloney wrote that the postmaster general has “acted as an accomplice in the president’s campaign to cheat in the election, as he launches sweeping new operational changes that degrade delivery standards and delay the mail.”

“This constitutes a grave threat to the integrity of the election and to our very democracy,” the lawmakers warned.

On Twitter, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) urged the House leadership to “subpoena the postmaster general, and if he fails to appear, we should send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest him.”

“It’s not just ballots that are being slowed,” Cooper wrote. “It’s life-saving medication and checks for our veterans and our elderly. Tampering with the mail is a federal crime, and DeJoy—on Trump’s orders—is tampering.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Featured image is by Jay Capers/Special to the News&Record

Elections always have an interesting effect on public policy, in particular if the person in charge of designing and implementing a certain policy is up for reelection. In politics, it is logical that an incumbent candidate decides to show successful policies and accomplishments while minimizing failures or shortcomings. However, what is irrational is that a candidate insists on presenting, preserving and deepening a policy that has proven to be a failure and that the candidate himself only supports half-heartedly. This is the case of the Trump Administration’s current failed policy towards Venezuela, which is being reinforced despite its failure while a more appropriate approach, dialogue, is being discarded.

On January 23, 2019, as John Bolton points out in his controversial memoirs, Trump advisors pushed for the U.S. Administration to recognize as “interim president”, an obscure young politician, Juan Guaidó, who represented Voluntad Popular (Popular Will), the party of Leopoldo López, Washington’s key ally who masterminded the violent protests of 2014 and 2017. Rather than produce a change of government, this action led to Venezuela’s decision to break diplomatic relations with the United States. Guaidó’s recognition has dragged the U.S. Administration, as well as many of its subordinate allies, down a path of failure after failure in their regime change policy. Furthermore, it has also dragged the people of Venezuela through a vicious blockade that has eroded their living standards and seriously jeopardized their well-being.

Over the course of 2019, the Trump Administration imagined that the whole world would dive into a collective state of denial, would stop recognizing the constitutional government of President Nicolás Maduro and would instead recognize Guaidó who in practice does not even exercise control of any institution in Caracas. A month after his self-proclamation, Guaidó, with U.S. support and propaganda, attempted to force the entry of alleged humanitarian aid into the country while hoping that the Armed Forces would at the same time betray president Maduro. They failed. On April 30, Guaidó and López, with the support of their U.S. partners and military defectors, led a failed coup attempt counting on the support of public officials that never came. This prompted Bolton to send desperate tweets and Elliott Abrams to complain because his phone calls were not answered. They failed again.

Today, more than two thirds of the Member States of the United Nations still recognize Venezuela’s legitimate government and it is Trump himself who is having second thoughts on his erratic choice. The year 2020 came, however, with an unforeseen challenge: the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump’s reelection bid was not counting on the dire impact that this pandemic would have on one of the strong points of his campaign, the economy. Even less, could he have imagined the toll this pandemic would have on the entire population: to date, over 150,000 deaths have been officially attributed to COVID-19 and a crisis with over 45 million new persons unemployed is engulfing the United States. Massive protests have taken place all over the nation, since the murder of George Floyd, an African-American man, at the hands of the police. But they are much more than protests over systemic discrimination; they are protests against a system that has abandoned the majority of its poor citizens.

Trump had in his hands a golden opportunity to show leadership, admit the shortcomings of the system and launch an unprecedented process that would redirect the priorities of the nation, cut back on the aggressive militarization of the police and of foreign policy and turn to a robust policy of relief for workers and the strengthening of the healthcare system. Instead, Trump dug himself into a labyrinth where the desperation to win the reelection clouds his thinking and rather than turning to sound domestic policy, he has opted to put the blame on foreign enemies and to divert attention from his catastrophic mishandling of the situation.

First, he placed the blame on China and resorted to a racist, Cold War-like narrative, as if this would do anything to help the suffering U.S. population. By the end of March, as the death toll increased, Trump announced he was stepping up his “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela. In less than a week, a man who helped justify the 1989 invasion of Panama and was now heading the Department of Justice, presented indictments against President Maduro and other top leaders of the Bolivarian Revolution for “narco-terrorism”, placing a $15 million bounty on President Maduro’s head, as in the Wild West. Then Trump’s State Department, through the voice of Elliott Abrams (whose involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal and the massacre in El Mozote, El Salvador, is notorious) proposed a “democratic transition framework” built on the principle of delegitimizing the democratic elections of President Maduro in 2018 and offered a negotiation where President Maduro’s separation from office was non-negotiable. Finally, Trump ordered the largest deployment of U.S. military to the Caribbean Sea since the Panama invasion under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking from Venezuela, when the Department of Defense’s records show that the main route for drugs to the U.S. is via the Pacific Ocean, of which Venezuela has no coast.

In May, a group of mercenaries attempted a raid on Venezuelan coasts. Two of them were former Green Berets who confessed to having been employed by a U.S. security firm by the name of SilverCorp. The CEO of this firm presented a contract with the signature of Guaidó and his aides to carry out actions in Venezuela aimed at removing President Maduro from office and targeting other revolutionary leaders. This too, failed, and has been followed by attempts at intimidating and effectively blocking Venezuela’s trading partners from bringing much needed supplies, including gasoline, which in a time of pandemic, is key for moving medical supplies, personnel, and food throughout the country.

Venezuela has stood firm against all of these attacks. International solidarity from countries such as Cuba, China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey has been key. Strong measures and an organized and community-conscious population have allowed Venezuela to still be one of the countries with the lowest death toll and active COVID-19 cases in the region. In sharp contrast, while Washington imposes  repression on cities such as Portland, which has suffered the deployment of federal police agents, Venezuelans will once again be heading to the polls in December with the hopes of electing a renewed parliament that better reflects the political forces in the country and one whose leadership is not compromised with the promotion of sanctions and blockades against their own country, as is Guaidó.

In the distorted view of reality that Trump and his advisors have of the current conjuncture, there is a belief that hard line, regime change policies against Venezuela would lead to electoral success in Florida and therefore, nationwide. It might well be that some of Trump’s base may like to see a coup in Venezuela, but failure after failure, by now should have indicated that Venezuela is not moving in that direction. To continue attempting clumsy solutions will only repeat past frustrations. A sound policy towards Venezuela has to be in line with the aspirations of the Venezuelan people and with the real interests of the people of the U.S. Venezuelans want peace, dialogue, and politics. Trump would do better if he followed his initial instinct of talking to President Maduro. A respectful dialogue with Venezuela is what is really in the interest of the U.S. electorate. Instead of spending U.S. taxpayer money on failed adventures and made up drug cartels, it could be better spent on dealing with the pandemic and other needs of the U.S. Sound policies are more conducive to reelection. Regime change will only lead to more failure.

*

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 is an exclusive op-ed for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, (COHA).

Jorge Arreaza is the Foreign Minister of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Featured image: Protest against U.S. intervention on Venezuela, in front of the White House, Washington DC. (Credit: https://elvertbarnes.com/16March2019)

Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kazemi is preparing to meet US President Donald Trump at the White House, about issues that are burdening Iraq. The country is struggling with a stifling economic crisis, the Coronavirus pandemic, the US military presence that is no longer desirable, the “unmanageable balance” between Iran and the US, and the omnipresent Turkish military activity and Turkey’s presence on Iraqi soil.

The Al-Kazemi team includes economic experts and diplomats who want to resume the second round of strategic talks that began between the two countries last June. This exchange has been imposed on both sides following the binding decision of the Iraqi parliament to order US forces to withdraw from Iraq, following the assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the “Axis of the Resistance” and commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard- alongside the Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis – together with their companions, in January 2020.

Several groups of unknown affiliation have attacked US bases with Katyusha rockets and mortar shells, deliberately not inflicting fatal injuries. Moreover, Iraqi convoys transporting equipment belonging to the US forces have been intercepted and the contents set on fire- a warning to Iraqi drivers to refrain from providing any services to the US forces, otherwise they too will bear the consequences.

These “so-far unknown” groups shared a common goal: warn US forces that their presence in Iraq will no longer be tolerated unless they withdraw as requested by Parliament. It is to be expected that these groups will escalate, intensifying their attacks so as to put more pressure on both Al-Kazemi’s government and on Washington. Violent confrontation is no longer distant.

Iran has repeatedly indicated its support for Iraq as well as its support for the Iraqis who want to get the US out of Iraq. When Al-Kazemi visited Tehran last month and met with Iranian officials, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, told him: “The US has killed your guest.” Sayyed Khamenei wanted to arouse Arab tribal feelings that sanctify and protect the guest, to remind Iraqi officials that they have done nothing yet to avenge a guest’s murder, and to underscore that if the Iraqis revolt against the killers, this is indeed their right.

Thus, the Iraqi Prime Minister – who is trying to find common ground between the US and Iran – is not mediating with the goal of a meeting between the two countries’ officials, because Iran refuses to engage with the killers of Major General Soleimani, the current US administration. Al-Kazemi would rather try to avoid a military clash in Mesopotamia. However, the chances of him succeeding in his endeavour between Tehran and Washington are weak so long as the Trump administration is in power. The big challenge that Al-Kazemi faces is the illegal Turkish presence in Iraq.

Subscribe to EJM to continue reading.

*

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 EJM

A former Lebanese Interior Minister has publicly blamed Israel for the attack on Beirut:

This operation in Beirut was carried out by Israel in a clear and explicit manner,” Machnouk said, adding: “It is clear we are looking at a crime against humanity, and therefore no one dares to claim responsibility for it.”

Nohad Machnouk is the first public figure to expliclty place blame on Israel, and the first in Lebanon as well. My own reporting based on an Israeli source was the first to say that Israel attacked a Hezbollah arms storage facility at the port.

Pres. Aoun suggested that a “foreign actor” might be responsible for an attack.  Though his most recent statement rejects the possibility that Hezbollah stored arms at the port–something I would expect him to say as a political ally of the militant group.  Even Hassan Nasrallah suggested that Israel might be responsible.  But neither did so in nearly as explicit a fashion as Machnouk, who served in the Future Movement cabinet of Saad Hariri.

Machnouk also alleged that missile remnants have been discovered amidst the rubble at the port. Asia Times reports that a “U.S. explosive experts adds this important statement from a Lebanese source:

A US military explosives expert who has worked closely with the Lebanese army told Asia Times on condition of anonymity that according to his contacts among the Lebanese armed forces, the explosion was an “act of sabotage” against the hangar in question, which was allegedly holding not only ammonium nitrate, but short-range missiles.

This accords with the video analysis by Robert Baer, a 30-year CIA veteran Middle East analyst, who said the explosion and ensuing smoke and debris clearly showed evidence that it involved “rocket propellant.” It’s common knowledge that Hezbollah has 130,000 rockets stored throughout Southern Lebanon to use in the event of an Israeli attack.

While Machnouk is allied with a political movement opposed to Hezbollah and so might be expected to embarrass it, his government was responsible for storing the ammonium nitrate at the port.  So he and the Future Movement would come in for their share of the blame if his statement proves true. So he would have no vested interest in tarnishing his own reputation.

News reports say the FBI has offered to send a forensics team to investigate the explosion.  The Lebanese have accepted.  That’s a bit like assigning the Big Bad Wolf’s brother to investigate the death of Little Red Riding Hood. Undoubtedly, the FBI’s main interest will be in assigning full blame to Hezbollah and determining which weapons were being stored at the port.

*

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 Tikun Olam

Featured image: Charred remains of Japanese civilians after the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9–10 March 1945. (Source: Ishikawa Kōyō / Wikimedia Commons)

In the early hours of 10 March 1945, as America’s heavy aircraft dropped over 1,600 tons of bombs on Tokyo, a firestorm larger and hotter than ever before was brewing. During the firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg, temperatures reached 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, but in Tokyo it soared to a blinding 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Such was the heat unleashed by US bombers over the Japanese capital, that civilians in their air raid shelters were beginning to suffocate. Rather than be overwhelmed, they fled into the streets, becoming glued to the melting asphalt under their feet. Those now stuck in the roads or pavements were helpless, many of whom were heavily charred by the rapidly growing fires.

Like Venice, the famous northern Italy city, Tokyo is dissected with canals. The people who avoided being rooted to the asphalt in the open, jumped into the many canals, among them numerous women and children. Due to the unprecedented temperatures the canals, particularly the smaller ones, started to boil, cooking to the death further thousands of civilians.

About 280 American B-29 Superfortresses – four-engine heavy bombers – had ignited this unparalleled firestorm. Exiting the scene of destruction, many of the aircraft crews had to quickly attach their oxygen masks; it prevented them from vomiting or passing out, such was the stench of death emanating from about five thousand feet below.

“Tokyo burns under B-29 firebomb assault.” May 26, 1945. (Source: US Army Air Forces / Wikimedia Commons)

US Major General Curtis LeMay had ordered the firebombing of Tokyo, with maximum casualties in mind, living up to his nickname “Bombs away LeMay”. In a June 1981 interview with the American historian Michael Sherry, LeMay said:

“There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the innocent bystanders”.

In 1945 Roger Fisher, a First Lieutenant and future Harvard Law professor, was LeMay’s “weather officer” on the island of Guam, in the western Pacific Ocean. Just before the Tokyo firebombing, Fisher revealed that LeMay “asked me a question I’d never heard before”. What LeMay wanted to know was, “How strong are the winds going to be at ground level?” Fisher could not know, informing LeMay that winds can only be predicted (in 1945) “at high altitudes, with reconnaissance flights” and “at intermediate altitudes if we dropped balloons”. LeMay than asked

“How strong does the wind have to be so that people can’t get away from the flames? Will the wind be strong enough for that?”

Fisher stammered and was unable to answer, quickly retiring to his quarters, and saying of LeMay that,

“I didn’t go near him again that night. I had my deputy deal with him. It was the first time it had entered my head that the purpose of our operation was to kill as many people as possible”.

The ground conditions were, as it turned out, exactly to LeMay’s liking, with prevailing winds of up to 28 mph (45 km/h). The blustery weather was akin to a bellows fanning the fires, further aided by the dry atmosphere and Tokyo’s extensive wood-and-paper buildings.

Officially, around 100,000 civilians were said to have died as a result of the bombing raids, which lasted a mere couple of hours. However, noted historians such as Gabriel Kolko, an American-born Canadian academic, estimates the Tokyo body count at 125,000 – which rivals the final death toll from the Hiroshima bombing.

The Tokyo firestorming, code-named “Operation Meetinghouse”, was the single deadliest air raid of World War II by quite some distance. In addition, around one million of Tokyo’s residents suffered injury during the attack, while one million were also left homeless. Over 250,000 of the city’s buildings were destroyed, a quarter of all structures in Tokyo at the time, one of the world’s largest cities. Indeed, the size of the area destroyed (almost 16 square miles) was larger than the destruction wrought by both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Many of the American aircraft that inflicted the devastation, upon return to their base in the Mariana Islands, were found to be streaked with ashes from Tokyo’s buildings. The Japanese anti-aircraft defenses proved especially inadequate, shooting down only 14 American planes. LeMay was satisfied with the results. After the war he acknowledged that,

“Killing Japanese didn’t bother me very much at that time… I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal… Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you’re not a good soldier”.

Had LeMay been on the German or Japanese side, there is a great probability he would have been tried as a war criminal – along with others, such as his British counterpart Arthur “Bomber” Harris. The brutal air assaults ordered by both LeMay and Harris made those of the Luftwaffe chief, Hermann Goering, appear puny by comparison. After conflict ends, it seems only the defeated are held to account for their crimes. In the months following the war two military tribunals were held, the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials. There was no clamoring call for similar proceedings to be held in Washington or London.

On 1 September 1939, the day the Nazis invaded Poland, US president Franklin D. Roosevelt made an appeal:

“The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population… has sickened the hearts of civilized men and women and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity… under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations, or of unfortified cities”.

Roosevelt was referring to the Japanese bombing of Shanghai in 1937 – and also the German and Italian bombardment of the Basque and Catalonian cities of Guernica, Barcelona and Granollers, during the Spanish Civil War.

Roosevelt’s words would prove hollow. Less than four years after his address, the American Eight Air Force combined with the Royal Air Force in firebombing Hamburg, Germany’s second largest city. The outright targeting of civilians over Hamburg, lasting just over a week in July 1943, killed over 40,000 people – slightly more than those that died during the Luftwaffe’s eight month blitz of Britain, ending in May 1941. Roosevelt was still in office when large sections of Tokyo were being burned to a cinder, along with great numbers of its civilians. On these occasions, there were no objectives put forth by Roosevelt regarding “the ruthless bombing from the air of civilians”.

Indeed, it was Roosevelt who was a key figure in the formulation of the atomic bomb. He oversaw its continuing development until his death on 12 April 1945, even after it had long become clear to the Allies that Hitler had no nuclear program. Roosevelt had previously said the reason to produce the atomic bomb “was to see that the Nazis don’t blow us up”. Yet, by 1944, this logic was no longer valid, as Roosevelt surely knew.

Hitler had shunned nuclear research for a variety of reasons, on both racial and pragmatic grounds, also foreseeing that these weapons “would force humanity down the road to extinction”. This earth-shattering concern was not expressed by Roosevelt, successor Harry Truman or Winston Churchill. As a result, the shadow of nuclear weapons hovers over humanity to this day.

Meanwhile, in February 1942, Churchill had himself green-lighted the first strategic bombing of urban centers in the war – with the real aim of killing and terrorizing Germany’s civilian population. A British Air Staff directive, dated February 14 1942, outlined that the air war “should now be focused on the morale of the enemy’s civil population”.

Also in February 1942, Britain had launched the famous Avro Lancaster heavy bomber, hundreds of which participated in the murderous firestorming of Hamburg the following year. Already, by 1940 and 1941, the RAF had introduced two other four-engine heavy bombers, the Handley Page Halifax and the Short Stirling – both of which were involved in the “first ever 1,000 bomber raid” over Cologne, in the early hours of 31 May 1942. Almost 1,500 tons of bombs were dropped on Cologne, a city of significant size in western Germany.

The Luftwaffe possessed not a single four-engine bomber aircraft. That is, planes capable of flying extended distances, with large payloads of explosives, thereby inflicting significant damage. The Germans only had two-engine medium and short range bombers. Hitler was not a proponent of strategic bombing and targeting of urban populations en masse, nor had he prepared for it. He only switched focus after the RAF inflicted serious damage upon the medieval city of Lubeck, in late March 1942. Just over a fortnight later, 14 April, Hitler relayed an order declaring that the German air war “be given a more aggressive stamp”, focusing on areas “where attacks are likely to have the greatest possible effect on civilian life”. When it came to terror bombing of civilians, it was something of a British and American specialty.

The German Blitz itself – which began on 7 September 1940 – was Hitler’s direct response to a series of British attacks on Berlin over the previous fortnight. The German capital was bombed for the first time in the early hours of 25 August 1940, a sure sign of things to come. The bombings were a result of Churchill’s increasingly belligerent war strategy.

*

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

It was early on a Sunday morning when Al-Shabab militants attacked the small airstrip next to a military base on Kenya’s north coast. Plumes of black smoke billowed into the sky as the militants destroyed six aircraft and killed three Americans, including two civilian contractors and one U.S. soldier.

In the wake of the January 5 attack, Fahim Twaha, the governor of Lamu County where Camp Simba is located, described the incident as “a foreign force attacking a foreign force on our soil.”

The U.S. military had been using the base, nestled in the normally sleepy Manda Bay, for East African operations for over a decade. The American presence, as well as the base, has expanded over the years, including the recent addition of new aircraft hangars, likely to protect sensitive technology installed on surveillance aircraft. In 2019, the U.S. mission at Camp Simba officially changed from “tactical” to “enduring operations.”

Now an investigation by OCCRP reveals that the U.S. military has been using the Kenyan base as a launchpad for surveillance aircraft supporting airstrikes in neighboring Somalia, with civilian contractors playing a pivotal role by providing intelligence on targets.

Flight data indicates a contractor-owned plane that was seen regularly in Manda Bay scouted sites for several drone strikes against Islamist militant group Al-Shabab that may have killed civilians in Somalia. Data collected by an antenna installed by OCCRP confirmed multiple privately owned surveillance planes operated from the base, often hidden behind a chain of limited liability companies that do not list their true owners.

Sean McFate, a former private military contractor now working with the Washington-based think tank Atlantic Council, said that in the past companies were brought in to help analyze U.S. military data, but not collect it.

“The ethical standard of who can pull the trigger has been slowly eroding over the last 30 years,” he said, explaining that even if private contractors are not involved in combat, they become “part of the kill chain” by providing intelligence for airstrikes.

“If they’re doing lethal operations, then I think we’ve crossed a threshold,” McFate said.

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) said the use of contractor pilots for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions is legal under domestic and international law. The public affairs office declined to confirm details or comment on specific aircraft and companies identified by OCCRP, citing operational security.

The U.S. military ramped up airstrikes in Somalia following the attack at Manda Bay, carrying out 42 by mid-2020, compared to 63 recorded in all of 2019.

‘Constant Fear’

Last year, Asha Hassan, a mother of seven, left her home in Lower Shabelle, the region in Somalia most targeted by U.S. airstrikes. She and her children are among 1,300 families that have settled in the makeshift Alla Futo camp on the outskirts of Mogadishu. Another 36,000 people fled the region in the first three months of 2020, nearly all because of the conflict, according to the UN’s refugee agency.

“We fled from the planes that were hovering over us every night. These planes can drop things any time,” Hassan said. “We could not live there. We fled due to those problems and the constant fear.”

The U.S. first launched airstrikes against Al-Shabab in Somalia in 2007 and increased them significantly in 2016, according to data collected and analyzed by U.K.-based non-profit Airwars. They have ramped up again substantially since U.S. President Donald Trump loosened the rules of engagement three years ago.

Thousands of people have been killed by U.S. airstrikes in Somalia since 2007, including as many as 145 civilians, according to Airwars. The U.S. military only acknowledges five accidental civilian deaths since 2017. It’s unclear if there was a review of alleged civilian deaths over the previous decade.

Alla Futo camp on the outskirts of Mogadishu. Credit: Mohamed Ibrahim Bulbul.

OCCRP’s investigation indicates that at least some of those drone strikes were based on intelligence gathered by private U.S. contractors operating out of Manda Bay.

OCCRP used flight tracking data and matched it to geo-coded airstrike data from Airwars, which also collects information on civilian casualties from official military statements, as well as media reports, NGOs and social media. The group cross-references claims of civilian casualties to try to confirm them, but notes that “we are often unable to follow up or to further verify such claims.”

On February 1 and 5, 2019, a contractor-owned Gulfstream jet flew repeatedly over a small area in Lower Shabelle, about 30 kilometers west of Mogadishu. It returned to the area on March 9. The plane had a particular flight pattern — near-perfect circles — and was likely collecting data with its specialized sensors, according to experts on the subject.

On February 6 and 11, and again on March 11, U.S. airstrikes hit areas the plane apparently surveyed. AFRICOM said 11 militants were killed in the first strike near the ancient seaside town of Gandarshe, which was directly below the Gulfstream’s flightpath.

Two more strikes were launched on Feb. 11 near Janaale, about 20 kilometers from the first drone attacks, again right under the Gulfstream’s flightpath. The U.S. military claimed that 12 militants were killed and no civilians — although reports collected by Airwars claim 13 civilians had died.

On March 9, the Gulfstream flew over a spot just kilometers northwest of Tuwaareey, which was hit by an air strike two days later. AFRICOM said eight militants were killed and that Al-Shabab was using the area to “direct terror attacks, steal humanitarian aid, extort the local populace to fund its operations, and shelter radical terrorists.” Information collected by Airwars, however, concluded that between one and seven civilians may have died.

A report released by AFRICOM this spring confirmed two civilian deaths in a separate strike that took place on February 23, 2019.

Visual of 2019 surveillance flights and airstrikes described in the story. Credit: Edin Pasovic

The Gulfstream aircraft that appears to have collected surveillance for these attacks was spotted near Manda Bay on several occasions. It’s registered to a company called AC-1425 LLC, a nod to the plane’s serial number. According to U.S. Federal Aviation Administration filings, it also belongs to Priority 1 Holdings LLC.

Incorporated in Delaware in 2017, Priority 1 has intimate links to the U.S. security establishment. Its former CEO, Andrew Palowitch, held two official postings at the Central Intelligence Agency and was director of the Space Protection Program, sponsored jointly by the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office. He also held executive positions at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), one of the most profitable contractors in the U.S. defense industry, and Tenax Aerospace Holdings, an intelligence and defense contractor that boasts a former CIA Director and a former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command as board members.

Priority 1’s website says the company’s aviation operations are conducted through its subsidiary, AIRtec Inc., an “airborne services company” that had over US$10 million in government contracts in the past year. AIRtec lists the same model Gulfstream aircraft that may have gathered intelligence for the U.S. airstrikes in its fleet.

It’s unclear which U.S. government agency contracted Priority 1 or AIRtec for work in East Africa, or whether the aircraft was leased to another contractor.

When registering the plane, the company listed its address at a renovated $640,000 Florida condo with coastal views and quartz waterfall counters, and a phone number in Ireland.

The company bought the Gulfstream aircraft in 2018, and AIRtec promptly modified it to perform specialized missions, equipping the plane with camera and communications equipment suitable for military surveillance. They included a radar system that “can peer through foliage, rain, darkness, dust storms or atmospheric haze to provide real time, high quality tactical ground imagery, anytime it is needed, day or night,” according to a brochure from the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin.

Palowitch and Priority 1 declined to respond to detailed questions for this article, including whether the aircraft has conducted target surveillance over Somalia. Greg Kahn, general counsel for Priority 1, said the “questions are not appropriate for our company to be discussing.”

“This subject matter, as I am sure you are aware, is highly confidential,” Kahn said in an email.

OCCRP obtained a photo from the cockpit of a surveillance plane operated by contractors based at Manda Bay, then used Google Earth satellite imagery to identify the aircraft’s location on the Somali coast. Credit: Samir.

The Big Safari

Some of the companies operating in Manda Bay are contracted under the auspices of the secretive U.S. Air Force program named Big Safari, which was started to fast-track Cold War surveillance technology in 1952.

Critics say Big Safari’s opaque contracting process, which has awarded almost $158 billion to private companies since 2008, is vulnerable to corruption as it bypasses normal procurement procedures. They say contracts have been awarded to companies run by well-connected executives, including former military and intelligence officials, rather than dispensed through a competitive bidding process.

“The Air Force remains satisfied that the acquisition practices utilized by Big Safari are in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, applicable Department of Defense Instructions, and Air Force guidance governing acquisition programs,” a public affairs officer said in an email.

One company that has faced accusations is L3Harris Technologies, which employed the two contractors killed in January and operated a surveillance plane that was destroyed in the attack. It is the top vendor of the Big Safari program, and government data shows that L3Harris won $4 billion in federal government contracts during the last U.S. federal fiscal year, which ended on September 30, 2019.

L3Harris Instagram post, November 2019. Credit: Instagram

In 2017, before L3 merged with Harris Corporation, two Republican congressmen published an open letter alleging there was a “revolving door” of people moving between the military and L3. The representatives from North Carolina, Ted Budd and Walter Jones, said the company used “improper influence” over the contracting process to sell aircraft for use by the government of Yemen in the country’s ongoing civil war, with no competitive bidding process. They argued more cost-effective planes were available (including some made by a company in Budd’s district) and the Big Safari official in charge of steering the deal later resigned and went to work for L3. The Washington-based Project On Government Oversight notes in its Pentagon Revolving Door Database that L3 has hired several senior defense officials.

The company also made headlines that year, when prominent Kenyan anti-corruption advocate John Githongo and Congressman Budd called for an investigation into its role in a deal to sell armed surveillance aircraft to Kenya. They accused Kenyan officials of corruption, though a U.S. government investigation found no wrongdoing on the part of the Air Force program.

L3Harris continues to be a favored U.S. contractor. In a May 5 call with investors, executives said the firm had been buoyed by its close relationship with Big Safari at a time when many companies have been struggling with the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

“One highlight was over $800 million in award activity from our leading position on the Big Safari programs,” said COO Chris Kubasik.

No one on the call mentioned L3Harris contractor Bruce Triplett, 64, or pilot Duston Harrisson, 47, who were killed during the attack in Manda Bay, when militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade into the plane they were taxiing along the air strip. Another contractor was badly injured but crawled to safety, the New York Times reported, while Army Specialist Henry Mayfield Jr., 23, was also killed.

Stephen Townsend, head of AFRICOM, told the U.S. Senate that Triplett and Harrisson “died while protecting the American people from the very real threat of Al Qaeda and Al-Shabab terrorist groups.”

But McFate noted the difference in response to the attack and the 1993 “Black Hawk Down” incident in Somalia, when the deaths of 19 American soldiers prompted the U.S. to withdraw from the country.

“Americans do not care about dead contractors,” McFate said. “They care about dead soldiers, like Black Hawk Down, but nobody cares at all about a dead contractor.”

Another Big Safari contractor that had a prominent presence at the base in Manda Bay is AEVEX Aerospace, a company that operates contractor-owned planes in Africa for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

Formed in 2018 from three smaller defense companies and led by a former U.S. Special Operations Command officer, the firm won federal contracts worth $44 million in 2019. It also recently landed a classified contract to provide civilian pilots for operations in West Africa, according to the Paris-based news site Africa Intelligence. The pilots will operate MQ-9 Reaper drones and other intelligence-gathering aircraft.

AEVEX has advertised positions that would “interface with intelligence and operations elements” in Africa and operate surveillance equipment. In one ad, the company said its analysts are expected to build “patterns of life” and target descriptions, as well as conduct battle damage assessment.

At least two aircraft owned by subsidiary limited liability companies, but ultimately traced to AEVEX, have been spotted in Manda Bay. One is a helicopter with specialised equipment; the other is a Pilatus plane that had medical beds installed and the flight data recorder removed in 2018. The Pilatus has made multiple trips over Somalia, flight data shows.

L3Harris and AEVEX did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

‘Addicted to Contractors’

The situation at Camp Simba in Manda Bay is a microcosm of conflicts around the world in which the U.S. has come to increasingly rely on contracting military and intelligence operations to private companies.

Experts say a lack of publicly available information makes it hard to count the number of contractors involved in military operations, but their roles have dramatically increased since the 1990s when such duties fell almost exclusively to military personnel.

“The U.S. government has become addicted to contractors, whether they are Republicans or Democrats in the White House, because contractors give you some degree of plausible deniability,” said McFate.

The military says contractors allow for greater flexibility. “Resource constraints, unique requirements, and military manpower caps are just some of the reasons that make it necessary to augment military forces via contract or federal hiring action in order to accomplish the mission,” an AFRICOM public affairs officer said in an emailed statement.

Last year, the Pentagon spent $370 billion — more than half the U.S. defense budget — on contractors, according to a study by Brown and Boston universities. The researchers concluded “military contracting is at least as expensive, and often more expensive” for the government. McFate even suggests that because profit is an incentive for private companies, the practice may prolong wars.

Analysts question whether the money pumped into America’s war in Somalia has improved, or worsened, security in the country.

Following the Manda Bay attack, Air Force Col. Christopher Karns said that airstrikes “don’t provide a long-term solution to the terror problem,” but they “create organizational confusion in the ranks of Al-Shabab and an effective punch.”

Hussein Sheikh Ali, chairman of Mogadishu-based think tank Hiraal Institute and a former national security adviser to the current Somali president, warned the drone attacks could be backfiring.

Rather than weakening Al-Shabab, he said, the tactic strengthens the militant group, as drone strikes alienate civilians by destroying property, lives, and livelihoods. The drone war also allows Al-Shabab to frame the conflict as a struggle against an invading foreign power.

“After Manda Bay, it’s looking like a conflict between Al-Shabab and America — and that’s actually what Al-Shabab wants,” Ali said. “Al-Shabab wants to be seen that they are fighting a global superpower.”

AFRICOM acknowledges that the airstrikes may be used against U.S. interests, but dismisses the concern.

“Al-Shabab has repeatedly shown that they are willing to lie and use false propaganda to further their goals in Somalia, regardless of what the U.S. does,” a public affairs officer said in an emailed statement.

“When assessing Somalia, it is important to understand incremental progress has been made over the last decade as the result of a truly international effort inside the country,” they added.

*

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.

Margot Williams, Carolyn Thompson, Katarina Sabados, Maria Gargiulo, Abdalle Mumin, Will Swanson, Mohamed Ibrahim Bulbul, Carlo Muñoz, Jared Ferrie, Juliet Atellah, and others who wish to remain anonymous contributed reporting. This story was produced with support from the Fund for Investigative Journalism and Freelance Investigative Reporters and Editors.

This article by Michel Chossudovsky was written in 1999 at the height of the NATO bombing campaign. It was presented to the Ad-hoc Committee to Stop Canada’s Participation in the War in Yugoslavia,   Press Conference, Monday, April 12, National Press Theatre, 150 Wellington Street, Ottawa. 

***

Amply documented, the bombings of Yugoslavia are not strictly aimed at military and strategic targets as claimed by NATO. They are largely intent on destroying the country’s civilian infrastructure as well as its institutions.

According to Yugoslav sources, NATO has engaged around 600 aeroplanes of which more than 400 are combat planes. They have flown almost 3,000 attack sorties, “with 200 in one night alone against 150 designated targets”. They have dropped thousands of tons of explosives and have launched some 450 cruise missiles.

The intensity of the bombing using the most advanced military technology is unprecedented in modern history. It far surpasses the bombing raids of World War II or the Vietnam War.

The bombings have not only been directed against industrial plants, airports, electricity and telecommunications facilities, railways, bridges and fuel depots, they have also targeted schools, health clinics, day care centres, government buildings, churches, museums, monasteries and historical landmarks.

Infrastructure and Industry

According to Yugoslav sources: “road and railway networks, especially road and rail bridges, most of which were destroyed or damaged beyond repair, suffered extensive destruction”. Several thousand industrial facilities have been destroyed or damaged with the consequence of paralysing the production of consumer goods. According to Yugoslav sources, “[B]y totally destroying business facilities across the country, 500,000 workers were left jobless, and 2 million citizens without any source of income and possibility to ensure minimum living conditions”. Western estimates as to the destruction of property in Yugoslavia stand at more than US$ 100 billion.

Bombing of Urban and Rural Residential Areas

Villages with no visible military or strategic structures have been bombed. Described as “collateral damage”, residential areas in all major cities. The downtown area of Pristina (which includes apartment buildings and private dwellings) has been destroyed. Central-downtown Belgrade — including government buildings– have been hit with cluster bombs and there are massive flames emanating from the destruction. According to the International Center for Peace and Justice (ICPJ):

“No city or town in Yugoslavia is being spared. There are untold civilian casualties. The beautiful capital city of Belgrade is in flames and fumes from a destroyed chemical plant are making it necessary to use gas masks”.

Civilian Casualties

Both the Yugoslavia authorities and NATO have downplayed the number of civilian casualties. The evidence amply confirms that NATO has created a humanitarian catastrophe. The bombings are largely responsible for driving people from their homes. The bombings have killed people regardless of their nationality or religion. In Kosovo, civilian casualties affect all ethnic groups. According to a report of the Decany Monastery in Kosovo received in the first week of the bombing:

“Last night a cruise missile hit the old town in Djakovica, mostly inhabited by Albanians, and made a great fire in which several Albanian houses were destroyed … In short, NATO attacks are nothing but barbarous aggression which affects mostly the innocent civilian population, both Serb and Albanian.”

The Dangers of Environmental Contamination

Refineries and warehouses storing liquid raw materials and chemicals have been hit causing environmental contamination. The latter have massively exposed the civilian population to the emission of poisonous gases. NATO air strikes on the chemical industry is intent on creating an environmental disaster, “which is something not even Adolf Hitler did during World War II.”According to the Serbian Minister for Environmental Protection Branislav Blazic, “the aggressors were lying when they said they would hit only military targets and would observe international conventions, because they are using illegal weapons such as cluster bombs, attacking civilian targets and trying to provoke an environmental disaster”. A report by NBC TV confirms that NATO has bombed a the pharmaceutical complex of Galenika, the largest medicine factory in Yugoslavia located in the suburbs of Belgrade. The fumes from this explosion have serious environmental implications. “The population is asked to wear gas masks that in fact nobody …

Supply with drinking water for the inhabitants of Belgrade is also getting difficult after the drinking water facility at Zarkovo was bombed.

Hospitals and Schools

NATO has targeted many hospitals and health-care institutions, which have been partially damaged or totally destroyed. These include 13 of the country’s major hospitals. More than 150 schools (including pre-primary day care centres) have been damaged or destroyed. According to Yugoslav sources, more than 800,000 pupils and students do not attend schools in the wake of the war destruction. There is almost no pre-school institutions (nurseries and day-care centres) which are operational.

Churches, Monasteries and Historical Landmarks

NATO has also systematically targeted churches, monasteries, museums, public monuments and historical landmarks.

“The targets of the attacks on historical and cultural landmarks have included the Gracanica monastery, dating back to the 14th century, the Pec Patriarchate (13th century), the Rakovica monastery and the Petrovarardin Fortress, which are testimony to the foundations of the European civilization, are in all world encyclopedias and on the UNESCO World Heritage list”.

The Use of Weapons banned by International Convention

The NATO bombings have also used of weapons banned by international conventions. Amply documented by scientific reports, the cruise missiles utilize depleted uranium “highly toxic to humans, both chemically as a heavy metal and radiologically as an alpha particle emitter”. Since the gulf War, depleted uranium (DU) has been a substitute for lead in bullets and missiles. According to scientists “it is most likely a major contributor to the Gulf War Syndrome experienced both by the veterans and the people of Iraq”. According radiobiologist Dr. Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health:

“When used in war, the depleted uranium (DU) bursts into flame [and] releasing a deadly radioactive aerosol of uranium, unlike anything seen before. It can kill everyone in a tank. This ceramic aerosol is much lighter than uranium dust. It can travel in air tens of kilometres from the point of release, or be stirred up in dust and resuspended in air with wind or human movement. It is very small and can be breathed in by anyone: a baby, pregnant woman, the elderly, the sick. This radioactive ceramic can stay deep in the lungs for years, irradiating the tissue with powerful alpha particles within about a 30 micron sphere, causing emphysema and/or fibrosis. The ceramic can also be swallowed and do damage to the gastro-intestinal tract. In time, it penetrates the lung tissue and enters into the blood stream. …It can also initiate cancer or promote cancers which have been initiated by other cancinogens”.

According to Paul Sullivan, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center:

“In Yugoslavia, it’s expected that depleted uranium will be fired in agricultural areas, places where livestock graze and where crops are grown, thereby introducing the spectre of possible contamination of the food chain.”

The New York based International Action Center called the Pentagon’s decision to use the A-10 “Warthog” jets against targets in Serbia “a danger to the people and environment of the entire Balkans”. (Truth in Media, 10 April 1999). In this regard, a report in from Greece:

“registered an increase in levels of toxic substances in the atmosphere of Greece, and said that Albania, Macedonia, Italy, Austria and Hungary all face a potential threat to human health as a result of NATO’s bombing of Serbia, which includes the use of radioactive depleted uranium shells”.(April 10, 1999, see Truth in Media, 10 April 1999).

The Plight of the Refugees

What is not conveyed by the international media, is that people of all ethnic origins including ethnic Albanians, Serbs and other ethnic groups are leaving Kosovo largely as a result of the bombing.

There are reports that ethnic Albanians have left Kosovo for Belgrade where they have relatives. There are 100,000 ethnic Albanians in Belgrade. The press has confirmed movements of ethnic Albanians to Montenegro. Montenegro has been portrayed as a separate country, as a safe-haven against the Serbs. The fact of the matter is that Montenegro is part of Yugoslavia.

*

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 has come under fresh criticism today over its controversial COVID-19 Track and Trace scheme, after admitting that, despite this week’s promise to “strengthen regional contact tracing”, the major firms involved in the controversial scheme will not actually be redeploying any of their staff to work regionally with local councils.

Outsourcing giants Serco and Sitel, tasked with running the scheme, have been under fire over reports of call handlers reaching less than half of the contacts of people who tested positive for COVID-19 in recent weeks, at a cost of over £900 per person traced.

This week the government announced a “new way of working” in which “NHS Test and Trace will provide local authorities with a dedicated team of contact tracers for local areas” – a move welcomed by experts who had long advocated a more localised approach.

However, the government now stands accused by Shadow health minister Justin Madders of “U-turning on the U-turn” – after admitting to openDemocracy that no Serco or Sitel staff would be moved to work with local councils.

Oldham – the site of a major COVID outbreak – had to build its own contact tracing system and is, according to Council Deputy Leader Arooj Shah, “already looking at what vital services we may have to cut to cover our COVID costs because the government hasn’t given us what it said it would”.

openDemocracy also understands that other councils tackling major COVID outbreaks are asking existing staff to redeploy from other work, and local citizens to volunteer unpaid, in order to provide the contact tracing services needed.

Allyson Pollock, a member of independent SAGE, has described the situation as “outrageous” – warning that large-scale lockdowns are “catastrophic for the economy [and] an indicator that the current test and trace system is not working”.

Failures to reach enough contacts nationally means, she says, that “local authorities are mopping up clusters after 2 days and that’s too late”.

She characterised the current system as a “misallocation” of public funds amounting to “maladministration” by the central government.

Serco and Sitel have been awarded contracts that could see them receive up to £718 million of public money, although the government has refused to say whether this figure has now been reduced, given the one third cut in staffing levels announced this week.

A ‘new way of working’

This week the government announced that the national Track and Trace service “will move from 18,000 to 12,000 contact tracers on 24 August with remaining teams to be deployed as part of dedicated local Test and Trace teams”.

The media reported this as a major change to the current system. The Times reported that “A third of the call centre staff are to be laid off and the rest deployed regionally to work with councils… Call centre staff who work nationally will be split into regional teams after complaints they were too remote from the people they were asking to isolate.” The BBC and rest of the press reported in a similar vein.

But under close questioning from openDemocracy, this version of events has fallen apart. In fact, the only people who will be “split into regional teams” and “deployed as part of dedicated local Test and Trace teams” are an entirely separate, much smaller group of clinically trained professionals working for Public Health England and the Department of Health, known as “Tier 2”, none of whom are part of the multi-million pound Serco/Sitel contracts.

The Department told openDemocracy that Serco and Sitel’s contracts had been extended beyond the initial review date of 23 August, and the outsourcing giants would continue to employ 12,000 generic national call handlers – known as “Tier 3” – but not, for the time being at least, in locally ringfenced teams. The Department confirmed that, “Our initial focus on ringfenced teams will involve Tier 2, and we will continue to review and develop our model.”

No extra cash for councils for now

Shadow Health Minister Justin Madders told openDemocracy there needed to be a “more straightforward and honest approach” by government rather than “what sounds like smoke and mirrors”, and urged the government to “swiftly reconsider their position”, adding: “If the government are going to continue to spend millions of pounds on a falling model with the private sector that doesn’t deliver the results we need then this has massive implications for the ability for the rest of the country to deliver the challenges that lie ahead.”

The Serco and Sitel contact tracing contracts specified payments of £190 million in total for the first three months, but also allow for the firms to be paid up to an additional £528 million as they are extended. It is not currently clear how long the contracts have been extended for, though as openDemocracy reported earlier this week, Sitel workers have been told it is for an initial period of a further 8 weeks from 24 August.

Asked about redirecting any of that money from the outsourcing firm to councils, the government said they had already allocated £300 million in June to be shared between local authorities “to support their local outbreak plans.”

The government acknowledged that those local authorities who have developed their own schemes “have used existing resources thus far”. They added they would “work with local authorities to refine that approach and make best use of all resources to achieve the best outcome.”

“Maladministration”

Oldham Council’s Labour Deputy Leader and COVID-lead told openDemocracy: “It’s impossible to do as good a job from a call centre hundreds of miles away… The government is insisting on spending public money with Sitel and Serco for reasons that can only be ideological.”

“The evidence is clear that we are better at this than private firms working nationally. It would be cheaper and deliver better results if the government trusted local authorities to take the lead.”

“Putting more responsibility on local authorities while funnelling resources to the private sector is even more unsustainable,” he said, adding that “we see people sat in call centres with nothing to do but watch Netflix because they’re not engaged in local teams.”

The extension of the private sector contracts to provide a broadly similar service as currently is “extraordinary”, Allyson Pollock, professor of public health and a member of independent SAGE, told openDemocracy.

“It’s actually maladministration because you’ve got misapplication and misallocation. There’s no transparency about the mechanics of the system and about how the money is flowing.”

Professor Pollock added: “The government needs to get this right so we can get on top of clusters. If local authorities are mopping up clusters after 2 days that’s too late, given that the national system is picking up less than 50% of cases. Councils should be doing the whole lot, not just the mopping up. Serco and Sitel are cherry picking and doing the easy bits and leaving the difficult stuff to local authorities.”

Campaign group WeOwnIt, which is calling for “not a penny more” to be paid to Serco and Sitel for these contracts, is organising a day of action on Tuesday 18 August.

The row comes amidst mounting disquiet about other major government COVID contracts which were similarly awarded without competition, or extended without consultation.

Serco earlier this week said that it had “played an important part in helping to reach hundreds of thousands of people who might otherwise have passed on the virus. Our team of call handlers has been 93% successful in persuading people to isolate where we are able to have conversations.”

*

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 Shutterstock

“I have never in my career faced so much difficulty attempting to trial monitor as in Julian Assange’s case.” — Rebecca Vincent, Director of International Campaigns for Reporters Without Borders.

***

There were bizarre scenes at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London today, as the extradition process of Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange (present via videophone from Belmarsh prison) was again delayed.

Proceedings were held up this morning so Assange could converse for the first time in five months with his legal team. The prosecution team failed to turn up at the hearing because they were told events started at 3:30 p.m. Only five members of the press were allowed to enter the courtroom to monitor proceedings. Other journalists, observers, and NGOs attempting to listen via telephone could not, as they were given the number to another courtroom. One journalist who did make it inside claimed that the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, was, “clearly reading from a pre-written ruling.”

Assange sat in a conference room used by the entire prison, without a mask, and was seen coughing a number of times. At one point, proceedings in the courtroom were interrupted by screaming coming from another booth in Belmarsh prison, loud enough to cause a delay. Present at the hearing, Assange’s mother, Christine, warned that he would not survive extradition to the United States.

Perhaps most bizarre, however, is that the United States Department of Justice dropped its original indictment in June, just two days after Assange’s defense team submitted their full and final evidence for the extradition hearing. Today was the first time Assange saw the charges against him. Yet they are almost identical to those previously issued, save for slightly broadening the scope to include some interactions with hacking groups in 2011. The U.S. D.O.J. itself admitted that their new indictment “does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019,” leading Wikileaks to allege that the U.S. is attempting to string the process along until after the November election, in order to avoid any negative consequences for the Trump administration.

“This was the worst hearing so far,” said Kristinn Hrafnsson, the organization’s current editor-in-chief. “The U.S. government seems to want to change the indictment every time the court meets, but without the defence or Julian himself seeing the relevant documents.”

If found guilty, Assange faces up to 175 years in prison.

The defense team, led by Edward Fitzgerald QC, was given a week to decide whether to ask for a hearing scheduled for September 7 to be postponed. However, they must do that without the input of their client, as Belmarsh prison denied them a post hearing video conference.

Assange’s kangaroo court

One consequence of the replacement indictment is the legality of even keeping the hacktivist publisher imprisoned. Baraitser stated that Assange has not even been arrested under the new indictment and is still being held under the old one that is now null and void.

Thus, to recap: the defendant (who is not even legally under arrest) had not even seen the “new” charges (which were the same as the old ones) or met with his defense team for five months, the judge was reportedly reading from a pre-written script, the prosecution did not turn up, journalists could not watch or listen to the proceedings, which were interrupted by screaming from the prison where Assange is being kept.

The farcical events were immediately denounced by onlookers.

“I have never in my career faced so much difficulty attempting to trial monitor as in Julian Assange’s case. Whether in person or remotely, there are constant barriers to access. Completely unacceptable,” said Rebecca Vincent, Director of International Campaigns for Reporters Without Borders.

Journalist Kevin Gosztola agreed:

“Having covered Chelsea Manning’s court martial in a US military court, let me say this clearly: Julian Assange isn’t even being granted the same minimal rights and the same standards of press access that Chelsea had. It’s much, much worse,” he wrote on Twitter.

In 1925, Bohemian writer Frantz Kafka’s posthumous book, “The Trial,” was published, from where we derive the term “Kafkaesque.” “The Trial” tells the story of Josef K., a man arrested and prosecuted in a nightmarish kangaroo court while unable to properly defend himself. Nearly 100 years later, the Australian publisher is being tried in his own kangaroo court, and Kafka’s dystopian fantasies do not seem so unrelatable.

*

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

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

Featured image: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.

The United States economy has been growing steadily over the last few years as indicated by the real Gross Domestic Product figures. However, the coronavirus health crisis has plunged the economy to the worst levels in about seven decades.

Data presented by Buy Shares indicates that the United States’ real GDP dropped by 32.9% in the second quarter of 2020. The drop initiated due to the pandemic is the worst since the second quarter of 1947 [when data collection started]. Notable drops were recorded in Q1 1958 by 10%. During Q2 of 1980, there was also a major drop of 8%.  During the recession at the end of Q4 2008, the real GDP declined by 8.4%.

The Buy Shares research also overviewed the real US GDP  figures between 2010 and Q2 2020. The highest GDP was recorded in 2019 at $19.09 trillion but slightly dropped to $19.01 trillion in the first quarter of this year.  By Q2 2020, the real GDP dropped by 9.5% to about $17.2 trillion. Over the last ten years, the lowest GDP was recorded in 2010 at $15.59 trillion, in a period when the country was recovering from the recession.

Covid-19 impact on the US economy

The decline in the US real GDP is a clear indicator of how the coronavirus pandemic has taken a toll on the country’s economy which has been growing steadily in the last five years. The drop means that consumers had to cut spending with businesses freezing investment while at the same time the global trade activity has slowed down. The pandemic led to widespread joblessness, with many businesses closing down.  The pandemic affected different key sectors like triggering a collapse in oil prices with most Americans staying at home while avoiding commuting.

For economists, positive GDP growth every year gives a picture of how the economy is flourishing. Elsewhere, with negative growth, economists view it as a recession or the economy is staring at a recession or downturn.  For investors, the GDP is important as it gives a clear picture of the stock market. When the GDP is undergoing negative growth, the stock market is heavily impacted. In the US, the stock market crashed in the middle of the pandemic but tech entities are lead.

Notably, the drop could have been worse if the government had not pumped trillions into the economy to support individuals and businesses. The recovery process for the economy might not be in sight considering that the country is yet to fully contain the health crisis. With some states imposing new measures like lockdowns, consumer spending might be slowed again. Additionally, the government support for businesses and individuals might come to an end soon.

The US economic recovery path

As the country continues to ponder on the best recovery path, there is increased pressure on both White House and Congress to agree on a second stimulus package with President Donald Trump stating that he was in no hurry. At the same time, a section of Republicans argues that the jobless benefits are discouraging some of the unemployed from looking for work.

According to economists, the US economy witnessed some bounce back around May and June but the pandemic economic shock inflicted so much damage in earlier months with the impact being felt in the later months. At the end of July, the United States’ much-anticipated rebound appeared to be stalling with about 1.4 million Americans filing for unemployment in the last week of the month. Notably, the International Monetary Fund also already predicted the global economy will fall at the end of this year.

At the moment, the general coronavirus outbreak path is not yet unknown. With different infection waves and lockdowns could cast doubt on the recovery path.  However, a medical breakthrough in terms of getting a vaccine might turntable by resulting in extensive normalization of the economy.

The known assumption is that once the pandemic gradually eases, and easing of lockdowns the economy globally will embark on recovery on its own. Therefore, long term economic projection might look positive compared to the current 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.

Justin is an editor, writer, and a downhill fan. He spent many years writing about banking, finances, blockchain, and digital assets-related news. He strives to serve the untold stories for the readers.

Featured image is from BuyShares.co.uk

‘Simply put, getting vaccinated is going to be our patriotic duty,’ and America should consider making it difficult for the unvaccinated to participate in society, three doctors wrote.

***

A coronavirus vaccine should be mandatory, and tax penalties, higher insurance premiums, and denial of many government and private services ought to be considered for those refusing the shot, two doctors and an attorney argued in USA Today on Thursday.

“[W]hile the measures that will be necessary to defeat the coronavirus will seem draconian, even anti-American to some, we believe that there is no alternative. Simply put, getting vaccinated is going to be our patriotic duty,” wrote Dr. Michael Lederman, Dr. Stuart Youngner, and Maxwell J. Mehlman.

There is no “alternative to vaccine-induced herd immunity in a pandemic,” they argued. “Broad induction of immunity in the population by immunization will be necessary to end this pandemic.”

The USA Today article, published August 6, is titled “Defeat COVID-19 by requiring vaccination for all. It’s not un-American, it’s patriotic.” Its original subhead (see screenshot below) read,

“Make vaccines free, don’t allow religious or personal objections, and punish those who won’t be vaccinated. They are threatening the lives of others.” It has since been changed to “Make vaccines free, don’t allow religious or personal objections, and create disincentives for those who refuse vaccines shown to be safe and effective.”

Screenshot of how the USA Today article’s subhead originally appeared, via Internet archive

“When a vaccine is ready,” the doctors wrote, it must be free and exemptions must only be made for people with “medical contraindications to immunization.”

But “medical conditions that prohibit all COVID-19 vaccines will be rare,” they claimed. No religious or personal objections to receiving the shot or shots should be honored, they wrote, and harsh penalties should be adopted by important sectors of society to pressure the populace to comply.

The physicians proposed,

“Private businesses could refuse to employ or serve unvaccinated individuals. Schools could refuse to allow unimmunized children to attend classes. Public and commercial transit companies — airlines, trains and buses — could exclude refusers. Public and private auditoriums could require evidence of immunization for entry.”

They then outlined how a “registry of immunization will be needed with names entered after immunization is completed.” People who receive the vaccine should be issued “certification cards” with expiration dates (“the durability of protection by different vaccines may vary and may require periodic booster immunizations”).

The concept of “immunization cards” or digital vaccine records was floated shortly before the coronavirus outbreak and since the virus has spread.

A December 2019 article in Scientific American described the vision of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers for embedding vaccine records “directly into the skin” of children.

“Along with the vaccine, a child would be injected with a bit of dye that is invisible to the naked eye but easily seen with a special cell-phone filter, combined with an app that shines near-infrared light onto the skin. The dye would be expected to last up to five years, according to tests on pig and rat skin and human skin in a dish.”

The development of this idea, which the article proudly noted avoids using “iris scans” that might violate privacy, was “funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” It “came about because of a direct request from Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates himself, who has been supporting efforts to wipe out diseases such as polio and measles across the world.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of Trump’s top pandemic advisers, said in April that he thought it was “possible” that one day Americans may have to carry certificates showing they are immune to the coronavirus.

“I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances,” he said.

Also in April, Gates speculated,

“Eventually, we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

Lederman, Mehlman, and Youngner concluded by comparing Americans’ fight against the coronavirus to World War I and World War II. Around 37 million casualties can be attributed to World War I, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. World War II was even deadlier, with 70 million to 85 million deaths– including those due to famine, the Holocaust, disease, and other war-related factors – being attributable to it.

As of press time, worldwide, there have been 20,383,417 million reported coronavirus cases but only 741,707 reported deaths. 13,281,928 people have contracted the virus and recovered. These numbers may not be accurate due to the unreliability of COVID-19 tests and reporting systems in the United States – which has seen people who were never even tested for the virus receive positive results, the governor of Ohio receiving both positive and negative test results on the same day, and at least one person who died in a motorcycle crash coded as a COVID-19 death – and the likelihood of communist China, where the virus originated, downplaying its infection and death rates.

During World War I and World War II,

“Everyone contributed, no one was allowed to opt out merely because it conflicted with a sense of autonomy, and draft dodgers who refused to serve were subject to penalties,” the doctors wrote. “True, conscientious objectors could refuse to use weapons for religious reasons, but they were obligated to help out in other ways, serving in noncombatant roles. There are no such alternatives for vaccination.”

In a recent online debate on mandatory vaccinations, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pointed out that a significant percentage of participants in a recent trial for a leading coronavirus vaccine have been hospitalized.

Kennedy, a liberal environmental attorney and member of the Kennedy political dynasty, also noted that several of the coronavirus vaccine developers, a number of which have received funding from Bill Gates, have been forced to pay billions of dollars in criminal penalties related to their medical products.

“It requires a cognitive dissonance for people who understand the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with vaccines,” Kennedy said.

In an April 9 article, Kennedy wrote:

“Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.”

Kennedy has been raising awareness about those injured by vaccines since before the coronavirus outbreak and has now emerged as one of the strongest voices against a forced COVID-19 vaccine.

Many immunizations are made from cell lines of aborted babies, and a number of the coronavirus vaccines being developed are also using immorally obtained fetal cell lines.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced today that his country has approved the world’s first coronavirus vaccine and that one of his daughters received both doses of it. “Questions over its [the vaccine’s] safety remain,” noted one CNN headline, with another asking, “ … would you take a vaccine from Vladimir Putin?”

*

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 Shutterstock

It seems that whoever wins the presidency, United States foreign policy will keep chugging away at intervening across the world, including via “regime change” efforts. Over the last couple decades, targets for US-government-supported overthrow have included Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Belarus also appears to be in the US government’s crosshairs. If its government holds back through January the effort seeking to topple it, Belarus looks sure to remain a US target for regime change during either a second term of President Donald Trump or a first term of President Joe Biden.

On Monday, as revolutionaries in Belarus capital Minsk attempted to oust the Belarus government, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden issued interchangeable statements regarding Belarus and US policy toward it. Both Pompeo’s statement and Biden’s statement condemned the government of Belarus, called fraudulent the country’s recent national election in which President Aleksander Lukashenko won reelection by a wide margin, and made demands upon the Belarus government.

The statements of Pompeo and Biden may not seem so threatening if you imagine them coming from the government of a country of average population, economic strength, military power, and tendency to intervene in other countries. The comments could then just be understood as politicians spouting off or being relatively harmless buttinskis.

It is different when the pronouncements are made by a top foreign affairs official of the US and the potential next president of the US. The US presides over a large population country with major economic resources. The US has military bases and ships, as well as covert operatives, across the world. The US has a long and ongoing history of pursuing, and often achieving, the overthrow of governments through actions including invasions, assassinations, sanctions, election meddling, and the financing and coordinating of coups and revolutions.

In 2015, during the Barack Obama administration in the US and after another wide-margin reelection win by Lukashenko in Belarus, Ron Paul Institute Executive Director Daniel McAdams discussed the US government’s disdain for Lukashenko and the Belarus government. McAdams wrote in part:

Lukashenko has been a favorite punching bag of the US and western neocons for a number of years because he has not shown the required level of deference to his would-be western overlords compared to, say, the Baltics. He routinely wins re-election even as the US government has funneled millions of dollars into the political opposition in hopes of somehow fomenting a regime change.

Don’t believe the sanctimonious comments, whether from the Trump administration or the Biden campaign, about the US seeking to promote democracy and human rights in Belarus. This is about power. The US has let slide and continues to let slide democratic and human rights shortcomings of countries across the world where benefit can be obtained. Dictatorship? No problem. The expression of concern about democracy and human rights is propaganda selectively applied to stir up support for, or at least quell opposition to, US intervention abroad.

Pompeo and Biden’s statements regarding Belarus help make clear that overthrowing governments appears set to remain a feature of US foreign policy no matter if Trump wins a second term or Biden defeats him in the upcoming November presidential election.

*

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 TRIPP

The following research article aims at exploring the issue of history of settler colonialism in Palestine. It will tackle three different settler colonial projects that were established in Arab Palestine: the German Templers, the Jewish and the Zionist.

In the beginning, the research article will provide a background that will deal with British imperial interests in Palestine and how they were related to both trade and communication routes and the concept of a buffer state.

British Imperial Interests in Palestine

There were two trade and communication routes that connected Britain with its markets and colonies in the East, a long one around the Cape of Good Hope and a short one that passed through the Ottoman Empire.Both routes were vulnerable and needed protection.

The search for protection of the trade and communication routes by British strategists and politicians coincided with the search for a viable solution to the Jewish Question, namely finding a solution for the Jewish refugees who began to immigrate from East Europe to West Europe. The British imperialists came up with the idea of establishing a buffer state in Palestine as a solution to both problems.

Vulnerable Trade and Communication Routes

Palestine was targeted to become a British colony for one reason: its strategic location. Its location on the cross roads of Europe, Africa and Asia, gave it an important strategic location. Moreover, Palestine was located on the trade and communication route that connected Britain with its colonies and spheres of interest in the East[1]  which in turn possessed a huge market that was vital for British capitalism. The importance of this market increased after Britain lost thirteen colonies in North America.[2]

Prior to the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, a trade and communication route, connected Britain with the East. It passed through Egypt, beginning in Alexandria, then went by land to Cairo, then by land to the Suez City, then through the Red Sea to the East. It should be pointed out that this route was first operated by Britain by “…using horse-drawn vehicles and, later, trains …”[3] as means to pass the land part of it. The trains connected Alexandria with Cairo, then Cairo with Suez City.It could be called a sea-land-sea route. This route was used by the British to transport troops, merchandise, travelers and post.

Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 and Palestine in 1799, led to the closure of this route and highlighted its vulnerability. Mohammed Ali’s invasion of Syria in 1831, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire, and his attempt to create an Arab Empire encompassing all the Arabic-speaking Ottoman subjects, had alarmed the British and other imperialists.[4] His invasion of Syria resulted in the closure of this route for nine years (1831-1840). These two military incursions constituted a real threat to imperialist interests. They specifically threatened the vulnerable trade and communication route.

In 1840 Mohammed Ali’s political military designs in the Syria were frustrated when the European imperialist powers of Britain, Germany, France, Russia and Austria-Hungary united in a military coalition and defeated the Egyptian army.[5]

It was precisely under these circumstances of wars and fierce European rivalry over markets and spheres of influence, that some British imperialist politicians began to look for ways and means of protecting this vulnerable trade and communication route. The British solution for such a problem was the creation of an artificial colonial settler state in Palestine, which at that time was supposed to form as a buffer state separating Mohammed Ali’s Egypt from the rest of the Ottoman Empire.

Moreover, when the Suez Canal was opened in 1869, British imperialist interests in Palestine achieved more weight. The Suez Canal occupied a pivotal position on the trade route that connected Britain with its colonies especially India. Therefore, the establishment of a settler state became imperative for the protection of the Suez Canal. It should be pointed out that the Suez Canal shortened the distance between Britain and the East.

…when opened it was realized that it shortened by some considerable distance the journey to India. The distance around the Cape to Bombay was 10,450 miles but just 6,000 miles through the canal. The opening of the canal increased the need for Britain to remain the dominant power in the Middle East as it was now India’s lifeline.  The Middle East became henceforth a major focal point of British interest.[6]

The first European statesman to propose the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine was Napoleon Bonaparte who called for it in 1799[7], namely 97 years prior to Herzl’s call. Later on, a group of British politicians, strategists, archaeologists, and scholars, advocated the same idea in the period 1838-1902.

Due to capitalist developments inside feudalist Europe, Jewish refugees began to emigrate from East European countries to West Europe. This coincided with the rise of anti-Semitism. This European Jewish problem demanded a solution.

In 1838[8], Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury[9] drew up a detailed project for the settlement of Jews in Palestine under British protection. This venture predated both the rise of Political Zionism and Theodor Herzl’s call by 58 years. Shaftesbury presented his project to the British government as well as to other Western governments.[10] Lord Shaftesbury justified his colonial project as follows.

Syria and Palestine will before long become very important. … The country wants capital and population. The Jews can give it both. And has not England a special interest in promoting such restoration? It would be a blow to England if either of her rivals should hold of Syria. Her Empire reaching from Canada in the West to Calcutta and Australia in the South East would be cut in two…[11]

Shaftesbury added that the British Empire

… must preserve Syria to herself. Does not policy there … exhort England to foster the nationality of the Jews and aid them … to return as leavening power to their old country? … To England then, naturally, belongs the role of favoring the settlement of Jews in Palestine.[12]

Shaftesbury’s idea of Jewish settlement was adopted by foreign secretary Henry Palmerstone[13] who in 1840 sent a letter to the then British Ambassador to Istanbul, in which he asked him to deliberate with the Ottoman authorities the idea of Jewish settlement in Palestine. Palmerstone stated in his letter that the “Jewish people if returning [to Palestine] under the sanction and protection and at the invitation of the Sultan, would be a check upon any future evil designs of Mohammed Ali or his successor.”[14]

There were other colonialists who recognized the strategic importance of Palestine and who regarded the Jewish refugees of Europe as candidate colonizers who were available to colonize and hold Palestine under British aegis. These colonialists included: Colonel Charles Henry Churchill (1841) who took part in war against Mohammed Ali in Syria[15], E.L. Milford[16], a friend of Palmerstone (1845), the Italian philosopher and politician Benedetto Musolino (1851), Colonel George Gawler, former governor of South Australia (1852), founder of the International Red CrossJean Henri Dunant(1863), who founded the Palestine Colonization Society in Londonin 1875, Charles Warren and Claude Reignier Conder from the Palestine Exploration Fund (1865), and the British industrialist and economist Edward Gazalet.[17]

All these imperialists proposed the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine prior to the emergence of the Zionist movement in 1897 and prior to the publication of Theodore Herzl’spamphlet The Jewish Statein 1896. Therefore, the very idea of establishing a Jewish State in Arab Palestine was originally not a Zionist idea but an imperialist idea. It was a colonialist venture that was deemed as a necessary step in safeguarding vulnerable imperialist trade and communication routes that connected Britain with its colonies and markets in the East. Herzl and other Zionists simply adopted this imperialist idea and decided to establish administrative and financial means to implement it. Zionism in other words, exploited an existing imperialist idea and capitalized on a proper opportunity and readiness of British imperialism to implement this grand colonialist scheme.

European Settler Colonialism in Palestine (1882-1899)

Historically speaking, Arab Palestine has witnessed the establishment of three types of European settler colonial projects: German, Jewish and Zionist.

• The Templers Settler Colonial Project

Prior to the beginning of Jewish settler colonialism, a German religious group called the Templers exhibited interest in colonizing Palestine. Few of them came to Palestine in 1868, purchased land and within seven years, founded a German colony in Haifa. The settlers soon reached more than 300 people. They owned 3000 dunums of land (800 acres), 85 buildings, and two flour mills. Later on, the Templers established six more settlements: Jaffa (1869), Sarona (1878), Jerisalem (1878), Wilhema (1902), Galilean Bethlehem (1906) and Waldheim (1907).[18]

The Templers were professional artisans and farmers. They “…had no nationalist aspirations but were content with the autonomous status they had achieved within their colonies…”. They were motivated by religious beliefs and religious oriented ideology. They regarded that colonizing Palestine “…was part of the fulfillment of their faith. The Holy Land had to be prepared for the Second Coming of Christ, which was to occur in the year 2000.”[19]

After they occupied Palestine, the British colonial authorities treated the Templers as German citizens and in July and August 1918 they decided to deport

…850 Templers to an internment camp at Helwan near Cairo in Egypt. In April 1920, 350 of these internees were deported to Germany. All the property of the Templers was regarded as belonging to an enemy nationality (except of that of a few US citizens among them). Thus, it was taken into public custodianship.[20]

With the rise of Nazism in Germany, the majority of the Templers began to identify with the Nazi ideology. As a result, the British colonial authorities began to treat them as enemy aliens. In 1941, the British colonial authorities deported 661 Templers to Australia and confiscated their property.[21] With the deportation of the Templer settlers, there came an end to their settler colonial project in Palestine.

• The Jewish Colonization of Palestine (1882-1899)

In addition to the Templers colonial project, Palestine had witnessed two types of colonization projects, a Jewish non-Zionist settler colonial project and a Zionist settler colonial project.  There are fundamental differences between these two types especially regarding their attitude towards the utilization of indigenous labor potential, their final political objectives and their colonial metropolis (mother country).

As a direct result of the conflict with settlers over land, all indigenous societies have undergone profound class restructuring. Colonial projects are initially carried out by the coercive radical change of land proprietors.[22] The possible options in the relationship of both settlers and indigenous people could include any of the following combinations.

The colonial enterprise involves in the first place the capture of land and other physical resources. One possibility after this has occurred in the development of an estate system in which new owners either develop the land in the form of large estates which they either work themselves in such non-labor intensive activities as sheep-rearing, or let out in smaller lots of tenant farmers. More commonly, however, the possession of the land by itself is not enough. Those who have been expelled from the land have to be compelled by one means or another to work for the new proprietor.[23]

Jewish non-Zionist colonization of Palestine began by the English Jewish banker Sir Moses Montefiore who in 1855 bought a citrus orchard adjacent to Jaffa.[24] Montefiore “made various plans which would, he hoped, lead to a resettlement of Jews in the country.”[25] He did not secure satisfactory conditions from the Ottoman authorities, therefore he decided to assist the Palestinian Jews, who were already residing in Palestine, by improving their living conditions through agricultural work.[26] In short, he failed to attract any Jewish settlers to Palestine.

Moses Montefiore was “not interested in creating a Jewish state, he did regard the normalization of Jewish life through self-supporting labor, as essential.”[27] However, the accumulated impact of his project has contributed to the development of Jewish colonization efforts.

A more successful colonization project was initiated by Baron Edmond de Rothschild, a capitalist French Jew, who established a settler colonial project in Palestine in order to secure two goals: (1) a haven for East European Jewish refugees[28] fleeing anti-Semitic massacres that took place in East Europe and the Russian Empire, and immigrated to West Europe; (2) establishing a ‘sphere of influence` for French imperialism[29] in the Ottoman Empire.

Between 1882 and 1899, Edmund de Rothschild established 19 Jewish colonial settlements and a Jewish agricultural school[30] on lands he purchased in Palestine in 1853. “The Baron bought land from the feudal Effendis[31], sometimes by bribing the Ottoman administration, and then drove the fellahin[32] off the land…”[33]  The landless Palestinian peasants and ex-tenants of the land, were later hired by the Baron as seasonal and cheap agricultural workers.

The Baron’s colonial activity in Palestine “… clashed with the Palestine Arabs over one fundamental issue – land ownership …”[34] He bought a total of 275,000[35] dunams[36] of arable land, and this fact led to the dispossession and pauperisation of many Palestinian Arab tenant farmers.

In 1900, the Baron terminated his colonial venture by transferring his colonial settlements to the Jewish Colonisation Association (ICA) which was led and financed by Baron Maurice Hirsch[37], a German Jewish capitalist.

Jewish colonization of Palestine was carried out as a service to French imperialism. Its implementation was done in accordance with the classical examples of Western settler colonialism, of large estates, cheap indigenous labor, and colon settlement. Such a colonial project, if continued, could have developed Palestine into a typically settler colonialist entity similar to French Algeria, South Africa and Rhodesia. However, the advance of Political Zionism gave Palestine a different brand of settler colonialism.

• Zionist Settler Colonialism

Settler colonialism had been used by the highly developed Western powers as a means of expanding European capitalism through the barrel of the gun. Political Zionism had been used as an agent for the implementation of this expansion in the Middle East. Therefore, Zionist settler colonialism could be regarded as the most important wave of direct European capitalist expansion that ever took place in the Middle East.

Unlike the non-Zionist Jewish colonization of Palestine, Political Zionism has entirely been focused on statehood. Since its very inception in 1897, Political Zionism had devoted its efforts for the establishment of a Jewish state, initially in Cyprus, Sinai, Uganda, Portuguese Angola, Libya, Palestine[38] and Argentine.[39] However, later historical developments made Palestine become the sole option for the establishment of a Zionist settler colonial state.

• Similarities and Differences

Both Jewish settlement and Zionist settlement in Palestine were settler colonial projects. They began by purchasing Palestinian land then establishing colonies to which they attracted European Jews. Both projects exhibited similarities; nevertheless, they also bore fundamental differences in their conduct and practice.

One of the factors that distinguish Zionist from Jewish colonization is that the Zionist idea of establishing a Jewish state was never envisaged by neither Rothschild nor his predecessors Montefiore and Hirsch.  As Richard Stevens, an American author, remarked:

… While the philosophy of Montefiore and the Rothschilds might have been predisposed in favor of Jewish settlement in Palestine, they and other Western Jews were also willing to see Jewish settlement in various other countries as concrete solutions to particular problems of anti-Semitism. Jewish statehood was not envisaged. …[40]

Neither Montefiore, nor Baron Rothschild were Zionists, and the latter “… was soon criticized by the Zionists for his paternalistic administration of Jewish colonies and for permitting the development of a Jewish planter class dependent upon the labor of Arab farm laborers. …”[41]

In addition to Jewish workers, Jewish settler colonies employed Palestinian Arab workers in their agricultural settlements. They developed economic relations with the surrounding Palestinian Arab villages and exchanged goods with the Palestinian Arab peasants. Some of the Jewish settlers adopted the “Kafia”, an Arab head dress and this could be clearly observed in old photographs of these settlers.

Britain ruled[42] over Palestine as a colonial power in the period 1918 – 1948. It was under British protection and authority that Zionist settler colonialist project was set in motion. As French author Maxime Rodinson remarked:

… Although very few Zionists had come from Great Britain, this country, in regard to Palestine, played the role of mother country for a colony that was being settled, because, like it or not, it had protected the formation and growth of the Yishuv[43] as it had, for example, once protected British colonization in North America, and as France had protected French colonization in Algeria…[44]

Faced by the problem of “undercutting” by the Palestinian cheap labor, the Zionist settler workers

… found a way out of the deadlock by contracting an alliance with organized Zionism, which was at bottom a marriage of convenience, Jewish labor got the benefit of political sympathy and, more importantly, of economic subsidy to workers and their collective institutions. In return, their leaders undertook to manage the labor movement by Zionist criteria – which included keeping Arabs out of both jobs and workers’ organizations in the Jewish sector.[45]

The campaign for strict racial exclusiveness within the settlers’ economy was envisaged and led by left wing Zionists, by the all-Jewish Mapai[46] party and by the Histadrut[47] an all-Jewish trade union. To implement their policy they used violence: “… [T]he Mapai leadership stepped up its commitment to the sanctity of all-Jewish labor and supported violent efforts to force Arabs out of their jobs – efforts impregnated with racist and nationalist rhetoric which parts of the labor elite believed possessed considerable ‘educational` value …”[48] As this first result, a total of 6,500 Palestinian agricultural workers who worked inside the Baron’s settlements were replaced by Zionist settler workers.[49]

Another aspect of this racial exclusiveness was implemented by the Histadrut, the Jewish labor union in Palestine. Since its foundation in 1920, the Histadrut did not play a trade unionist role dedicated to the defense of workers’ rights and interests. It opted for a colonial role based on inter-class solidarity and collaboration between the Zionist colonial bourgeoisie and the settler workers, and on racial exclusiveness in jobs and trade union membership.[50]

Both, the Histadrut and the left-wing Zionist parties preferred class collaboration with the Zionist colonial bourgeoisie and not class solidarity among all workers in Palestine, Jews and Arabs. In fact, “…trade unionism remained only a secondary concern for the Histadrut centre, and its leadership was inclined to restrain the workers’ pursuit of their immediate interests in the context of the employment relation. …” [51]

As a reflection of their ideology of racial exclusiveness, the left-wing Zionist leadership coined a number of racist slogans such as “Kiboosh H’avoda”[52] (conquest of work) and “Avoda ‘Ebrit”(Hebrew work) as rallying slogans for settler workers. Another racist slogan added to the former, was “Tutseret Ha’aretz”[53] which called on colonial settlers to boycott Palestinian produce and buy Jewish produce only.  Another racist slogan to be added is that of “Kibush Hakark’a”[54] (conquest of land) or “Kark’a ‘Ebrit”(Jewish land) which called for the exclusive ownership and tenancy of Zionist purchased land. All these racist slogans were adopted by the Histadrut and the Zionist settler colonialist parties.

In a frank admission of the racist character, stemming from the racial exclusiveness of Zionist practice, David Hacohen,[55] a left-wing Zionist, reported the following reminiscences:

I remember being one of the first of our comrades to go to London after the First World War.  … There I became a socialist. … When I joined the socialist students – English, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, African – we found that we were all under English domination or rule. And even here, in these intimate surroundings, I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guards at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there. … To pour Kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the KerenKayemet[Jewish Land Fund] that sent Hankin to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi[land lords] and to throw the fellahin[peasants] off the land – to buy dozens of dunamsfrom an Arab is permitted, but to sell, God forbids, one Jewish dunamto an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild, the incarnation of capitalism, as a socialist and to name him the “benefactor” – to do all that was not easy. And despite the fact that we did it – maybe we had no choice – I was not happy about it.[56]

The Zionist colonial policy of economic exclusion was not without historical precedent. It had been employed by settler colonial bourgeoisies elsewhere to establish their own economic base and their own market. However, Zionist economic exclusiveness had led to the creation of a dual economy in Palestine: an advanced European capitalist enclave based on both capitalist industry and agriculture, and a colonized, developing capitalist economy that was based on capitalist agriculture and an emerging industrial base. Moreover, the Zionist colonial economy had developed during the period 1900-1948 in complete isolation from the basically Palestinian agrarian-based economy. Zionist economic activity in the field of production and marketing was carried out separately.[57]

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion both Jewish and Zionist settlement in Palestine were settler colonialist projects. They differed on three major aspects: (1) The Zionist settler colonial project aimed at the creation of a Jewish state, while the Jewish settler colonial project aimed at the creation of a sphere of influence for French imperialism; (2) The Jewish settler colonialist project employed indigenous Palestinian Arab workers on their land, while the Zionist settler colonial project opposed the employment of Palestinian Arab workers in their agricultural estates; (3) Both settler colonial projects were supported by two different metropolises. The metropolis for the Jewish settler colonial project was French imperialism, while the metropolis for the Zionist settler colonial project was British imperialism.

*

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, Israel. 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]These colonies were India, Cylon, Burma, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and parts of China. In addition to these countries, British markets were also located in the Ottoman Empire, including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, the Gulf area, and South Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, and other regions (ZS).

[2]The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1974) Vol. 4 (15th Edition), (London: William Benton) p. 892

[3]History.com editors, Suez Canal,, 21-8-2018

[4]Lutsky, Vladimir (1975) The Modern History of the Arab Countries –in Arabic (Moscow: Progress Publishers) pp 102-145, pp. 131 – 132

[5]Ibid., pp 102-145

[6]The British Empire, “The Opening of the Suez Canal”, http://www.britishempire.me.uk. Retrieved on: 11-6-2020

[7]Sherif, Regina (1983)Non-Jewish Zionism (London: Zed Press), pp. 61, 51

[8]Ibid., p.  158

[9]Lord Shaftesbury was an anti -Semite.  He consistently opposed granting civil emancipation for English Jews and opposed their entry to Parliament. Lord Shaftesbury thought of Jews as being “stiff-necked, dark-hearted people, and sunk in moral degredation, obduracy and ignorance of the Gospel, and were not worthy of salvation.” Look in W.T. Gidney (1908) The History of the London Society for the Restoration of Christianity among the Jews(London: Centennial issue), as quoted by Regina, Sherif, op. cit., p. 128

[10]Makachy, Yona, “Christian Zionism”,Zionism, (Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1973), p. 233

[11]Sokolow, Nahum,History of Zionism, 2 vols., Passim, index., p. 207.  As quoted by Jabbour, George (1970) Settler Colonialism in Southern Africa and the Middle East(Beirut: PLO Research Center), p. 23

[12]Ibid.

[13]The British statesman Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston (1784 – 1865), served in Whig governments as foreign secretary (1830-34, 1835-41, 1846-51) and home secretary (1852-55) and was twice prime minister (1855-58, 1859-65). Southgate, Donald,“Palmerston, Henry”, The Academic American Encyclopedia (1996 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia Version), copyright (C) 1996, Grolier, Inc. Danbury, CT, USA.

[14]As quoted by Jabbour, George, op. cit., p. 22

[15]Ibid., p. 132

[16]Sharif, Regina,  “Christians for Zion”, op. cit., p. 131

[17]Makachy, Yona, op. cit., p. 235

[18]Yazbak, Mahmoud, “Templars as Proto-Zionists?”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Summer, 1999), pp. 40-54,  https://www.jstor.org, Accessed: 21-01-2020.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Wikimili, “Wilhelma, Palestine”, https://wikimili.com, 3-11-2019

[21]David, “Nazis – in Israel, the Templars”, https://strangeside.com. Retrieved on: 12-6-2020

[22]Rex, John (1970)Race Relations In Sociological  Theory(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul), p. 38

[23]Ibid.

[24]Lutsky, Vladimir, op. cit., p. 158

[25]Parkes, James (1970) Whose Land?,(Middlesex: Penguin Books) p. 229

[26]Ibid.

[27]Blumberg, Arnold (2007)Zion Before Zionism 1838–1880. (Jerusalem: Devora Publishing). As quoted by: Goodman, Bonnie K. , “British Colonel Charles Henry Churchill’s letter to Sir Moses Montefiore”, http://blogs.timesofisrael.com, 15-6-2018

[28]Bober, Arie (1972) “ The Palestine Problem ”, The Other Israel, (New York: Anchor Books), p. 37

[29]Ibid.

[30]Weinstock, Nathan (1979)Zionism:  False Messiah(trans. and edited by Alan Adler), (London: Ink Links), p. 67

[31]Effendi is a Turkish word that means land lord. It also denotes a respectable official of the Ottoman administration. (ZS)

[32]Fellahin is the Arabic word for peasants.(ZS)

[33]Bober, Arie , op. cit., p. 38

[34]Bober, op. cit., p. 38

[35]Israel Margalith’s (1957)Le baron Edmond de Rotschild et la colonisation juive en Palestine 1882-1889(Paris: Name of publisher unknown), p p. 141-142. As quoted by Weinstock, op. cit., p. 66

[36]One dunum equals 0.23 acres or 1000 squared meters.(ZS)

[37]Ibid.

[38]Stevens, Richard P. (1972)Zionism And Palestine Before The Mandate: A Phase of Western Imperialism(Beirut: The Institute for  Palestine Studies) pp. 14 – 19

[39]Herzl, Theodore, (1896) The Jewish State, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Retrieved on: 14-6-2020

[40]Stevens, Richard P., op. cit., p.7

[41]Ibid., pp. 10-11

[42]British rule over Palestine is usually characterised in numerous sources as the “British Mandate” (1922-1948). I do think that this is a misnomer because it does not correspond to reality. Instead of preparing the people of Palestine for self-government and independence as the Mandate should have been, the British rule treated Palestine as a typical British colony and the “Mandate” was nothing but a cloak for the transformation of Palestine into a Zionist settler colonialist entity. In addition, the British “Mandate” over Palestine was very much similar to South Africa’s “Mandate” over Namibia. Both Namibia and Palestine were brutally transformed into settler colonialist projects by the administrators of a theoretical Mandate that acted as a camouflage for classical colonialist policies (ZS).

[43]Yishuv,  is the Hebrew word for the Zionist settler society in Palestine. It was used only in the period 1900 – 1948 (ZS).

[44]Rodinson, Maxime (1973) Israel: A Colonial-Settler State?. New York: Monad Press, p.  64

[45]Shalev, Michael (1992) Labour and the Political Economy in Israel(Oxford: Oxford University Press) p. 35

[46]Mapai is the Hebrew abbreviation of “Workers of the Land of Israel Party” (ZS).

[47]Histadrut is the “General Confederation of  Jewish  Workers in Palestine” which was established by the Zionists in 1920. (ZS)

[48]Shalev, op. cit., p. 42

[49]Simpson, John Hope (1930) Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development  (London: Cmd. 3686) p. 55. As quoted by Abdo-Zubi, Nahla (1987) Family, Women and Social Change in the Middle East: The Palestinian Case (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press) p. 18

[50]Shalev, op. cit., pp. 40-41

[51]Ibid., p. 40

[52]Bober, Arie, op. cit., p. 11

[53]Ibid.

[54]Ibid.

[55]David Hacohen, is one of the leaders of the Mapai Zionist party which dominated Israeli politics. Hacohen was a member of the Israeli parliament for many years and chairman of its most important committee, the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee. (ZS)

[56]Speech delivered by David Hacohen to the secretariat of the Mapai party in November 1969, Ha’aretzdaily (Hebrew), Nov. 15, 1969. As quoted by Bober, Arie, op. cit., p. 12

[57]Kamen, Charles S. (1991) Little Common Ground, (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press) p. 69

Featured image is from IMEMC

Last week, I asked, “Will Trump’s Maximum Pressure on UNSC against Lifting Iran Arms Embargo Backfire Big Time?”

As Iran’s IRNA news service reports today, the answer was a resounding “Yes!”

On Friday, the United Nations Security Council took up a resolution presented by US ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft, aimed at an indefinite extension of the UN arms embargo on Iran. Only one of the 15 members, the Dominican Republic, supported the US resolution. Eleven abstained. And two–Russia and China, voted against it. The resolution would have needed 8 to pass and would have needed to avoid a veto by one of the five permanent members.

But it failed by 13 to 2. China and Russia did not even have to brandish a veto. It is hard to remember another vote on which the US was humiliated quite this badly, though if George W. Bush had actually pursued a UNSC authorization for his Iraq War in spring of 2003, he might have similarly gone down to epochal diplomatic defeat.

Let us underline this. The most powerful countries in the world and the current representatives of the main global blocs just sided with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei against Donald J. Trump.

The United States is no longer the leader of the free world.

The 2015 Iran nuclear deal signed between that country and the five permanent members of the UNSC stipulated that the arms embargo would lapse on October 18, 2020. The Trump administration, along with allies Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, wanted to avert the end of the ban on selling weapons to Iran.

The UN Security Council has five permanent members– Russia, China, France, the UK and the US. It has another ten rotating members. Right now they are Belgium, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Germany, Indonesia, Niger, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Tunisia, and Viet Nam. I was a little surprised that South Africa and Viet Nam did not outright vote against, though I suppose they thought abstention made their point well enough and was less likely to anger the mercurial Trump. The US only finally lifted a longstanding arms embargo on Viet Nam a few years ago.

One of the functions of the secretary of state of the United States is to politick with other countries in such a way as to ensure the US gets its way. When that isn’t possible, at the very least a public humiliation should be avoided. SecState Mike Pompeo accomplished neither one. He was so inept and so huge a failure at this diplomatic demarche that the US language went down to crushing defeat.

It was obvious to me that this would happen a week ago.

Just on Thursday, Russia’s Tass reported That Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, had tweeted out that the extension of an arms embargo against Iran is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which provides for a resumption of the supply of arms and military equipment to Iran in the wake of the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov had already made it clear in June that this was the Russian position.

Russia and China clearly see Iran as a market for their arms industries, and won’t let Washington get in the way.

IRNA quoted the new Belgian ambassador to the UN, Philippe Kridelka, as saying that his country abstained on the US initiative because Brussels strongly believes that Iran’s nuclear program must remain within the framework of the JCPOA.

Belgium, Germany, Britain and France all abstained on these grounds. They are afraid that if the arms embargo is kept in place, in contravention of the 2015 nuclear accord, Iran will simply withdraw from it, as Trump already has, and will then be free to pursue any nuclear ambitions it has, unconstrained by inspections or the other severe restraints of the JCPOA.

Pompeo is now threatening to try to invoke a provision of the Iran nuclear deal that allows signatories to it to erase the gains Iran made in that treaty on the grounds that Iran has not strictly observed the provisions of the treaty.

Iran was in fact in complete compliance until May, 2018, when Trump breached the treaty and placed the most severe sanctions on Iran ever placed on any country by another in peace time. Since then Tehran has departed from compliance in minor ways, so as to put pressure on Europe to defy Trump’s third-party economic sanctions, which have had the effect of devastating Iran’s trade. Europe has not in fact defied Trump. Since Iran gave up 80% of its nuclear program to get sanctions relief, and has instead seen sanctions turbocharged, Tehran understandably feels betrayed.

The rest of the UNSC thinks Pompeo’s idea is crazy, that he can trigger the snap back provision even though the US pulled out of the treaty, telling CNN, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

Some observers are so puzzled by the Trump administration’s Himalayan ineptitude that they expressed suspicions that it was trying to fail at the UNSC for some nefarious purpose. Me, I think ineptitude is the better explanation.

If a US snap back resolution is sent to the UNSC, it will receive a humiliating response, just as happened on Friday. And that will be more ineptitude, not signs of grand strategy.

Some fear that Trump will then try to sanction countries that sell arms to Iran, using its status as the world’s sole superpower to overrule the UNSC and so irreparably damaging its effectiveness, beginning a process of destroying the United Nations Organization.

China has already made it clear that it will adopt Iran as its next big economic project, regardless of what Washington wants, and China’s gross domestic product by purchasing power parity now rivals that of the US (since it is handing the coronavirus recession much better than Trump, its relative economic strength over the US could grow the rest of this year).

So I think it is more likely that Trump will dull the US sanctions blade than that he will be able to use it to decapitate the United Nations.

*

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.

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment. He is Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Follow him on Twitter at @jricole or the Informed Comment Facebook Page

Several recent developments in Russian-Belarusian relations — in particular, Belarus’ return of 32 suspected Wagner mercenaries to Russia, Belarusian opposition leader Tsepkalo’s departure from Russia, and the two phone calls between Presidents Putin and Lukashenko — hint that bilateral ties might soon return to their formerly fraternal level, though the fact of the matter is that Minsk simply doesn’t have any realistic option other than to re-engage Moscow (albeit on the latter’s terms) after the dramatic failure of the former’s “balancing” act and is thus destined to be Russia’s “little brother” instead of its “equal brother”.

The city of Minneapolis is where it all began. It is where the last drop fell on the surface of a proverbial overflowing lake, causing the dam to burst, consequently starting to destroy the foundations of the empire.

A death of just one single man can, under certain dreadful circumstances, put into motion the entire avalanche of events. It can smash the whole regime into pieces. It can fully rewrite history, and even change the identity of a nation. It can… although it not always does.

George Floyd’s death became a spark. The city of Minneapolis is where the murder occurred, and where the ethnic minorities rose in rage.

But it is also where white extreme right-wing criminals, and some even say, entire regime, perpetrated the uprising, kidnapped what could have become a true revolution and began choking legitimate rebellion by a stained duvet of nihilism and confusion.

Here, we will not speculate. We will not point fingers at “deep state” or some multi-billionaire families, and to what extent they have been involved. Let others do this if they know details. But this time, I simply came to listen. And to pass to the world what I discovered first hand and what I was told.

This time I simply went to Franklin Avenue and Lake Street, both in Minneapolis.

I spoke to Native American people there. To those who joined forces with the African-American community during those dangerous days after May 25, 2020. To people who dared to defend their neighborhoods against brutality against white gangs, which came to loot, infiltrate, and derail the most powerful uprising in the United States in modern history.

***

Bob Rice is a Native American owner of Pow Wow Grounds, a local entrepreneur, and a ‘community protection organizer.’ His legendary café is located on Franklin Avenue. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been reduced, for the time being, to a takeaway business, but even as such, it is enormously popular among the Native Americans, as well as others.

At the back of the cafe is huge storage, full of food. Everyone hungry, in need of help, can simply come here and take whatever he or she needs.

We grab some freshly brewed coffee from the shop and take it out to the public benches outside.

Bob Rice then begins his story:

“There has been police brutality for a very long time, against people of color. Not only talking about Minneapolis but in all these other places, since the 1991 Rodney King incident. Things were boiling and building up – leading to a big blow up.”

“And all this discrimination did not start here; it came centuries ago from Europe.”

“After the George Floyd murder, I wanted to show solidarity. Native Americans were experiencing an even higher degree of persecution than Black people. We had to stand together. I went down to the site of the murder of George Floyd, in order to support protests.”

For a while, we talked about the mass media in the United States, an official and even some ‘independent one,’ and how it quickly and violently turned against the left, as well as against those who have been daring to expose endemic racism in the United States.

But soon, we returned to the events that took place here, in May and June.

“I noticed the presence of strange elements right from the start. I was watching guys breaking windows. At about 6 am, the morning after, I traveled down to South Minneapolis. There were piles of rocks in front of the rioters. Flash hand grenades. I kept on moving around the areas and kept on seeing rocks. I noticed the Minneapolis Umbrella Man, dressed all in black, with mask and black umbrella and black hammer smashing things – at the end being stopped by black guys. People were walking out of the store with car parts, and I thought, “why stealing those things”? These guys didn’t seem to be as part of the protest. I started moving and going away from the area, thinking that these guys would burn down stores and places soon. I even called up my insurance company the following morning to see if my policy covers civil unrest. That night they burned a lot of stores – auto stores, liquor stores, all types of businesses. I thought that if we do not do something ourselves to protect our neighborhoods, they will burn down all of our areas, too.”

“From what I saw, I couldn’t tell you who these guys were, but they were not from here.

So, we put up our protection zone calling out people on Facebook. We became the Headquarters of protection of Native American businesses and nonprofit organizations, as well as banks, shops, investment properties, etc. all belonging to the Native American community around here.

I noticed there were Caucasian people, driving cars very slowly with no license plates, yelling racial slurs out of the windows. We formed a human shield, chain, along Franklin Avenue, to protect ourselves and our people.

At a high point, about 300 people were protecting the area all night long for about eight days in a row. It had to be done, because here we had people from all over, including Wisconsin, descending on us – we had white supremacist group Proud Boys here. They arrived wearing masks. We had young white kids – 16 and 17 years old – coming from Wisconsin, looting liquor stores. We caught them. Obviously, they came out here because they thought it was an exciting thing to do. They didn’t even know where they were – this area is very dangerous with drug dealing and gang violence at night. Lucky, they got caught by us.”

And the coverage? I wanted to know whether these events, in the heart of Native American neighborhoods, were described in depth by media reports.

Bob Rice replied readily:

There was no media reporting on these matters – mass media blamed everything on the Black Lives Matter movement.

When liquor stores and tobacco shops were on fire, no police or fire trucks were around. Then the National Guard took over – using tear gas.

Mr. Rice sighed, still in disbelief:

Just incredible how our so-called President has done all the mess going and even made it worse!

***

Robert Pilot, Native Roots Radio host, drove me for days all around the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, explaining what really took place on both Franklin Avenue and Lake Street.

But before, we visited provisory, impromptu monument, where the murder of George Floyd took place. There were flowers, graffiti, works of art; there was grief, and there was solidarity. Native American people clearly supported the plight of the African-Americans.

The area was safe; it was well organized. People of all races came here to pay tribute to the murdered man, and centuries of atrocious history of the United States.

As we drove, Robert Pilot explained:

“Native American neighborhoods armed themselves after the Floyd murder. But not only that: economic hardships ensued after the murder; food banks have come up. The Pow Wow Grounds used to be a food distribution deport but ended up becoming a food bank for anyone to donate and get what they need.

Protesters were everywhere; the young generation got fed up. So different from other murders. The last straw was the murder of George Floyd. Four years earlier, in 2016, Philando Castile, an African American man, got murdered by police. He had worked in a school cafeteria. His murder was broadcast live on Facebook. It was a buildup. 10,000 people protested on 38th Street and Chicago in Minneapolis – the site of the murder of George Floyd. Combination of racial and overall frustration.”

We drove by burned stores, services, gas stations. Everything was resembling a war zone, and in a way, it was.

If you are there, things are extremely raw, emotional. It is not like analyzing things from a distance from the comfort of one’s home.

Robert continued explaining, as we drove by block after block of the Middle East-style combat destruction:

“There is a small percentage of African American people as compared to White Americans. We need allies, too. We have to support each other. Signs everywhere in my neighborhood, ‘Black Lives Matter.’”

“Some young white people have woken up. They see the truth. The opinion of the masses is moving to the left; they are feeling fed up with what is happening around them and what it is that the country is doing to the world because of oil.

What is interesting is that there is a protest every single day, which is something new and mind-blowing. The media is misreporting, minimizing the enormity and magnitude of protests, CNN, MSNBC, etc.”

Robert Pilot is not only a radio host, but he is also a teacher:

“White teachers are still teaching history; they are teaching it to black and Native American kids! Political standing of my students – a few are engaged, but definitely not all. Perhaps 10 percent of people are engaged and doing the work for 90 percent.

The white guilt now and then… But many of us feel: You should stand behind us and with us but not in front of us. Revolution is happening in that sense. Everything is changing since protests are happening.”

Not everyone likes the changes; definitely not everyone. The establishment is fighting back, trying to survive, in its existing, horrid form.

Robert Pilot concludes:

“Generally, Black and Native Americans are together, supportive of each other.

It is symbolic that the Native American movement started on Franklin Avenue, where protests began in 1968. We would never burn down our own stores like grocery stores and hospitals. Why should we?

But we had to mobilize and stop members of the KKK and Proud Boys type of guys.”

***

We drive some 100 miles north, in order to meet Ms. Emma Needham – a young Native American activist. Emma was kind enough to bring traditional medicine from her area. We met halfway at the Sand Prairie Wildlife Management Area.

Before our encounter, along the highway, we are surrounded by true ‘Americana’: endless open spaces, half-empty highways, more than 100 car-long cargo train pulled by two monstrous engines, while pushed by yet another one. We pass by St. Cloud Correctional Facility – an ancient-looking prison that bears the resemblance of some massive medieval English mansion surrounded by an elaborate system of barbed wires and watchtowers.

In one of the towns along the road, there is a big makeshift market selling posters, T-shirts, and other memorabilia, all related to the current President. It is called Trump Shop. Big banners are shouting at passing cars: “Trump, Make America Great Again,” “Trump 2020 – No More Bullshit,” and “God, Guns & Guts Made America. Let’s Keep All Three”.

Emma is a storyteller, a writer. She is an intelligent, outspoken, sincere, and passionate person:

“Where we were, we did not see a lot of white men with masks attacking, but what we did see were two young white kids, around 16, from Wisconsin, looting a liquor store which was run by Native Americans.”

“I stayed over Friday and Saturday nights around the Indian American Cultural Center in Minneapolis. On Friday night, within half a mile to a mile in all directors, we could see and hear the riots and looting. There were gunshots, helicopters hovering all around us. But nobody came to rescue us.”

“On Saturday night, we could see white people on Jeeps, waving flags, cruising around the neighborhood. “The white kids from Wisconsin were there, it appeared to me, opportunistic grabbing whatever was available.”

“Majority of those who came to protest and loot were outsiders, not from the neighborhoods. It does not make sense for people in Minneapolis to burn down and loot stores they rely on.”

I wanted to know whether the Native Americans and African-Americans were helping each other in that difficult hour?

Emma did not hesitate:

“There was big solidarity between Black people and Native American people; there was empathy.”

“It has been lifelong degradation for many of us growing up poor and severely marginalized in reservations, but we had never seen anything like this, so close to what resembled a war.

Those of us who were down in North Minneapolis those nights – Friday and Saturday – could not find words to describe what was happening. But we had a strong sense that what has been happening to us, Native Americans was happening to Black Americans, too – 400 years of surviving in a system of oppression. Enough is enough! Shared horrors – same for both groups!”

I asked whether everything changed, and this is a new beginning for the nation? As many, Emma did not sound overly optimistic:

“A black American female artist once said, ‘I love my white friends, but I don’t trust you because I know when the time comes, you need to choose your skin color. You count on the freedom and safety which you have. Whether you make that conscious decision or not, it will be there for you.’”

***

On my behalf, Robert Pilot asked Brett Buckner, his fellow radio host, and an African American activist, whether he could confirm that the majority of rioters were whites and not from the community. He replied:

“I would say so. Based on police reports and accounts from the community members, most of the damage was done by outsiders. Unfortunately, their actions will cause our community pain for years and even decades to come.”

***

Before I finished writing this report, “Umbrella man” got ‘identified.’

On July 29, 2020, Daily Mail wrote:

“Masked “Umbrella Man” who was seen smashing windows of Minneapolis AutoZone that was later burned to the ground during George Floyd protests is identified as ‘Hells Angels gang member with ties to white supremacist group’… The Star Tribune reported the 32-year-old man has links to Aryan Cowboy Brotherhood, a white supremacist gang based in Minnesota and Kentucky.”

He was one of many, but the most notorious one. Looking at his photos when in action, he was bearing a striking resemblance to ‘ninja’ looking rioters – right-wing hooligans – who were unleashed in order to bring chaos to Hong Kong, people who have been supported and financed by Western governments. I know, because I work in Hong Kong, since the beginning of the riots. Coincidence? And if not: who really ‘inspired’ whom?

***

Before I left Minneapolis, Robert Pilot and his wife Wendy interviewed me on their Native Roots Radio. What was supposed to be just 30 minutes appearance ended up being a one-hour event.

They showed me their city and their state, sharing sincere feelings and hopes, unveiling suffering of both African American and Native American communities.

This time, I traveled to the United States in order to listen. But I was also asked to talk, and so I did.

During the interview, I took them to several parts of the world, where black people still suffer enormously, due to Western imperialism and corporate greed. The world where Native people of Latin America, Canada, as well as other parts of the Planet, are brutally humiliated, robbed of everything, even murdered by millions.

We were complimenting each other. Our knowledge was.

I am glad I came to Minnesota. I am thankful that I could witness history in the making.

I am also delighted that I observed solidarity between the African American and Native American people. For centuries, both went through hell, through agony. Now, they were awakening.

Minnesota is where the latest and very important chapter of American history began. But I also went to Washington, D.C., Baltimore, New York City, Massachusetts. I witnessed protests, anger, despair. But there was also hope. Hope, despite tear gas and riot police, lockdowns, despite mismanaged COVID-19 and increasing poverty rates. Something was ending, something unsavory and brutal. Whether this could be considered a new beginning was still too early to tell.

In Minnesota, I chose to see events through the eyes of Native Americans, people who were here ‘forever,’ to whom this land used to belong. People who were exterminated by the “new America,” by European migrants, in a genocide that claimed roughly 90% of the native lives. These were people who were robbed of their culture and their riches. I am glad; I am proud that I chose this angle.

True peace, true reconciliation can only come after history as well as reality are fully understood, never through denial.

Now, both African Americans and Native Americans are speaking, and the world is listening. It has to listen. At least this is already progress. These two groups are forming a powerful alliance of victims. But also, an alliance of those who are determined to make sure that history never repeats itself.

*

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.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s the creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that has penned a number of books, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Connecting Countries Saving Millions of Lives. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

All images in this article are from the author/NEO

Adequate housing, healthcare, food, public services, education, mass transit, health & safety standards, and environmental protections are the prerequisites for a humane democracy.

***

Economic indicators – data points, trends, and micro-categories – are the widgets of the big information industry. By contrast, indicators for our society’s democratic health are not similarly compiled, aggregated, and reported. Its up and down trends are presented piecemeal and lack quantitative precision.

We can get the process started and lay the basis for qualitative and quantitative refinement. Years ago, when we started “re-defining progress” and questioning the very superficial GDP and its empirical limitations, professional economists took notice. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, economists cling to the yardsticks that benefit and suit the plutocrats and CEOs of large corporations.

Here are my offerings in the expectation that readers will add their own measures:

1. A society is decaying when liars receive mass media attention while truth-tellers are largely ignored. Those who are chronically wrong with outrageous and baseless predictions are featured on news broadcasts, op-ed pages, and as convention and conference speakers. On the other hand, those who forewarn and are proven to be accurate are not regaled, but instead, they are excluded from the media spotlight and significant gatherings. Consider the treatment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz post-Iraq invasion, compared to people like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn who factually warned Washington not to attack illegally a country that didn’t threaten us.
2. A society is decaying when rampant corruption is tolerated, and its perpetrators are rewarded with money, votes, and praise. When President Eisenhower’s chief of staff, former New Hampshire Governor Sherman Adams, accepted a vicuña coat from a textile manufacturer, he was forced to resign. The daily corruption of Trump and the Trumpsters towers beyond measure over Adams’ indiscretion. Yet calls for Trump and his cronies to resign are rare and anemic. Tragically, the law and the norms of decency have done little to curb the corrupt, criminogenic, and criminal excesses of Trump & company. Even government prosecutors and inspectors generals have been fired, chilled, and sidelined by Trump and his toady,  Attorney General Barr.
3. A society is decaying when a growing number of people believe in fantasies instead of realities. Social media makes this an ever more serious estrangement from what is actually happening in the country and in the world. Believing in myths and falsehoods leads to political servitude, economic disruption, and social dysfunction. The corrupt concentration of power ensues.
4. An expanding economy focusing increasingly on ‘wants and whims’ while ignoring the meeting of basic ‘needs and necessities’ shatters societal cohesiveness and deepens miseries of many people. Adequate housing, healthcare, food, public services, education, mass transit, health & safety standards, and environmental protections are the prerequisites for a humane democracy. The economy is in shambles for tens of millions of Americans, including hungry children. Minimal economic security is beyond the reach of tens of millions of people in our country.
5. With few exceptions, the richer the wealthy become, the more selfish they behave, from severely diminished contributions to charities to the failure to exert leadership to reverse the breakdown of society. Take all the failures of the election machinery from obstructing voters to simply counting the votes honestly with paper records. The U.S. Senate won’t vote to give the states the $4 billion needed for administering the coming elections despite the Covid-19-driven need for expanded voting by mail. The Silicon Valley, undertaxed, mega-billionaires could make a $4 billion patriotic donation to safeguard the voting process in November and not even feel it.
6. Rampant commercialism knowing no boundaries or restraints even to protect young children is running roughshod over civic values. Every major religion has warned about giving too much power to the merchant class going back over 2000 years. In our country, justice arrived after commercial greed was subordinated to humane priorities such as abolishing child labor and requiring crashworthy cars, cleaner air, water, and safer workplaces. Mercantile values produce predictable results, from excluding civic groups from congressional hearings and the mass media to letting corporations control what the people own such as the vast public lands and public airwaves.
7. Then there is the American Empire astride the globe, enabled by an AWOL Congress and propelled by the avaricious military-industrial complex. In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower presciently forewarned that “[W]e must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” All Empires devour themselves until they collapse on the countries of their origins. Over 55% of the federal government’s operating spending goes to the Pentagon and its associated budgets. The military-industrial complex increasingly leads to quagmires and creates adversaries abroad, as it starves the social safety net budgets in our country. Our country’s military spending with all its waste is surging and unaudited. The U.S. spent more than $732 billion on direct defense spending in 2019; this is more than the next ten countries with the largest military expenditures.
8. A society that requires its people to incur crushing debt to survive, while relying on casinos and other forms of gambling to produce jobs, is going backward into the future.
9. Public officials who repeatedly obstruct voters from having their votes received and counted accurately and in a timely fashion continue with impunity to try to steal elections. Then Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp (now governor of Georgia) “stole” the election in 2018 from gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. Abrams said Kemp was an “architect of voter suppression.” And that because Kemp was the Georgia Secretary of State during the race, he was “the referee, the contestant and the scorekeeper” for the 2018 gubernatorial election. He escaped accountability. Democracy decays.
10. Access to justice is diminishing. Tort law – the law of wrongful injuries – has been weakened in many states with arbitrary caps on damages for the most serious injuries. It also is harder than ever for citizens to get through to real people in government agencies.

Time to conclude and look forward to your indicators of societal decay. Send them to [email protected] or CSRL, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036. The more Americans know where their country is heading, the more they may just want a better future and participating in or supporting the movements dedicated to turning our democracy around.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His latest books include: To the Ramparts: How Bush and Obama Paved the Way for the Trump Presidency, and Why It Isn’t Too Late to Reverse Course, How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress, Breaking Through Power: It’s easier than we think, and Animal Envy: A Fable

When the first COVID-19 cases hit Brazil in March, the government agency in charge of protecting the country’s Indigenous peoples, the National Indigenous Foundation, ordered all civilians to leave the Indigenous reservations. Only essential workers, such as health care personnel and those involved in food distribution, could remain. 

But a new law signed by President Jair Bolsonaro on July 7 has made an exception for one group: Christian missionaries. A simple form from a doctor vouching for a faith worker’s health is enough to allow the person to stay as an essential worker.

According to Eliesio Marubo, a lawyer for the Indigenous Peoples Association of the River Javari Valley, known as UNIVAJA, some missionaries had never heeded the order to leave.

“A few villages reported that there were evangelical missionaries in their areas who refused to go away,” Marubo told Religion News Service.

In April, UNIVAJA sued to force the expulsion of several evangelical missionaries, at least two of whom are U.S. citizens, from the Javari Valley, an important legal victory against a group that is closely aligned with Balsonaro.

Now, Indigenous groups and those who defend their rights worry that the new law will prompt missionaries to enter their reservations, which have long been protected by the Brazilian government in an effort to preserve their culture.

“We’re questioning the legislation in order to restore the self-determination prerogative of the Indigenous peoples,” explained Marubo, a member of the Indigenous Marubo people himself.

One of the missionaries expelled in April was Andrew Tonkin, a member of the Frontier International Mission, an independent Free Will Baptist mission ministry based in the United States that trains missionaries who are then sent by their home churches. One of its goals, according to its website, is to “establish mission work among the unreached Indigenous people groups across the world.”

According to a story published by the Brazilian newspaper O Globo in March, Tonkin tried last year to get to the River Itacoaí, one of the Javari’s tributaries.

“He already managed to approach an area of isolated peoples without authorization,” said Marubo. “People who know him say that he believes that the men’s rules don’t apply because (his presence) is God’s will.”

A village of uncontacted Indigenous people in the western Brazilian state of Acre, in 2009. Photo by Gleilson Miranda/Government of Acre/Creative Commons

In an email to RNS, Tonkin said the federal government granted him permission to go “into the reserve” to “help and better the life of the people. The people in the reserve also have every right as a community to invite who they wish to visit their village.”

Saying that he does not “preach or teach a religion of any form,” he describes his mission as an effort to empower “the people by the redemptive power of Christ,” helping “them to discover God’s plan for their life through Jesus Christ.”

Tonkin, who said he has been in the Amazon for 13 years, calls critics of his mission “self-appointed representatives” of the Indigenous peoples who live in the city. “They have learned how the system works, what keywords can bring more funding to line their pockets,” he said.

“They often say they are protecting the Indians’ rights. What about the right to invite who they want to their community? What about the right as a Brazilian to worship God freely?”

Tonkin said his efforts in the Javari Valley are “a spiritual battle against evil and against darkness” and are not about “people and policy.”

Beto Marubo, one of UNIVAJA’s coordinators, dismissed Tonkin’s claim that he is welcomed by residents of the valley. “The only Indigenous persons who don’t oppose their presence are the ones who were catechized by them,” he told RNS.

He explained that previous encounters with the non-Indigenous society often ended in violence, especially during the Amazon rubber boom, which ended in the 1940s and saw many Indigenous people killed in their forests. “Now they’re in the last place they found to be left alone, and these fundamentalists show up to disturb them.”

He said that the missionaries’ teaching, by introducing other ways of thinking about community and even the locals’ cosmology, attacks the society as a whole.

Sydney Possuelo, who created the government’s National Indigenous Foundation’s department of isolated peoples in the 1980s, explained that missionaries often offer gifts, particularly much-needed iron tools. “Attracted by them, the isolated Indigenous peoples agree to listen to preachers. So, you attract them through their fragility, through the technical unbalance between our societies. That’s not exactly a Christian principle,” he told RNS.

Image on the right: Sydney Possuelo, left, meets with a group of Indigenous people in Brazil. Photo courtesy of Sydney Possuelo

“Religious proselytism can have a great impact on their way of living,” Possuelo added. “The Indigenous peoples don’t have a formal religion, with regular services and a supreme god. In general, they celebrate the transformative heroes who taught them to fish, to produce maize and cassava, to sing and dance.”

In the 1990s, as president of the foundation, known as FUNAI, Possuelo stopped missionaries from proselytizing among the then newly contacted Zo’é people. “I suggested they should pursue activities related to health care, education and other needs of the Indigenous peoples, except religious proselytism. But that was what they wanted,” he recalled.

Other Christian groups that have been working with Indigenous groups for decades also say the evangelical missionaries are more interested in conversion than helping the isolated Amazonians.

“The Indigenous peoples’ spirituality should be respected according to the constitution,” said Jandira Keppi, project adviser for the Lutheran Diakonia Foundation, which is dedicated to working with socially vulnerable groups and poor communities. “But the fundamentalists believe they must evangelize them for their salvation. This always meant death for the Indigenous peoples and their history proves it.”

That’s no less true during the current pandemic, according to Keppi, who noted that “their immunity is very low.”

Cleber Buzzato, assistant secretary of the Catholic Church’s Indigenous Missionary Council, agreed that “every possible contact established with isolated peoples should be their initiative and not the outsiders’.”

Beto Marubo believes the Bolsonaro administration supports the missionaries’ activities in the Amazon. “He’s backed by the evangelicals. There’s a plan behind all this: The missionaries get into those territories, dismantle the policy of no contact and then the landowners appear to grab their lands,” he said.

In February, Bolsonaro appointed the evangelical pastor and anthropologist Ricardo Lopes Dias to coordinate FUNAI’s department of isolated Indigenous peoples. Dias worked with the Brazilian New Tribes Mission for several years. “It’s all being orchestrated by the current administration,” Beto Marubo said.

*

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: Uncontacted Indigenous people look up at an aircraft in the western Brazilian state of Acre in 2009. Photo by Gleilson Miranda/Government of Acre/Creative Commons

On August 16, the Belarusian Armed Forces announced large-scale military drills near the country’s nuclear plant and in the Grodno region bordering Poland and Lithuania. The drills will take place on August 17-20 and involve rocket and artillery units, air-defense forces and airborne troops. Meanwhile, mechanized and battle tank brigades also hold live-fire exercises. The military added that forces will train to strengthen the country’s western border as part of the drills.

The military exercises served as a visual and powerful confirmation to earlier remarks by the country’s President Alexander Lukashenko about his readiness to defend Belarus from the ‘foreign interference’. Nonetheless, if earlier Lukashenko was widely speculating about unfriendly ‘Russian actions’ in an attempt to gain support of the media-active pro-Western opposition, after the presidential election his position shifted towards the ‘friendship’ with Russia and the repelling of ‘Western interference’. Indeed the main opposition propaganda and coordination center is managed from Poland, but this shift is rather a result of the complicated situation in which Lukashenko found itself rather than the admission of these apparent facts.

Meanwhile, the government also staged a large rally in center of Minsk in support of the acting president. President Lukashenko participated in the pro-government rally claiming that Belarus will cease to exist as a country if the destabilization efforts achieve success. He also warned about NATO troops deployed at Belarus’ border.

“I am kneeling for you, for the first time in my life. You have deserved it!” he said.

“Despite all the difficulties, all its flaws, we’ve built a beautiful country together. Who did you decide to surrender her to? If somebody wants to surrender the country, even when I am dead, I will not allow it.”

Despite the large pro-government rally in Minsk, Lukashenko and his supporters have been losing the media battle to anti-government structures supported from the West. Furthermore, on August 16, state-run channels ONT and STV reported about anti-government protests in an apaprent shift of their coverage. Earlier, pro-opposition sources claimed that at least a part of workers of state-media is going to join the so-called ‘nation-wide’ strike. A large number of workers from state-run plants participate in protests on a regular basis.

Among the main targets of the pro-opposition propganda campaign:

• the Lukashenko government is about to collapse and his political regime will soon fall;
• the dehumanization of Lukashenko (as a cockroach) and servicemembers of law enforcements (as fascists);
• the promotion of the expected support of the so-called ‘international community’ (the US and the EU);
• the promotion of violence again law enforcements (at least at the first stages of the protest; later, when rioters lost clashes to Police, opposition media started claiming that all demonstrations are ‘peaceful’)
• the creation of the image of Belarus as a country with a strong economic basis and genuine ‘democratic values’ that are undermined by Lukashenko. According to them, if Minsk gets rid off Lukashenko and breaks ties with Russia, Belarus will immediately enter the era of wealth and prosperity (like Ukrane apparently);
• the fueling of ‘fears’ of the coming Russian intervention and the seizure of entire Belarus by ‘bloody Russians’. The facts that Belarus is in fact economically, socially and militarily deeply integrated with Russia, a large part of population works in Russia and 100% of the population speaks Russian, are somehow ignored. By the way, Russian troops are officially deployed in Belarus already as a part of the existing military cooperation agreements.

Meanwhile, authorities said that security forces detained 2 persons that exploded an improvised explosive device near the supermarket “Belarus”. No casualties were reported.

As to anti-government demonstrations and actions, they continued increasing on August 16. According to reports, tens of thousands attending a protest in Minsk. The main event took place near a memorial to the fight against Nazi Germany, which is located near a war museum and that has a lot of space around it.

Protests continue with a large-scale support on the international scene with ‘groups of activists’ holding anti-Lukashenko rallies across Europe and mainstream media outlets widely speculating about the fall of the Lukashenko political regime and the upcoming Russian intervention to Belarus. All of these goes fully in the framework of the propaganda campaign described above.

The US and the EU continue pressuring Lukashenko on the international scene. On August 14, EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell said that the EU had refused to accept Lukashenko’s victory and promised sanctions against Belarusian officials. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also said that the election was rigged and threatened Lukashenko with sanctions.

The situation in Belarus, while in the terms of security is still mostly controlled by the Lukashenko circle, is pretty complicated. The propaganda war is about to be lost by Lukashenko, if not already, and supporters of the opposition are much more well-coordinated and have an upper hand in the field of media resources. The strike of large Belarusian plants undermined Lukashenko’s support base among work class. Supporters the president are poorly coordinated and not motivated for a real confrontation with the opposition due to the wide-scale usage of violence by police against peaceful rallies earlier. The aggressive Western-funded succeeded in gaining a wider support of the population (mainly due to mistakes by authorities and the non-proportional use of force) and is now trying to use the protest sentiments to overthrow the Lukashenko government or at least undermine the stability in the country to fuel the social and political instability and further.

At the same time, the harsh determination of Lukashenko to keep power and protect his political regime at any cost seem to be enough to prevent any regime-change attempts through power-based methods. Therefore, if Lukashenko’s “silent majority”, law enforcements and local elites remain loyal to him, he will be able to remain the president. Nonetheless, his chances to organize a controlled transfer of power to the chosen successor have apparently collapsed.

*

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

Featured image is from South Front

Yesterday’s hearing in London made clear, if any further proof was needed, that the prosecution of Julian Assange is a shameful and degrading show trial, intended to railroad an innocent man to prison or death for revealing the crimes of US imperialism.

In a botched proceeding, Assange was initially not brought to the video room to join the proceedings, the US prosecutors failed to show up after getting the hearing time wrong, and, with only five observers allowed in the courtroom, every journalist and legal observer who tried to listen to the hearing remotely was not admitted.

Assange, the world’s most famous political prisoner, has been denied access to his attorneys since March, and he has not seen his family or young children since then.

In the most egregious move of all, just two days before the hearing, the US Justice Department, under the right-wing authoritarian ideologue William Barr, issued a completely new indictment against Assange, which the accused had not been able even to read before the hearing.

“The US government seems to want to change the indictment every time the court meets, but without the defense or Julian himself seeing the relevant documents,” said WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.

Less than 24 hours before the start of the final procedural hearing and less than four weeks before the resumption of the extradition trial, Barr signed a new 33-page request to have Assange sent to the US from the UK.

The superseding indictment, upon which the new extradition request is based, was released on June 24, yet US prosecutors refused to confirm over the course of two hearings, on June 30 and July 28, precisely when it would be introduced into the UK legal proceedings.

The new extradition request was brought after Assange’s legal team had submitted all of their evidence. The defense argued that to proceed on the basis of a new indictment would amount to an abuse of due process. Judge Baraitser refused the defense request, instead allowing them to apply for a postponement of the hearing.

Assange’s legal team is now confronted with the choice of whether to accept the further sabotage of their client’s case or prolong the endangerment of his life with more months in prison.

Even as the COVID-19 pandemic rages through the UK prison system, Assange remains incarcerated in Belmarsh. Medical experts who have examined him report that his health is deteriorating and he could die in prison.

The new indictment expands the scope of what is branded as criminal activity. The charge of “unauthorized disclosure of defense information” formerly accused Assange simply of “publishing [the Afghanistan and Iraq war logs and the State Department Cables] on the internet.” This has now been expanded to include “distributing” the documents, for example, to other media organizations.

Assange associates Sarah Harrison, Jacob Applebaum and one-time WikiLeaks employee Daniel Domscheit-Berg are now also targeted as “co-conspirators.” Efforts to help a persecuted whistleblower (Edward Snowden) gain asylum and even to speak in defense of his actions are criminalized, as are the most general statements in support of government transparency.

These details make it clear that while Julian Assange has been isolated in prison and unable to meet with his lawyers, the US government has been building its extradition case and expanding the scope of its vendetta against all those who have helped WikiLeaks bring the truth to the people of the world.

Julian Assange, who faces 175 years in federal prison for exposing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan that claimed tens of thousands of lives, is being persecuted as part of an international drive by the ruling elite to criminalize whistleblowers, journalists and political dissent.

The state conspiracy against Julian Assange is the spearhead of a sustained offensive against democratic rights targeting the working class. Assange’s crime in the eyes of his persecutors is his exposure of imperialist war crimes and diplomatic intrigues that galvanized mass oppositional sentiment around the world.

The new indictment was drawn up by Barr, who six days earlier appeared on Fox News to denounce a broad swathe of Trump’s political opponents as “revolutionaries” and “Bolsheviks” intent on “tearing down the system.” Barr gives voice to the real scope of Trump’s plans to impose a presidential dictatorship.

These developments are a searing indictment of all those political forces who either maintained silence or supported Assange’s persecution. This includes the Democratic Party in the United States, which has spearheaded the attack on WikiLeaks as part of its neo-McCarthyite anti-Russia campaign. The Democratic candidates in the 2020 elections, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, have both been enthusiastic participants in this reactionary and antidemocratic vendetta.

As for the liberal media, led by the Guardian and the New York Times, it has thrown Assange to the wolves. It is significant that not a single major news organization in the US even bothered to report the hearing yesterday. Neither did any of the pseudoleft publications, such as the Nation or Jacobinmagazine, report the assault on fundamental rights taking place in the London courtroom.

Predictably, the self-styled socialists Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have all said nothing about yesterday’s pseudolegal travesty.

Political responsibility for the ability of the Trump administration in the US and the Johnson government in the UK to proceed with their joint effort to silence Assange rests with the entire pseudoleft fraternity, who lined up against Assange, recycling the smears and lies of the State Department, Pentagon and CIA over frame-up Swedish allegations, “failure to redact” and other lies.

Those in the official campaign around WikiLeaks who seek to channel the defense of Assange behind appeals to the British Labor “lefts,” trade union bureaucrats and Assange’s chief persecutor, the Democratic Party in the United States, are perpetrating a political fraud that prevents a genuine movement for Assange’s freedom.

The World Socialist Web Site renews the call for the international working class to come to the defense of Julian Assange. The working class must make clear the fundamental link between Assange’s persecution, the defense of democratic rights and the struggle against the capitalist system, which is plunging the world into war and barbarism.

The fight to free Assange is inseparable from the mobilization of a mass political movement in the struggle for socialism against imperialist war, social inequality and the lurch to dictatorial forms of rule.

*

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 Wired

A perfect storm affects Lebanon and vast majority of its near-seven million people, including:

Out-of-control rampant corruption.

Unemployment of a third or more of working-age Lebanese.

Poverty exceeding 50% of the population.

Over 80% inflation since last October, debasing the Lebanese pound.

Based on its debt-to-GDP ratio, Lebanon is the world’s third highest indebted country, according to the IMF, a nation unable to repay its creditors.

The draconian US Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act that aims to starve the country’s population into submission greatly harms Lebanon’s economy and people.

So does US war on Syria in its 9th year with no resolution in prospect.

The risk of total economic collapse haunts Lebanon.

The misfortune of bordering Israel compounds its woes further.

According to Consultancy Middle East, the country’s central bank lost its monetary ability to manage the economy.

Before the massive August 4  blast that destroyed Beirut’s port and heavily damaged surrounding areas, killing hundreds, wounding thousands, and displacing 300,000 people, Lebanon was experiencing economic and financial meltdown.

Once called “the Paris of the Middle East,” a fusion of East and West, a hub of modernity, art, fashion, and culture, much of Beirut was heavily damaged by the cataclysmic blast — with little ability to rebuild without large-scale financial help from abroad.

According to Beirut-based InfoProResearch, a local economic consulting firm, in the 17-month period from January 2019 through May 2020, around one-fifth of Lebanese companies suspended operations or shut down entirely.

The number is likely much higher in the aftermath of the August 4 blast.

The Beirut metro area is home to around 2.2 million of Lebanon’s 6.8 million population.

According to the Wall Street Journal last week, the Trump regime intends imposing maximum pressure on Lebanon by “sanction(ing) (targeted)  politicians and businessmen” in an effort to weaken Hezbollah’s influence.

When the nation and its people are on their knees in desperate need of help, US hardliners — likely in cahoots with NATO and Israel — intend rubbing salt in the wounds of the state, its enterprises and people to increase mass deprivation and suffering.

The Journal said Trump regime actions on Lebanon will target its “leaders aligned with Hezbollah.”

Its democratically elected officials are part of the Lebanese government.

Its leadership threatens no one except in response if preemptively attacked — self-defense a UN Charter right applying to all nations.

The Journal added that the Trump regime “see(s) an opportunity to drive a wedge between Hezbollah and its allies as part of a broader effort to contain the Shiite force backed by Tehran.”

Iran backs all nations that observe the rule of law in support of world peace and stability, polar opposite how the US, NATO and Israel operate.

The Journal got things backwards, claiming “Hezbollah…is the region’s most potent threat to Israel (sic).”

Along with the US, Israel is the “most potent threat to” regional peace and stability.

In saying Trump uses sanctions “as a central tool in his ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran” and other countries, the Journal failed to explain that only Security Council members may legally impose them — not individual countries against others.

An unnamed Trump regime official told the Journal that it intends to “take advantage of the (desperate) situation (in Lebanon) to shake things up” in the country.

It wants Hezbollah’s influence weakened at a time of severe economic and financial hardships for the nation, its institutions and people.

Hezbollah is a popular resistance force to be reckoned with against US/NATO/Israeli imperial aims in the region — including against ISIS, al-Qaeda and likeminded terrorists they use as proxy fighters.

The US, Israel, and their imperial allies want sovereign independent regional governments replaced by pro-Western puppet rule.

Their strategy includes maximum pressure to cause maximum pain and suffering for people in targeted countries.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah correctly called US  regional sanctions “economic war” on Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

Ongoing endlessly, the Trump regime intends squeezing Lebanon harder.

Maybe its hardliners have more regional war in mind, perhaps an October surprise ahead of US November 3 elections.

*

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 OneWorld

There are no official policing authorities as such when it comes to international relations.  Realists imagine a jungle of states, the preyed upon and the predators, a grim state of affairs moderated by alliances, agreements and understandings. But there is one body whose resolutions are recognised as having binding force: the Security Council, that most powerful of creatures in that jumble known as the United Nations.

To convince the permanent five on the Security Council to reach agreement is no easy feat.  There are the occasional humiliations in the failure to get resolutions passed, but whether it be the US, Russia, China, France or the UK, wise heads tend to prevail.  Best put forth resolutions with at least some chance of garnering support.  Rejection will be hard to take.

On August 14, a degree of humiliation was heaped upon the US delegation.  Washington seemed to have read the situation through fogged goggles, assuming that it would get the nine votes needed to extend arms restrictions on Iran due to expire in October under Resolution 2231.  Of the 15 members, only two – the United States and Dominican Republic – felt the need to vote for it.  Russia and China strongly opposed it; the rest were abstentions.  Previous warnings that any such quixotic effort was bound to fail had been ignored.

The body most shown up in all of this was the US State Department and, it followed, its indignant chief Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 

“The UN Security Council failed today to hold Iran accountable,” he raged on Twitter.  “It enabled the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism to buy and sell deadly weapons and ignored the demands of countries in the Middle East.  America will continue to work to correct this mistake.” 

He also called the position taken by Britain and France “unfortunate”, as it had only been the US view to “keep the same rules that have been in place since 2007.”

US ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft, took it personally, giving the impression that she saw it coming in the diplomatic tangle. 

“The United States is sickened but not surprised by the outcome of today’s UNSC vote.  The Council’s failure to extend the Iran’s arm embargo is a devastating blow to the Council’s credibility.”

She also promised that the US would “not abandon the region to Iranian terror and intimidation, and when we look for partners in that effort, we will look beyond the UN Security Council.”

The humiliation gave Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi much room to gloat. 

“In the 75 years of United Nations history, America has never been so isolated,” he confidently asserted.  “Despite all the trips, pressure, and the hawking, the United States could only mobilize a small country [to vote] with them.”

There was much that sat oddly in this enterprise.  It showed a US effort strongly driven by the anti-Iranian Middle East coven of Arab Gulf states, along with Israel.  That said, the position amongst those states is not uniform either.  In the words of Mutlaq bin Majid Al-Qahtani, special envoy of the Qatari Minister of Foreign Affairs for Combating Terrorism and Mediation in Settlement of Disputes,

“Iran is a neighbouring country with which we have good neighbourly relations, and it has a position that we value in the State of Qatar, the government and the people, especially during the unjust blockade on Qatar.”

Absurdly, Pompeo has promised to see how the US might rely on a provision in the nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action it unilaterally left in 2018, which permits a “snapback”.  Triggering it would entail a return to the full complement of UN sanctions against Iran.  This novel take was also given an airing by Craft.  “Under Resolution 2231, the United States has every right to initiate snapback of provisions of previous Security Council resolutions.” 

In April, Reuters noted the view of a European diplomat that it was “very difficult to present yourself as a compliance watcher of a resolution you decided to pull out of.  Either you’re in or either you’re out.”  Samuel M. Hickey from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation also warned in May that invoking the snapback provision, especially by a non-party, “would not only underscore US isolation on the global stage, it might also undermine the effectiveness of the UNSC by creating a dispute over the validity of a UNSC resolution.”  Russia and China expressed similar readings: it was a bit rich to trigger provisions in an agreement so publicly repudiated.

Iran, in turn, huffed at the very idea of a snapback through its UN ambassador Majid Takht-Ravanchi.

“Imposition of any sanctions or restrictions on Iran by the Security Council will be met severely by Iran and our options are not limited.”

This entire act of gross miscalculation did its fair share of harm, though not in the sense understood by Pompeo and his officials.  It spoke to a clumsy unilateralism masquerading as credible support; to great power obstinacy misguided in attaining a goal.  It was not the UN Security Council that had failed, but the US that had failed it, an effort that many at the UN are reading as directed at torching the remnants of the Iran nuclear deal.  The assessment of the US effort by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was sharp and relevant. 

“You got the Dominican Republic on board (how much did that cost the US taxpayer?)  Not a single other nation voted with you!  The shining city on the hill has been reduced to a glow, like the embers of a dying fire.”

*

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]

Featured image is by Gage Skidmore/CC BY 2.0

In order for us to be on the same wavelength, I have to define that word. Conspiracy Theorist: An advocate of Conspiracy theory.

It’s like saying, racist: defender of a theory of racism. We don’t get very far with that. A synonym is conspiracy theorist.

What is a conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist? One thing’s for sure, these words are pejorative, bad. Nobody likes this label: “conspiracy theorist”, “conspiracy theory”.

Since September 11, 2001, this ancient word [1] has been used to disqualify anyone who makes statements which go against the official narrative.

Let’s analyze this sentence because every word is important.

By official, many mean governmental.

That’s not quite right.

If you say that Donald Trump, who is the “official” president and elected head of the U.S. government, is full of BS, who has used the support of the Russians to get elected [2] or that he wants to cancel the next U.S. elections [3], i.e. which constitute conspiracy theories against Trump,  Western journalists in chorus will applaud. They won’t call you a conspiracy theorist even if, according to the definition, that’s what you have being doing.

In the case of COVID-19 in 2020, if you say that all the doctors (and there are not two, ten or a hundred, but thousands around the world) who say that hydroxychloroquine is a cure to COVID-19 and that these crazy doctors have escaped from a lunatic asylum [4], once again the journalists will congratulate you. In any case, even without proof of what you say, no one will call you a conspiracy theorist.

Yet, it is a conspiracy theory and it is directed against qualified doctors.

By doing so, you are accusing doctors [5], some of whom work at the University or in recognized hospitals for decades, such as Professor Harvey Risch [6] of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, Professor Didier Raoult, Director of the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection in Marseille, and Dr Christian Perronne [7], a professor of French university hospital practitioners, specialized in the field of tropical pathologies and emerging infectious diseases and former president of the specialized commission “Communicable Diseases” of the High Council of Public Health, in addition to many less known but equally reliable and serious doctors, family doctors, field doctors, general practitioners or specialists [8 to 13].

You are a real “conspiracy theorist” if you think that all these highly qualified doctors are lying or want to manipulate you, Yet, no one will treat you like that.

The truth is that you will be labeled a “conspiracy theorist” if and only if you say things against the official narrative or official consensus, which is sustained and acknowledged by:

1. international institutions (World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Economic Forum, United Nations, European Commission, European Medicines Agency…).
2. By national relays who report to these international institutions in all important fields, health, medical, educational, media, economic… [14].

All this forms a coherent, transnational, supranational system (a consensus), driven by common goals and using a precise and studied language.

It must be understood that this system is independent of politicians and survives electoral changes. It perpetuates itself, whatever happens, not through a president, a particular person, but through these institutions that go through all the scandals [15 to 18] and all the attacks without taking a scratch.

Who runs this system?

I won’t answer here first because this is another task which deserves a full report and second, because many researchers have already successfully identified this topic [19 to 22].

Therefore, being a president, head of government, a medical graduate and representing a valid and serious authority is not enough to protect you from being challenged on the grounds that the challenger is a conspirator.

No.

To benefit from this protection, you must belong to the system, speak its language and pursue its goals.

Thus, Anthony Fauci, with his criticizable and contradictory remarks [23], will never be called a conspirator.

Professor Harvey Risch will.

Thus, newspapers that claim that Remdesivir (produced by Big Pharma) is effective in treating COVID-19, contrary to hydroxychloroquine, will never be called conspiracy theorists.

Those who say otherwise, with studies and doctors to back them up, yes.

The problem is that Trump said he was in favour of hydroxychloroquine as well, and he is discredited each time he says it.

It is said that Remdesivir proved its effectiveness against Covid-19, in a Belgian newspaper of August 11, 2020 [24].

Words are important.

The word “proven“, in this case, is false.

But who will notice it, if you are neither a doctor nor aware of the studies in question?

In the meantime, a lie is taken for granted, it becomes a truth.

A single treatment with Remdesivir will bring Gilead Science Inc. $2,500 per patient [25].

In contrast, Hydroxychloroquine, nothing or almost nothing. It is a very inexpensive drug.

The terms “conspiracy” or “conspiracy theory” have nothing to do with truth or credibility, they have to do with conformity to dominant ideas, dictated by the system that relentlessly pursues its goals.

Another important word is “theory“. Conspiracy theories.

This implies ramblings without foundation, without evidence.

Yet many claims labeled “conspiracy theories” are not theoretical.

It is rare to have formal proof at the time of the claim. It may be the result of research, reflections or presumptions.

In forensic medicine or criminal science, you will not always have irrefutable evidence but a set of solid presumptions (motive, indirect and coherent facts) that is sufficient to convict an accused person, according to the law.

Consider the “conspiracy theory” that the pharmaceutical industry is pushing to discredit hydroxychloroquine in favour of its expensive products, antivirals such as Remdesivir or vaccines.

It would be nice to have irrefutable proof of this, but I can’t see an industry leader writing such an admission and then leaving it lying around to fall into the hands of an honest journalist. That would be really suicidal, don’t you think? And in any case, we would discredit that executive, or that journalist, until their words become worthless.

However, as we would do in any police investigation, is there a strong circumstantial body of evidence?

1) Does this industry have a motive?

Yes.

This industry has a famous motive for doing this: money.

It’s not thousands or hundreds of thousands of euros that would push a lot of people to commit murder, but billions of euros [26-27].

2) Does this industry have the means to do this?

Yes.

We know it thanks to the testimony of people from inside, like John Virapen, former CEO of Eli Lilly & Company in Sweden [28], or former editors of major medical journals like Marcia Angell [29] (New England Journal of Medicine) or Richard Horton [30] (Lancet).

3) Has the industry ever done it?

Yes.

There are proven cases that illustrate the corruption of doctors by the pharmaceutical industry, such as the case of anaesthetist Scott Reuben who falsified data concerning the efficacy of the antidepressant Effexor (venlafaxine), produced by Wyeth (merged with Pfizer) in neuropathic and postoperative pain [31].

This is just one example [32]. More recently, you have the Lancet-Gate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption 

Even when the evidence is there, have you ever seen a journalist who accused someone of being a “conspiracy theorist” make his mea culpa, apologize for his misunderstanding and restore the reputation of the “theorist” in question? And above all, restore the truth?

For just one example, I will take the story of the Kuwaiti babies torn from their incubator and thrown to the ground by Iraqi soldiers to justify the American intervention in Iraq in 1990. President George H. Bush senior used it on several occasions in several inflammatory speeches.

It was a lie [33]. We know that.

Yet anyone who would have known or understood this, and said so at the time, would have been called a “conspiracy theorist” in collusion with Saddam Hussein.

For the record, and to show you that these techniques did not stop in 1991 or after the proof of this lie, the dishonest PR firm behind this Kuwaiti babies myth is the same firm that in 2020 helped the World Health Organization (WHO) to make the World Health Organization (WHO) believe in the COVID-19 pandemic and to enforce its diktats: the firm Hill & Knowlton [34].

So, what does this mean, conspiracy, and who is really a conspirator?

We can see that it means nothing.

It’s a pejorative, bad label, which will not be given to you if you lie, or if you criticize a person or a government that justly disturbs the system.

It will be given to you if what you say, even if it is true, plausible, proven, goes against the authorized discourse of the system.

Check it out for yourself.

Criticize the doctors who defend the use of hydroxychloroquine in VIDOC-19, and you won’t be charged with conspiracy.

You will be listened to, approved.

Criticize Anthony Fauci or the national security councils regarding Covid-19, then yes, you will be accused of conspiracy, indeed of all evils.

Very often it has nothing to do with theories.

The facts that are put forward are sometimes proven, very often supported by many solid and plausible arguments.

Words are very important. Do not underestimate their importance. They direct our thoughts.

I know this as a doctor, but I also know it as a passionate advocate of therapeutic communication.

Like the very first doctors of the Antiquity, I know that words can heal.

They can also make people docile or sick.

The words “conspiracy theorist”, “conspiracy theorist”, “conspiracy theorist” only serve to cut short any debate.

Only to have the person the dominant system wants to discredit rejected, so that person is no longer listened to.

That is what is dangerous, not “conspiracy theories”.

What is really dangerous is to not even want to debate and to exclude ideas, people and opinions on the pretext that they are disturbing.

That is what sows the seeds of a totalitarian society; not conspiracy theories.

It is by refusing any debate, any discussion and by brandishing this kind of disqualifying expression that threatens humanity.

Dr Pascal Sacré

Featured Image: pixabay.com

Translation from French by Maya for Global Research

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

 

Notes :

[1] Théorie du complot, Wikipédia

[2] Ingérence : comment la Russie a biaisé la campagne de 2016 au profit de Trump

[3] Comment Trump pourrait saboter l’élection pour la remporter

[4] Hydroxychloroquine: Goliath contre David, acte I : les détracteurs

[5] Covid-19 – Hydroxychloroquine, David contre Goliath, acte II : les supporteurs

[6] L’hydroxychloroquine agit chez les patients à haut risque, et dire le contraire est dangereux, Harvey Risch M.D., Ph.D., professeur d’épidémiologie à la Yale School of Public Health.

[7] Christian Perronne : “À Garches, nous avons de bons résultats avec l’hydroxychloroquine”,  April 15, 2020, Fervent defender of the treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, for Pr Christian Perronne the question of its effectiveness no longer arises. Head of the Infectious Diseases Department at the Raymond-Poincaré Hospital in Garches, he has seen it every day since the beginning of the epidemic: Professor Raoult’s treatment cures and considerably reduces the need for intensive care.

[8] Riposte à la covid-19 : la saine colère du Dr BELLATON, Source : page Facebook de Silviane Le Menn, 20 avril 2020.

[9] Coronavirus : le bilan très positif d’un praticien lorrain qui prescrit l’hydroxychloroquine, the Lorrain Republican, Philippe Marque, April 6, 2020. The results are more than positive: “I have used this protocol on a dozen hospitalized patients, who therefore have a Covid-19 that is already relatively worrying, and I have had neither death nor any evolution towards a serious stage requiring resuscitation.”

[10] Un médecin mosellan constate l’efficacité d’un protocole à base d’azithromycine,  the Lorrain Republican, Thierry Fedrigo, April 11, 2020. Two Moselle doctors and one of their Belgian colleagues seem to have developed a drug combination effective against coronavirus. Relying on azithromycin without resorting to the hydroxychloroquine advocated by the infectiologist Didier Raoult, they have noted a clear drop in hospitalizations of their treated patients.

[11] Un médecin néerlandais soigne les patients atteints de coronavirus, mais le gouvernement néerlandais n’est pas content, Amari Roos, 10 avril 2020

[12] Des médecins algériens attestent de l’«efficacité quasi totale» de l’hydroxychloroquine contre le Covid-19,April 27, 2020. The heads of infectious disease departments of a hospital in Blida and another in Algiers say that the hydroxychloroquine protocol followed in the treatment of patients with coronavirus gives a “near-total” positive result.

[13] Après l’Algérie, le Maroc encense l’efficacité de l’hydroxychloroquine contre le Covid-19, May 1, 2020. The therapeutic protocol based on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin used against Covid-19 “has given positive results” in Morocco, the Health Minister said, adding that “side effects are minimal”.

[14] Ordres nationaux tels que l’Ordre des Médecins, l’Ordre des Pharmaciens, Hautes Autorités de Santé, Sciensano en Belgique…

[15] Agence européenne du médicament : des experts sous influence ?, 12 décembre 2017.

[16] Covid-19: les conseillers du pouvoir face aux conflits d’intérêts, paru le 31mars 2020, écrit par Rozenn Le Saint et Annton Rouget.

[17] Coronavirus : des liens troubles entre labos et conseils scientifiques, Valeurs actuelles, 3 avril 2020.

[18] L’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe va enquêter sur l’OMS et le scandale « pandémique », Mondialisation.ca,  F. William Engdahl, 6 janvier 2010

[19] Anthony C Sutton: British economist, historian and writer. Sutton was a Stanford scholar at the Hoover Foundation from 1968 to 1973. He taught economics at UCLA. He studied in London, Göttingen and UCLA and received a PhD in science from the University of Southampton, England. In 1972, at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, he was awarded a Ph.D : Wall Street et l’ascension de Hitler , Wall Street et la révolution bolchévique

[20] Carroll Quigley: American historian and professor of history at Georgetown University from 1941 to 1976. Quigley was born in Boston, where he later studied and earned two degrees and a doctorate in history from nearby and highly regarded Harvard University. At Georgetown University: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time

[21] Pierre Hillard :  essayiste français, docteur en science politique : La marche irrésistible du nouvel ordre mondial , Chroniques du mondialisme

[22]  Michael Parenti, American historian, political scientist and cultural critic. He has taught in American and foreign universities. A must read: L’Horreur impériale

[23] Lancet-Gate: « Mensonges scientifiques sur le coronavirus » et corruption des grandes sociétés pharmaceutiques., Mondialisation.ca, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, 15 July 2020. Dr Anthony Fauci, Donald Trump’s adviser, described as “America’s top infectious disease expert”, played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure that had been approved years earlier by the CDC, as well as in legitimizing Gilead’s Remdesivir.

[24] Le remdesivir, médicament qui a prouvé son efficacité face au Covid-19, 11 août 2020.

[25] Le traitement au remdesivir coûtera 2.340 dollars, selon Gilead, 29 juin 2020

[26] COVID-19 : au plus près de la vérité. Vaccins., Mondialisation.ca, Dr Pascal Sacré, 2 août 2020

[27] COVID-19: au plus près de la vérité – Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Mondialisation.ca, Dr Pascal Sacré, 29 juillet 2020

[28] Médicaments effets secondaires : la mort, les laboratoires nous trompent. John Virapen, le cherche midi éditions, 2014

[29] The truth about drug companies, how they cheat us, how to thwart them, Marcia Angell, MD, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, French translation, les éditions le mieux-être, 2005.

[30] COVID-19 : le côté obscur de la science révélé, Mondialisation.ca, Dr Pascal Sacré, 26 mai 2020

[31] Top Pain Scientist Fabricated Data in Studies, Hospital Says, 11 Mars 2009

[32] Du Nujol au Tamiflu : la guerre menée par l’industrie pharmaceutique contre nos santés, Mondialisation.ca, Dr Pascal Sacré, 16 juin 2010

[33] l’affaire des Couveuses de la Mort et le début de la Guerre du Golfe

[34] COVID 19 – Contrat de l’OMS avec la société de relations publiques Hill & Knowlton

It usually makes sense to follow the money when seeking understanding of almost any major change. The strategy of following the money in our current convergence of crises in late summer of 2020 leads us directly to the lockdowns. The lockdowns were first imposed on people in the Wuhan area of China. Then other populations throughout the world were told to “shelter in place,” all in the name of combating the COVID-19 virus.

Understanding of the enormous impact of the lockdowns is still developing. The lockdowns are proving to pack a far more devastating punch than any other aspect of the strange sequence of events that is making 2020 a year like no other. Even when the issues are narrowed to those of human health, the lockdowns have had, and will continue to have, far more wide-ranging and devastating impacts than the celebrity virus.

The lockdowns have, for starters, been directly responsible for explosive rates of suicide, domestic violence, overdoses, and depression. In the long run, these maladies from the lockdowns will probably kill and harm many more people than COVID-19.

But this comparison does not tell the full story. The nature and length of the lockdowns are causing millions of people to lose their jobs, businesses and financial viability. It seems that the economic descent is still gathering force. The assault of the lockdowns on our economic wellbeing still has much farther to go.

The lockdowns have proven to be a powerful instrument of social control. This attribute is becoming very attractive especially to some politicians. They have discovered they can derive considerable political traction from hyping and exploiting the largely manufactured pandemic panic.

The lockdowns are still a work-in-progress. There are past lockdowns, revolving lockdowns, partial lockdowns, mandatory lockdowns, voluntary lockdowns, severe lockdowns and probably an array of many lockdown types yet to be invented.

The lockdowns extend to disruptions in supply chains, disruptions in money flows, drops in consumption, breakdowns in transport and travelling, increased bankruptcies, losses of finance leading to losses of housing, as well as the inability to pay taxes and debts.

The lockdowns extend beyond personal habitations to prohibitions on large assemblies of people in stadiums, concert halls, churches, and a myriad of places devoted to public recreation and entertainment. On the basis of this way of looking at what is happening, it becomes clear the economic and health effects of the lockdowns are far more pronounced than the damage wrought directly by the new coronavirus.

This approach to following the money leads to the question of whether the spread of COVID-19 was set in motion as a pretext. Was COVID-19 unleashed as an expedient for bringing about the lockdowns with the goal of crashing the existing economy? What rationale could there possibly be for purposely crashing the existing economy?

One possible reason might have been to put in place new structures to create the framework for a new set of economic relationships. And these changes would come accompanying sets of altered social and political relationships.

Among the economic changes being sought are the robotization of almost everything, cashless financial interactions, and elaborate AI (Artificial Intelligence) impositions. These AI impositions extend to digital alterations of human consciousness and behavior. The emphasis being placed on vaccines is very much interwoven with plans to extend AI into an altered matrix of human nanobiotechnology.

There are other possibilities to consider. One is that in the autumn of 2019 the economy was already starting to falter. Fortuitously for some, the new virus came along at a moment when it could be exploited as a scapegoat. By placing responsibility for the economic debacle on pathogens rather than people, Wall Street bankers and federal authorities are let off the hook. They can escape any accounting for an economic calamity that they had a hand in helping to instigate.

A presentation in August of 2019 by the Wall Street leviathan, BlackRock Financial Management, provides a telling indicator of foreknowledge. It was well understood by many insiders in 2019 that a sharp economic downturn was imminent.

At a meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole Wyoming, BlackRock representatives delivered a strategy for dealing with the future downturn. Several months later during the spring of 2020 this strategy was adopted by both the US Treasury and the US Federal Reserve. BlackRock’s plan from August of 2019 set the basis of the federal response to the much-anticipated economic meltdown.

Much of this essay is devoted to considering the background of the controversial agencies now responding to the economic devastation created by the lockdowns. One of these agencies is empowered to bring into existence large quantities of debt-laden money.

The very public role in 2020 of the Federal Reserve of the United States resuscitates many old grievances. When the Federal Reserve was first created in 1913 it was heavily criticized as a giveaway of federal authority.

The critics lamented the giveaway to private bankers whose firms acquired ownership of all twelve of the regional banks that together constitute the Federal Reserve. Of these twelve regional banks, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is by far the largest and most dominant especially right now.

The Federal Reserve of the United States combined forces with dozens of other privately-owned central banks thoughout the world to form the Bank of International Settlements. Many of the key archetypes for this type of banking were developed in Europe and the City of London where the Rothschild banking family had a large and resilient role, one that persists until this day.

Along with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, BlackRock was deeply involved in helping to administer the bailout in 2008. This bailout resuscitated many failing Wall Street firms together with their counterparties in a number of speculative ventures involving various forms of derivatives.

The bailouts resulted in payments of $29 trillion, much of it going to restore failing financial institutions whose excesses actually caused the giant economic crash. Where the financial sector profited greatly from the bailouts, taxpayers were abused yet again. The burden of an expanded national debt fell ultimately on taxpayers who must pay the interest on the loans for the federal bailout of the “too big to fail” financial institutions.

Unsettling precedents are set by the Wall Street club’s manipulation of the economic crash of 2007-2010 to enrich its own members so extravagantly. This prior experience bodes poorly for the intervention by the same players in this current round of responses to the economic crisis of 2020.

In preparing this essay I have enjoyed the many articles by Pam Martens and Russ Martens in Wall Street on Parade. These hundreds of well-researched articles form a significant primary source on the recent history of the Federal Reserve, including over the last few months.

In this essay I draw a contrast between the privately-owned regional banks of the Federal Reserve and the government-owned Bank of Canada that once issued low-interest loans to build infrastructure projects.

With this arrangement in place, Canada went through a major period of national growth between 1938 and 1974. Canada emerged from this period with a national debt of only $20 billion. Then in 1974 Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau dropped this arrangement to enable Canada to join the Bank of International Settlements. One result is that national debt rose to $700 billion by 2020.

We need to face the current financial crisis by developing new institutions that avoid the pitfalls of old remedies for old problems that no longer prevail. We need to make special efforts to change our approach to the problem of excessive debts and the overconcentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Locking Down the Viability of Commerce

Of all the facets of the ongoing fiasco generally associated with the coronavirus crisis, none has been so widely catastrophic as the so-called “lockdowns.” The supposed cure of the lockdowns is itself proving to be much more lethal and debilitating than COVID-19’s flu-like impact on human health.

Many questions arise from the immense economic consequences attributed to the initial effort to “flatten the curve” of the hospital treatments for COVID-19. Did the financial crisis occur as a result of the spread of the new coronavirus crisis? Or was the COVID-19 crisis set in motion to help give cover to a long-building economic meltdown that was already well underway in the autumn of 2019?

The lockdowns were first instituted in Wuhan China with the objective of slowing down the spread of the virus so that hospitals would not be overwhelmed. Were the Chinese lockdowns engineered in part to create a model to be followed in Europe, North America, Indochina and other sites of infection like India and Australia? The Chinese lockdowns in Hubei province and then in other parts of China apparently set an example influencing the decision of governments in many jurisdictions. Was this Chinese example for the rest of the world created by design to influence the nature of international responses?

The lockdowns represented a new form of response to a public health crisis. Quarantines have long been used as a means of safeguarding the public from the spread of contagious maladies. Quarantines, however, involve isolating the sick to protect the well. On the other hand the lockdowns are directed at limiting the movement and circulation of almost everyone whether or not they show symptoms of any infections.

Hence lockdowns, or, more euphemistically “sheltering in place,” led to the cancellation of many activities and to the shutdown of institutions. The results extended, for instance, to the closure of schools, sports events, theatrical presentations and business operations. In this way the lockdowns also led to the crippling of many forms of economic interaction. National economies as well as international trade and commerce were severely impacted.

The concept of lockdowns was not universally embraced and applied. For instance, the governments of Sweden and South Korea did not accept the emerging orthodoxy about enforcing compliance with all kinds of restrictions on human interactions. Alternatively, the government of Israel was an early and strident enforcer of very severe lockdown policies.

At first it seemed the lockdown succeeded magnificently in saving Israeli lives. According to Israel Shamir, in other European states the Israeli model was often brought up as an example. In due course, however, the full extent of the assault on the viability of the Israeli economy began to come into focus. Then popular resistance was aroused to reject government attempts to enforce a second wave of lockdowns against a second wave of supposed infections. As Shamir sees it, the result is that “Today Israel is a failed state with a ruined economy and unhappy citizens.” (See this)

In many countries the lockdowns began with a few crucial decisions made at the highest level of government. Large and proliferating consequences would flow from the initial determination of what activities, businesses, organizations, institutions and workers were to be designated as “essential.”

The consequences would be severe for those individuals and businesses excluded from the designation identifying what is essential. This deep intervention into the realm of free choice in market relations set a major precedent for much more intervention of a similar nature to come.

The arbitrary division of activities into essential and nonessential categories created a template to be frequently replicated and revised in the name of serving public heath. Suddenly central planning took a great leap forward. The momentum from a generation of neoliberalism was checked even as the antagonistic polarities between rich and poor continued to grow.

To be defined as “nonessential” would soon be equated with job losses and business failures across many fields of enterprise as the first wave of lockdowns outside China unfolded. Indeed, it becomes clearer every day that revolving lockdowns, restrictions and social distancing are being managed in order to help give false justification to a speciously idealized vaccine fix as the only conclusive solution to a manufactured problem.

What must it have meant for breadwinners who fed themselves and their families through wages or self-employment to be declared by government to be “non-essential”? Surely for real providers their jobs, their businesses and their earnings were essential for themselves and their dependents. All jobs and all businesses that people depend on for livelihoods, sustenance and survival are essential in their own way.

Read Part II forthcoming

Prof. Anthony James Hall is Editor In Chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is Professor emeritus of Globalization Studies and Liberal Education at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta.  The focus of Dr. Hall’s teaching, research, and community service came to highlight the conditions of the colonization of Indigenous peoples in imperial globalization since 1492.

*

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.

Time and again, the CIA, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), and USAID have been involved in US schemes to replace independent governments with pro-Western puppet ones.

Tactics include violent and non-violent labor strikes, mass street protests, major media propaganda, and whatever else it takes to achieve Washington’s aims — at times succeeding, other times failing.

In late 2013, early 2014, the Obama regime successfully replaced Ukraine’s democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych with pro-Western putschist rule — a fascist dictatorship in Europe’s heartland, targeting Russia.

For months in Hong Kong last year and sporadically in 2020,  Trump regime orchestrated violence, vandalism and chaos failed to achieve its aims that were all about weakening China by attacking its soft underbelly.

Tactics employed by the US in Ukraine, Hong Kong, and elsewhere were first used against Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.

What appeared to be a spontaneous political uprising was developed by RAND Corporation strategists in the 1990s — the concept of swarming.

It replicates “communication patterns and movement of” bees and other insects used against nations to destabilize and topple their governments.

The CIA and other anti-democratic US organizations are involved.

Their mission is all about achieving what the Pentagon calls “full spectrum dominance,” seeking control over planet earth, its resources, populations, and outer space.

Swarming and related actions are war by other means, including by use of information and communications technologies, along with social media.

Cyberwar today is what blitzkrieg was to 20th century warfare.

Swarming is a way to strike from all directions in an overwhelming fashion similar to an all-out military attack.

Is this what’s been going on in Belarus for months, especially since the August 9 presidential election.

Longtime incumbent Alexander Lukashenko claimed victory by more an 80% majority over key opposition figure Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.

Now in Lithuania, she cried foul, claiming she won. He lost.

Disruptive actions against Lukashenko have been ongoing since last spring, dubbed a “slipper revolution” by Belarusian Belsat TV in May.

Like Ukraine, Belarus borders Russia, why Washington aims to transform it into a client state.

On Saturday, Lukashenko said he’s being target by a “color revolution” attempt to remove him from power he’s had as president since 1994.

Reportedly he said “(w)e have read the guidelines on how to conduct color revolutions,” adding that’s what happening in Belarus suggests that Russia is next if not effectively countered.

Late Saturday, he and Putin spoke by phone, a Kremlin readout saying:

Lukashenko initiated the call. He “informed Vladimir Putin about the developments following the presidential election in Belarus.”

“Both sides expressed confidence that all existing problems will be settled soon.”

“The main thing is to prevent destructive forces from using these problems to cause damage to mutually beneficial relations of the two countries within the Union State.”

In 1995, both countries agreed on this arrangement that lets their citizens work and/or live in either nation at their discretion — while retaining their passports and national identity.

A bilateral 1999 treaty calls for economic integration and mutual cooperation to defend both nations from foreign threats — with the intent of integrating Belarus with Russia.

So far, it hasn’t happened because Lukashenko’s power would be subordinated to Moscow.

Is now the time to accept where he hasn’t gone before because of concern about a fate similar to Ukraine’s Yanukovych?

Public anger is fueled by Belarusians wanting change, his dubious one-sided reelection margin, and police state tactics against street protesters, including thousands of arrests and reported mistreatment in detention.

Opposition elements demand he step down. Mass protests continued over the weekend, including many thousands in Minsk, the nation’s capital.

Lukashenko said he ordered the deployment of an air assault brigade to border areas in response to US-led NATO military exercises in bordering Poland and Lithuania.

Belarus “cannot calmly observe this” and do nothing, he reportedly said, adding that Putin offered to help protect the country’s security.

Now is the time for integration into Russia, perhaps in similar fashion to how Crimeans corrected an historic error by becoming the Republic of Crimea in the Russian Federation.

The alternative for Lukashenko may be a successful US-style color revolution that replaces him with pro-Western rule.

The alternative for Russia would be having another hostile US controlled state on its border.

Belarusians under Lukashenko are between a rock and a hard place — his hardline rule v. a likely worse fate under a US installed regime similar to Ukraine’s.

Full integration as a Russian Federation republic makes most sense, perhaps where things are heading.

*

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.

Preferential treatment for Israel has long been a prerequisite for success in the corridors of power in Washington, where ambitious politicians long ago learned to fear the wrath of ‘the Israel lobby’, and at the same time yearn for the deluge of ‘Benjamins’ and other fringe benefits that ‘the lobby’ in all its forms and manifestations can muster. Nonetheless, relations between the leadership of the two countries have reached new heights – and plunged new depths – during the Trump administration.

The United States under the Trump administration has undergone a shift in its foreign policy, with the new president regularly insulting and expressing contempt for the US’ strategic allies and threatening to dismantle the bilateral and multilateral arrangements that they have developed over the course of many years to organize and institutionalize their relations. The one exception from the outset was the US ‘special relationship’ with Israel.

The Foreign Policy Institute summarized the differences between the approaches of the Obama and Trump presidencies to foreign policy in the following manner:

“Trump is a kind of illiberal alter ego of Obama. Whereas Obama looked to use force alongside allies (“leading from behind” in the 2011 Libya War), Trump has long been disdainful toward America’s coalition partners. In 1987, Trump paid for an advertisement in the New York Times that railed against allies, “taking advantage of the United States.” As president, Trump has been deeply critical of trade agreements and has withdrawn from more treaties and organizations than all the other post-Cold War U.S. administrations combined.

Whereas Obama spoke eloquently about the importance of the American creed, or the founding ideals of human rights and democracy, Trump may be the first president to openly admire foreign despots.

Whereas Obama traveled to Cairo in 2009 in pursuit of a ‘new beginning’ between the United States and Muslims around the world, Trump wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the United States…”

However, the differences between the Obama and Trump administrations in terms of their dealings with Israel and in the Middle East more generally go beyond their personal idiosyncrasies, ideological preferences, strategic objectives and management styles. They have also been operating in a quantitatively distinct geopolitical environment, with events in many countries throughout the region undergoing major and in some cases abrupt and tectonic shifts, such as the popular uprising in Egypt that ousted Hosni Mubarak, followed by the military coup that ousted and ultimately murdered his successor Mohamed Morsi, and the deepening cooperation – that appears more and more to be some kind of strategic alliance based on profound common interests and objectives – between Israel and the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates.

Nonetheless, despite the differences there has also been considerable continuity in certain aspects of US foreign policy. The same report by the Foreign Policy Institute quoted above explained this apparent contradiction as being primarily due to objective conditions in global politics:

“Surprisingly, however, there’s significant continuity between the Obama and Trump foreign policy doctrines because of something that is much more difficult for Trump to ignore—geopolitics. Obama and Trump are like two siblings who deeply dislike each other, and seem opposites in every possible way, and yet nevertheless share many of the same genes…”

However, this is also a very convenient explanation for the extremely powerful groups that have a stranglehold over US foreign policy. As noted above, there have been some fundamental transformations taking place in the Middle East over the last two decades, and yet despite some turbulence certain aspects of US foreign policy remain constant.

The most constant of all policies is that any suggestion that the US military footprint and associated astronomical military budget might be reduced, in any place or at any time and for any reason, has been promptly buried by an avalanche of criticism from most members of Congress and almost all segments of the corporate media.

Hence, a major showdown appeared imminent at the onset of the Trump administration. Trump campaigned on the promise of closing overseas military bases and ending the permanent wars the US is involved in, in particular in Afghanistan but also the military occupation of Iraq as well as open or, more often, covert involvement in disputes and conflicts throughout the region and beyond. Needless to say, ultimately this great  showdown never happened.

When Trump announced that he would withdraw all US military from Syria, where they are deployed in complete contravention of all relevant international and US law, the groups controlling US foreign policy (as it affects their core interests) had within a short period of time corrected this anomaly. Very shortly after the revelation that Trump had decided to withdraw all US troops from Syria, a decision that appears to have been made unilaterally by the president, National Security Advisor John Bolton clarified that such a withdrawal might actually take months or years.

Needless to say, there are still an unknown number of US military and contractors in Syria and there is no departure date: Trump managed to save face personally, as he could later claim that they are paying their way by looting Syria’s oil.

Soon after the announcement that US troops would be withdrawn from Syria, Trump also directed the Pentagon to halve the number of US troops in Afghanistan, another decision that appeared to have been made unilaterally by the president. The corporate media and prominent Establishment politicians and pundits immediately responded:

“On this issue…there is more continuity between Trump and Obama than would make either administration comfortable,” Richard N. Haas, president of The Council on Foreign Relations, told The New York Times in an article headlined “A Strategy of Retreat in Syria, with Echoes of Obama.”

The next day, The Hill repeated the sentiment in an article whose headline holds nothing back: “Trump’s Middle East Policy Looks a lot Like Obama’s – That’s not a Good Thing.”

Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), whose support for Trump is matched only by his disdain for Obama’s Middle East policy, called Trump’s plan ‘an Obama-like mistake.’” LINK

Consequently, while there has been an effort to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan in the lead-up to the US elections scheduled to be held later this year, there they remain, no vital strategic goals and objectives defined and no departure date set, to be reduced to ‘only’ 5,000 soldiers apparently (plus the usual unspecified number of ‘contractors’) to guard over US Establishment interests and objectives. They certainly aren’t there to safeguard the interests of the American people, much less those of the people of Afghanistan.

One analyst explained the paradoxical comments condemning the supposed similarity between the foreign policies of Obama and Trump in the Middle East as follows:

“While both presidents have advocated decreasing America’s footprint in the region, their policies are comparable only on the most superficial level. Obama and Trump have taken contrasting approaches to the Afghanistan war, America’s longest. Both favoured troop withdrawal – but with different intentions.

In June 2011, Obama announced a multi-year timetable for a withdrawal, after an initial surge. His goal was to let the Afghan government know that the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan was not open-ended. The Afghans had to get their house in order, then take over the fight before the U.S. left for good.

It was, in effect, an announcement of the ‘Afghanistanization’ of the war, similar in intent to Richard Nixon’s policy of ‘Vietnamization.’ In 1969, Nixon proposed replacing U.S. combat troops with South Vietnamese troops in order to extricate the United States from a seemingly endless war. This was Obama’s goal in Afghanistan as well. By the end of his second term, however, circumstances there persuaded him to slow the withdrawal.

When Trump announced his policy toward Afghanistan during the first year of his presidency, he mocked Obama’s plan. According to Trump, “Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on.”

And instead of ‘Afghanistanization’, Trump originally supported increasing the use of force to compel the Taliban, whom the U.S. and its allies are fighting in Afghanistan, to come to the bargaining table.

The Taliban had other ideas.

Rather than being backed into a corner, the Taliban recently made battlefield gains and is defying U.S. efforts to negotiate a settlement. It was in this context that Trump decided that ‘conditions on the ground’ were ripe for a partial U.S. withdrawal…

Obama’s Afghanistan policy was part of a broader approach his administration took toward the Middle East… Unlike Obama, Trump does not have a Middle East strategy, grand or otherwise. He has impulses…” LINK

In the broader regional context, Obama believed that the United States had expended far too much blood and treasure in the Middle East under his predecessor, George W. Bush. For Obama, the region’s many intractable conflicts and problems made it more trouble than it was worth. Reinforced by the rapidly growing geopolitical and economic might of China across the Pacific, one of his primary goals was to get the United States out of the Middle East and into Asia.

Therefore Obama sought to reduce tensions in the Middle East, and shift the burden of ‘policing’ the region to Israel, the Saudis and others, as the United States had done during the Cold War. In line with the aim of withdrawing US forces from the Middle East and initiating the ‘pivot to Asia’, the Obama administration forged an international Iran nuclear deal and tried to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

However, the chaos created by the Arab uprisings and colour revolutions of 2010-11, and the resistance of US allies in the region to what they believed was US disengagement and neglect, prevented Obama from achieving many of these goals.

Unlike Obama, Trump does not appear to have a cohesive Middle East strategy, and most of his decisions are not based on a deep analysis of events in the region and the needs and interests of the countries and people there. In the Trump administration, there are only two sets of interests that count, and they count above everything else: the interests of the US (as perceived and interpreted by the Trump administration), and Israel.

If there is one country on Earth that equals Trump’s contempt for international law and the US Establishment’s addiction to permanent war it is Israel, which has enjoyed the protection of the US veto as its own since the day it was created (the main exception being during the Suez Crisis). Another common factor in the specific case of Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is their billionaire benefactor Sheldon Adelson, who has particularly close ties with both and has provided vast sums to smooth their way to power and keep them there. LINK1, LINK2

Yet the ties between the two go further:

“Trump’s affinity for Netanyahu is also probably enhanced by the PM’s relationship with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, which goes way back. Kushner’s father appeared alongside Sheldon Adelson and Ron Lauder on a list of potential donors Netanyahu compiled in 2007. On a trip Netanyahu took to the US before he became PM, he stayed as a guest at the Kushner home, sleeping in Jared’s bed while Jared, a teenager at the time, bunked in the basement. Netanyahu visited Jared’s father Charles at his office and played soccer at one of the Jewish day schools bearing the Kushner family name with Joshua Kushner, Jared’s younger brother.” LINK

Thus bilateral US-Israel relations and cooperation on the international scene to achieve common objectives were set to reach unprecedented levels. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of economic and military benefits Israel has received over the last four years was merely part of the built-in financial, military, technological and diplomatic largesse that the US bestows on Israel year after year, jealously protected by a bipartisan chorus that very few members of the US Congress can resist. The twenty-six standing ovations Netanyahu received for his mediocre address before the US Congress in 2015 should be sufficient testimony on this point.

The power of the Israel lobby in US politics and corporate media was also put on display on another rare occasion that a US president infringed upon one of the lobby’s sacred cows when George Bush (Snr) threatened to withhold US aid to Israel should Israeli President Chaim Herzog not cease the construction of new settlements in the West Bank. After determined lobbying of the US Congress by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in particular, accompanied by a withering corporate media backlash, Bush stated that he was: “one lonely little guy, up against some powerful political forces made up of a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” His remarks identifying AIPAC as one of the main protagonists behind the lobbying campaign sparked another barrage of criticism for which Bush later apologized, agreeing to send Israel its grants in foreign aid irrespective of the policies and conduct of the Israeli government and whether they are compatible with the interests of the people of the US.

In 2007, George Bush (Jnr) signed an agreement with Israel promising to provide $30 billion in US military aid to Israel for a 10 year period. Barack Obama also duly signed a deal guaranteeing 38 billion dollars in aid to Israel. While the Obama administration generally maintained the US’ favourable posture towards Israel, it declined to back some of the Israeli leadership’s more insistent and reckless demands, foremost among which was that the US isolate, demonize and ultimately attack Iran. Indeed, Obama went one step further and ended the staged confrontation over Iran’s nuclear energy program by signing the JCPOA along with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, successfully quashing a dangerous flashpoint – for a while, at least.

One of Obama’s final major decisions as president, to not veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territory and the construction of Israeli settlements on territory occupied in the aftermath of the 1967 war, earned him the wrath of ‘the lobby’ and a public flaying in the corporate media, typical of the political excommunication of those that waver even the slightest in placing the interests of Israel above all others, including those of the US. A prominent hit piece in the Washington Examiner, “Obama’s disgraceful and harmful legacy on Israel”, gives just a small taste of the barrage of wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed:

“For all eight years of the Obama administration, Democrats have made believe that Barack Obama is a firm and enthusiastic supporter and defender of the Jewish state. Arguments to the contrary were not only dismissed but angrily denounced as the products of nothing more than vicious partisanship. Obama’s defenders repeatedly used the trope that “Israel should not be a partisan issue”…

All of those arguments have been ground into dust by Obama’s action Friday allowing a nasty and harmful anti-Israel resolution to pass the United Nations Security Council. Just weeks before leaving office, he could not resist the opportunity to take one more swipe at Israel—and to do real harm. So he will leave with his record on Israel in ruins, and he will leave Democrats even worse off…

Today’s anti-Israel action will further damage the Democratic party, by driving some Jews if not toward the Republicans then at least away from the Democrats and toward neutrality. Donald Trump’s clear statement on Thursday that he favored a veto, Netanyahu’s fervent pleas for one, and the Egyptian action in postponing the vote show where Obama stood: not with Israel, not even with Egypt, but with the Palestinians. Pleas for a veto from Democrats in Congress were ignored by the White House.

Does the resolution matter? It does. The text declares that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”… The text demands “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem”… The resolution also “calls upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” This is a call to boycott products of the Golan, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem, and support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement.

Yet Barack Obama thought this was all fine and refused to veto. Settlements have been an obsession for Obama since the second day of his term in office, January 22, 2009. That day he appointed George Mitchell to be his special peace envoy, and adopted the view that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key to peace in the entire region and that freezing construction in settlements was the key to Israeli-Palestinian peace…” LINK

Another corporate media outlet complained:

“When speaking with Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy bewailed Israel’s PM saying, “I can’t stand Netanyahu; he is a coward and a liar.” Rather than defend Netanyahu, Obama replied, “You can’t stand him? I have to deal with him more than you.” LINK

A report by The Guardian provides another perspective on the Obama administration’s relations with Israel and policies on the Israel-Palestine question:

“That Obama detests Netanyahu is common knowledge. What is less well known is that Obama’s personal antipathy towards the prime minister co-exists with a genuine commitment to the welfare and security of the Jewish state.

Obama’s actual record over his eight years in office makes him one of the most pro-Israeli American presidents since Harry S Truman. Obama has given Israel considerably more money and arms than any of his predecessors. He has fully lived up to America’s formal commitment to preserve Israel’s ‘qualitative military edge’ by supplying his ally with ever more sophisticated weapons systems. His parting gift to Israel was a staggering military aid package of $38bn for the next 10 years. This represents an increase from the current $3.1 to $3.8bn per annum. It is also the largest military aid package from one country to another in the annals of human history.” LINK

One of the major shifts that has occurred in the bedrock of geopolitics in the Middle East is the relations between the Gulf States, particularly the Saudis and the UAE, and Israel. While the respective parties are still reticent to openly acknowledge the extent to which their interests and objectives are aligned and the nature of their collaboration, the fact that such alignment can now be openly discussed is in itself a paradigm shift. This has already become a part of the ‘new normal’ under the Trump administration.

“Muhammad bin Zayed, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, and Muhammad bin Salman (MBS), Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, believed the Gulf states and Israel shared a common enemy: Iran. In May 2017, Trump and his team met with Arab leaders in Riyadh, and Kushner and MBS agreed on the outlines of a Middle East strategic alliance. Israel would remain a ‘silent partner’, at least for now. The US committed to taking a harder line on Iran, and the Gulf Arabs promised to help get the Palestinians to go along with the new program.

In May 2009, Netanyahu had tried to get Obama and his team to assist in easing Israel’s isolation in the region. He asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to convince Gulf leaders to meet with him publicly to demonstrate a normalization of relations to the peoples of the Middle East. Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz refused to meet an Israeli leader, and American officials were skeptical for years of Israel’s claims that it was possible for it to expand ties with the Gulf States.” LINK

The differences between the Obama and Trump administrations on their policies towards Israel and the Middle East more generally, despite the above-mentioned continuities, is also clearly demonstrated with respect to the latter point mentioned in the report by the Washington Examiner quoted above, the cornerstone issue of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and a broader Israel-Palestine peace agreement. The article in the Guardian argued in this respect:

“Netanyahu has always believed what the Likud’s electoral platform continues to state explicitly: there can be no independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. He is a reactionary politician whose overriding aim is to preserve the status quo with Israel as a regional superpower, ruling over millions of disenfranchised Palestinians in what he and his colleagues insist on calling Judea and Samaria.

Netanyahu presides over the most rightwing, jingoistic, pro-settler, and overtly racist coalition government in Israel’s history. He and his government are addicted to occupation – the root of all evil. In the teeth of almost universal condemnation, they continue to expand the Jewish settlements on the West Bank, thereby deliberately destroying the basis for a viable and territorially contiguous Palestinian state.

Area C, where most of these settlements are located, comprises 60% of the West Bank. Several ministers, led by the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party, advocate outright annexation of this area. A cabinet majority is pushing for a new law that would ‘legalize’ the illegal Jewish outposts on the West Bank – illegal even by Israeli standards because they were built on private Palestinian land. This law, if passed by the Knesset, as seems very likely, will translate the ongoing practice of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine into official state policy…

The Israeli hawks cannot wait for Donald Trump to enter the White House because he is a strong supporter not only of Israel itself but of the illegal settler movement. They believe he would give them a free pass to annex the rural parts of the West Bank and they hope that he will act on his promise to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem ̶ a move that would drive a stake through the two-state solution…” LINK

Indeed, the US Embassy is now located in Jerusalem.

An article posted by the Besa Foundation provides a very different interpretation of the topic of illegal Israeli settlements and the ‘peace process’ in its summation of the Trump administration’s proposal to resolve the Israel-Palestine question, the ‘Deal of the Century’ drafted pursuant to the directives of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

“To achieve harmony and actually solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Trump, with Kushner, unveiled a $50 billion Palestinian investment and infrastructure proposal dubbed the ‘Deal of the Century’ The plan is designed to create at least a million new jobs for Palestinians. It proposes projects worth $27.5 billion in the West Bank and Gaza and $9.1 billion, $7.4 billion, and $6.3 billion for Palestinians in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, respectively. The projects envisioned are in the healthcare, education, power, water, high-tech, tourism, and agriculture sectors. (Needless to say, the Palestinian leadership rejected the plan before even seeing it.)

One of the most significant differences between the Obama and Trump administrations is their approach to, and understanding of, the Palestinian question. Obama felt the best approach was to beat up on Israel and give the Palestinians everything. Trump, by contrast, wants the Palestinians to understand that their stock is declining. The goal is to get the Palestinian leadership to accept more realistic proposals.” LINK

The ‘more realistic proposals’ require them to surrender all aspirations to a Palestinian State and most of their territory, to live in a few scattered enclaves surrounded and guarded by Israeli security forces.

As noted previously, in stark contrast to relations with Israel, Trumps decisions and policies with respect to other countries in the region, including other allies for which the US has traditionally offered unwavering support, have been opportunistic, patronising and condescending if not downright insulting, and always based on the fundamental principle of ‘America (and Israel) first’. The relations between the Saudis and the Trump administration are illustrative in this respect, as they have concluded massive weapons deals and the US has continued to support the Saudi’s and UAE’s genocidal war against Yemen even as Trump has twittered that the Saudi regime is inherently unviable and would immediately collapse without the military and other hardware that the US provides as well as the technical expertise required to operate it.

The relations between the Trump administration and other countries with ‘autocratic’ regimes in the region have been similar, in effect a necessary business arrangement to be concluded amidst effusive expressions of friendship despite the mutual dislike, if not contempt, that exists between the respective parties. For example, Trump’s casting aside of all diplomatic niceties (not to mention pretences and charades) at a function attended by US and Egyptian officials:

“During a reception at the Hotel du Palais in Biarritz, France, at the recent G7 summit, President Donald Trump was looking for Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi and called out, ‘Where’s my favorite dictator?’ according to the Wall Street Journal, citing several people who were in the room at the time.

According to the witnesses, Trump appeared to be joking, but, the Journal said, “his question was met by a stunned silence.” LINK

Thus although Trump’s conduct of foreign policy has been spontaneous, erratic and opportunistic, his support for Israel has been consistent and absolute. This may be due in part to his benefactor Sheldon Adelson’s influence, but on many related matters their positions were probably not that far apart to begin with even if the finer details and specific decisions remained to be defined:

“Adelson gave $82m toward Trump’s and other Republican campaigns during the 2016 election cycle – more than three times the next largest individual donor, according to Open Secrets.

That commitment bought him an attentive hearing from the new administration as he pushed for the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser knowing that he would be an important ally in getting the White House to kill the Iran nuclear deal. The New York Times reported that Adelson is a member of a ‘shadow National Security Council’ advising Bolton.

The day after Trump announced that the US was pulling out of the Iran agreement, Adelson was reported to have held a private meeting at the White House with the president, Bolton and Vice-President Mike Pence.” LINK

While it has always been unpredictable and subject to abrupt tectonic shifts in the external environment, the future course of relations between the US, Israel and the Middle East once again is located on the threshold of a major juncture with the presidential elections scheduled to be held in a few months and turmoil peaking throughout the Middle East region, most recently with the catastrophic accident or attack that has devastated Lebanon.

Whether Trump or Biden win the elections, or whether they are held at all, is unlikely to significantly affect the Establishment dogma of the primacy bestowed upon Israel in the conduct of US foreign policy.

*

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

Yesterday, one of the most unexpected geopolitical manoeuvres took place that no one was expecting. U.S. President Donald Trump went to Twitter to announce that Washington’s “two GREAT friends, Israel and the United Arab Emirates” made a “Historic Peace Agreement.” In years past, there would have been widespread condemnation across the Muslim world against the UAE, but in actual fact, the near complete silence in condemning Abu Dhabi’s decision speaks volumes. Israel is no longer the main priority for Arab Gulf states, and rather their geopolitical focus is towards countering what they claim are Iran’s ambitions to spread its Islamic Revolution in the Arab Peninsula and Turkey’s unwavering backing and support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is already strong speculation that following the UAE’s peace deal with Israel, one between the world’s only Jewish state and Oman and Bahrain will soon follow. If, or more likely, when Oman and Bahrain sign a peace deal with Israel, it is likely that Saudi Arabia will eventually follow, leaving Qatar and Yemen as the only Arab Peninsula countries to not recognize Israel. This will quickly change the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East as Israel, the UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have common enemies – Iran and Turkey, but have never been able to openly coordinate and cooperate with each other to achieve their regional goals and ambitions.

It appears that France is the main harbinger of such an alliance and is becoming the centerpiece of states who are opposing the ambitions of Turkey and Iran. However, for now, this is mostly focused towards Turkey, especially as French President Emanuel Macron only days ago announced that his country will increase its military presence in the East Mediterranean as part of a continuation of the Franco-Turkish confrontation.

Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis responded to Macron’s announcement, thanking the French president by saying that France is a sincere friend of Greece and a protector of international law. According to the Greek Prime Minister, in order to continue the peaceful dialogue between Athens and Ankara, it is necessary for Turkey to stop its unilateral exploration of gas and oil reserves on Greece’s continental shelf that it began a few days ago. Last week Greece and Egypt signed an agreement on maritime demarcation that was welcomed by Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, while Turkey declared the agreement null and void and declared that Greece and Egypt do not have a mutual border. The Greek-Egyptian deal was made under the auspices of the United Nations Charter Law of the Sea and effectively ended the illegal memorandum of understanding signed between Turkey and the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood government based in Tripoli. The Turkey-Tripoli deal aimed to annex Greek maritime waters between them.

What culminated was a Turkish announcement that its Oruç Reis research vessel will be escorted by seven warships to conduct seismic research in Greece’s continental shelf. This hostility was met with France’s immediate mobilization of some naval vessels and war jets to Greece and Cyprus, with Greece and France immediately conducting naval exercises. Among this escalation of hostilities, and despite Mitsotakis’ warning that an accident will occur in the Aegean Sea, the Greek Limnos frigate, commissioned in 1982, collided with the Turkish frigate Kemal Reis, commissioned in 2000. The 38-year-old Limnos frigate outmanoeuvred the Kemal Reis, considered one of the best warships in the Turkish navy, and sustained only limited damage, while the Turkish warship is now out of action for at least a few months according to some sources.

Although Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan alluded that the Limnos was damaged and threatened to attack anyone who harassed the Oruç Reis, he was quickly distracted by the shock of the UAE making a peace agreement with Israel. The UAE, just like the majority of the Arab Peninsula states, were never really vested in the Palestine issue, and rather they have a much bigger rivalry with Turkey and Iran. The UAE and France have been cooperating to counter Turkey’s ambitions. For France, Turkey threatens its influence and control over their former colonies in Africa, while for the UAE, Turkey backs and supports the Muslim Brotherhood that calls for the overthrow of monarchies in Muslim countries. Therefore, Abu Dhabi’s peace with Israel is to consolidate the anti-Turkey bloc into a more cohesive unit without miscommunications and problems caused by non-existing relations between some states, notably the UAE and Israel.

This brings France to the centre of such a bloc. France and Greece have impeccable relations with both the UAE and Israel, and with both states recognizing each other, they can now begin to coordinate efforts to counter Turkish ambitions more effectively and openly. Turkey recognizes this new coordinated threat headed by a nuclear France. Although Iran’s denouncement of the UAE’s peace deal with Israel is unsurprising, the Turkish Foreign Ministry shockingly and contradictorily reacted by stating:

“Neither history nor the collective conscience of the region will ever forget and forgive the hypocritical behaviour of the UAE, which is trying to depict the deal as a sacrifice for Palestine, when in reality it is a betrayal to the Palestinian cause for its own narrow interests.”

This is a curious response by Turkey considering it was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel and to this day has a multibillion-dollar trade relation with the Jewish state. However, Erdoğan recognizes that the peace deal between the UAE and Israel is a major threat to Turkey’s ambitions to dominate the region, especially at a time when Ankara is becoming increasingly isolated while states opposing Turkish ambitions are consolidating and coordinating. While France, Cyprus, the EU, Israel, Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have congratulated the Greek-Egyptian deal and/or denounced Turkish aggression on the Greek continental shelf, Turkey is completely alone and isolated in its aggression. It is for this reason that Turkey is using the peace deal between the UAE and Israel as an excuse for Ankara to potentially suspend diplomatic relations with the UAE, but strangely enough not with Israel, in the hope that other countries will follow its move. This unlikely to happen with any serious effect.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Middle East is on the brink of the new tectonic shift in the regional balance of power. The previous years were marked by the growth of the Iranian and Hezbollah influence and the decrease of the US grip on the region. The January 2020 started with the new Iranian-US confrontation that had all chances to turn into an open war. August 202 appeared to mark the first peace agreement between an Arab state and Israel in more than 25 years.

Israel and the United Arab Emirates have reached a historical peace agreement. US President Donald Trump announced the breakthrough agreement on August 13, calling Israel and the UAE “great friends” of his country. In a joint statement, Israel, the UAE and the U.S. said the agreement will advance peace in the Middle East. The statement praised the “bold diplomacy” and “vision” of the three country’s leaders.

Delegations from Israel and the UAE are expected to meet within a few weeks to sign bilateral agreements regarding investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, the establishment of reciprocal embassies, and other areas of mutual benefit.

In the framework of the peace agreement, Israel will suspend declaring sovereignty over areas outlined in Netanyahu’s “Vision for Peace” in the Western Bank. Also, Tel Aviv will reportedly focus its efforts on “expanding ties with other countries in the Arab and Muslim world.” The agreement will also provide Muslims with greater access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and other holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. It still remains in question how Israel will comply with its part of the deal as the annexation of Palestinian territories is the cornerstone of its regional policy.

In the near future, the United States will likely work to motivate other Gulf states to follow the UAE’s footsteps. In particular, another US regional ally, Saudi Arabia, is already widely known for keeping close ties with Israel in the field of security and military cooperation. Both states are allies of Washington and are engaged in a regional standoff against the Iranian-led coalition of Shiite forces.

The support of the UAE-Israeli agreement is also a logical step for the Trump administration’s regional policy, which is based on the two main cornerstones: the unconditional support of Israel and the confrontation with Iran. Through such moves, Washington may hope to create a broader Israeli-Arab coalition through which it will try to consolidate the shirking influence and contain the ongoing Iranian expansion in the region. At the same time, the overtures with Israel, which has undertaken wide and successful efforts to destabilize neighboring Arab states, could cause a public backlash among the Arab population and contribute to its further dissatisfaction with the course of its leadership. All these developments, together with the consisted Iranian policy aimed at the defense of Palestinians, will increase the popularity of Iran as not only defender of Shiites across the Middle East, but all Muslims in general. Tehran has been seeking to achieve this goal for years and achieved a particular progress in the field. The US-Israeli aggressive policy in the region also played an important role in fact promoting the popularity of the so-called Axis of Resistance. Now, the Iranian soft power in Arab states will become even more noticeable and create additional threats to Gulf states involved in a direct confrontation with it.

The Saudi Kingdom, as the main candidate for the next peace deal, will find itself in an especially shaky position. It is already involved in the long, bloody, and unsuccessful intervention in Yemen, with Yemen’s Houthis regularly conducting cross-border raids into Saudi Arabia and even striking its capital, Riyadh. Also, the Saudi leadership has a long-standing problem with the oppressed Shia minority, protests of which are regularly and violently suppressed by Saudi forces. Other factors are the apparent economic and social problems, not least due to Riyadh’s own adventures on the oil market and the coronavirus crisis. Therefore, at some moment the Saudi regime may easily find itself on the brink of collapse under the weight of its own social, political and economic mistakes, and controversial policies on the international arena. And it’s highly unlikely that the friends in Tel Aviv or Washington will decide to undertake any extraordinary steps to rescue the current political regime in the Saudi kingdom.

*

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

Nephew of President John F. Kennedy, son of Robert F. Kennedy, and tireless crusader against the tyranny of the mainstream medical establishment, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. joins today’s Liberty Report to discuss his startling discoveries about who really killed his father and uncle…and why.

Plus, Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has been among the most vocal and most successful opponents of the mainstream medical establishment, driven by big Pharma to inoculate and medicate everything that moves. He tells the Liberty Report how he very reluctantly decided to dedicate his career to fighting the mandatory vaccines that have resulted in so many documented injuries to the recipients. Don’t miss this very special edition of the Liberty Report:

*

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.

Minnesota’s superintendents of public schools have been placed in a difficult position, one that the folks at the CDC and the Minnesota Department of Health (DOH) have put them in with their Distance Learning Plan 2.0.

I would like to point out some flaws in the DOH’s Distance Learning Plan 2.0, which I fear will be obediently and blindly followed by school districts across the state, without anyone in position of power and influence actually checking the DOH’s math.

The figures that were published in the August 5, 2020 Duluth News-Tribune presented the following information about the increasingly restrictive learning levels for schools according to the incidence of COVID-19 “cases” that have been reported to the DOH from the local communities.

What follows is the Distance Learning Plan 2.0 formula that totally ignores the reality that the RT-PCR nasal swab test, which is considered the “gold standard” for making the diagnosis of COVID-19, is fatally flawed, resulting in high percentages of false positive tests (see article below for more information) that make the test essentially worthless – and misleading.

The first of the serious problems dealt with in this article is the flawed DOH 5-part formula for how Minnesota’s children are to be educated this fall and into the future.

1] if the incidence of “cases” (actually positive tests, which are frequently false positives) is 0 – 9 per 10,000 in the community then all elementary and secondary schools can open for in-person learning. This tiny fraction (less than 10/10,000 means that there are essentially zero active “cases” (or at least what the Public Health bureaucracy considers “cases”) in the community;

2] if the community incidence was between 10 – 19 “cases” per 10,000 population,  in-person learning would be still be allowed for elementary students but “hybrid” learning would be offered for secondary students;

3] if there were 20 – 29 “cases“ per 10,000 population, then both elementary and secondary schools would have to be ”hybrid”;

4] if there were 30 – 49 “cases” per 10,000 population: elementary schools “could be hybrid” while secondary schools “would be hybrid”;

5] if there were 50 or more “cases” per 10,000 population, all students would be offered only distance learning, essentially meaning a return to essentially lock-down status for students – and parents.

However, each of those ranges of “cases” actually represents very small incremental fractions of the community that are erroneously assumed to be sick and contagious despite many of the cases being totally asymptomatic and essentially non-contagious.

A Positive PCR test IS NOT the Same as a “Case” of COVID-19!

Moreover, these “assumptions” about how far to open our public schools are based on seriously flawed PCR tests – with the incidence of each of the five groups falling below the numbers of annual common cold coronavirus infections, annual influenza infection or the more common “influenza-like illnesses” (ILI) cases that are epidemic each flu season – none of which, it must be pointed out, have resulted in draconian lock-downs – or even mandatory mask-wearing.

What is being uncritically reported to the DOH includes totally asymptomatic “cases” of people that had false positive nasal swab tests but never were ill and never become ill after the false positive test results were revealed.

Unfortunately, these PCR tests have never been approved by the FDA for diagnostic testing, but that hasn’t stopped them from being very profitably marketed by a multitude of biomedical companies, including both major Big Pharma corporations and start-up outfits. Instead, they have been granted blanket Emergency Authorized Use by the FDA!

Every PCR test kit on the market – to my knowledge – has been found to have high percentages of false positive results, often in the 40% to 70% range. That makes them unreliable at best and worthless at worst, especially when the test results are used for propaganda purposes by greedy, vaccinology-illiterate billionaires like Bill Gates and his billionaire buddies at the World Economic Forum, co-opted academic epidemiologists/statisticians, CDC bureaucrats, WHO bureaucrats and greedy Big Pharma/Big Media/Big Medicine CEOs that have influenced governments all around the world.

Other innocent entities that are necessarily vaccinology-illiterate (because vaccinology and virology are such complex areas of study) and are therefore dependent on the advice of bought-and-paid for “scientists-for-profit”, include struggling small business owners, school superintendents, mayors, governors, presidents, politicians and even most physicians and nurses that are influencing serious decisions about the futures of our nation’s children, the economy and the planet.

The DOH’s statistical error that needs to be pointed out to all public school superintendents and school boards in Minnesota is this: the seemingly large “relative” differences between 10 or 20 or 30 of 50 “cases” per 10,000 population “actually” means 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 PCR positive tests per 1,000 population, which, in “actual” percentage terms, translates to the very small percentage figure differences of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% or 0.5%.

What should disturb everybody is the fact that the Minnesota Department of Health (probably at the behest of the CDC) has erroneously/deceptively (intentionally?) led us all to believe that a positive PCR test is the same as a “case” of COVID-19, whereas nothing could be further from the truth.

For further references see:

Covid-19: Questionable Policies, Manipulated Rules of Data Collection and Reporting. Is It Safe for Students to Return to School?

By H. Ealy, M. McEvoy, and et al., August 09, 2020

Manufactured Pandemic: Testing People for Any Strain of a Coronavirus, Not Specifically for COVID-19

By Julian Rose, June 29, 2020

COVID-19: Closer to the Truth: Tests and Immunity

By Dr. Pascal Sacré, August 07, 2020

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 Kohls is a retired rural family physician from Duluth, Minnesota who has written a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, Duluth’s alternative newsweekly magazine since his retirement in 2008. His column, titled Duty to Warn, is re-published around the world. 

He practiced holistic mental health care in Duluth for the last decade of his family practice career prior to his retirement in 2008, primarily helping psychiatric patients who had become addicted to their cocktails of psychiatric drugs to safely go through the complex withdrawal process. His Duty to Warn columns often deals with various unappreciated health issues, including those caused by Big Pharma’s over-drugging, Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating, Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas and Big Food’s malnourishing food industry. Those four entities can combine to even more adversely affect the physical, mental, spiritual and economic health of the recipients of the medical treatments and the eaters of the tasty and ubiquitous “FrankenFoods” – particularly when they are consumed in combinations, doses and potencies that have never been tested for safety or long-term effectiveness.

Dr Kohls’ Duty to Warn columns are archived at: 

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national; https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/; and 

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

The decision made this week by the United Arab Emirates and Israel to establish full diplomatic relations as part of a commitment to normalize the interaction between the two countries was characteristically announced by President Donald Trump because he is, undoubtedly, the main beneficiary. With less than three months to go until the U.S. national election, the timing of the announcement was not fortuitous as the president clearly needed some good news. There are reports that the agreement will be signed in a formal ceremonial meeting in the White House later this month.

The deal, reportedly set up by White House Special Assistant to the President and son-in-law Jared Kushner, will in fact have little impact on the UAE, whose Crown Prince and head of state of Abu Dhabi Mohamed bin Zayed was instrumental in coming to an agreement on behalf of all of the Emirates. He issued a statement on the understanding reached, stating that

“During a call with President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, an agreement was reached to stop further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories. The UAE and Israel also agreed to cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship.”

As usual, the big losers will be the Palestinians, who will now live in a non-country that they inhabit only under Israeli sufferance, an arrangement that is now de facto endorsed by some of its Arab neighbors and by the Europeans, leaving them with no friends or advocates. They immediately declared that the agreement is not binding on them. Indeed, little will actually change on the ground in Israel-Palestine. Israel has indeed agreed to further “temporarily postpone” its oft stated commitment to annex most of the Palestinian West Bank, a proposition that was already in trouble both domestically and due to almost universal international censure. Even some Democratic Party congressmen had developed a spine over the issue and were willing to cut military assistance to the Jewish state if the annexation program were to move forward. Now that the word annexation has been dropped, the fundamental apartheid policies pursued by Israel will continue to advance and the illegal settlements will presumably continue to expand.

The agreement will also benefit beleaguered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu politically to a certain extent, giving him some favorable press from liberal Israelis and Europeans, though he will also face a backlash from the powerful West Bank settlers. But at the same time, it must be recognized that he obtained something for nothing, for which he will be praised inside Israel. Annexation was on hold anyway and now the Israelis will be credited with taking a “step for peace,” a step that is in fact being endorsed by an Arab country. It will be exploited by Israeli propagandists to lighten the pervasive criticism of Israel as a “pariah” state and will allow the continued delegitimization of the Palestine pursuit of justice.

So, Trump will be the big winner, clearly by design, because it in a stroke transforms him from a loser foreign policy neophyte and international laughing stock into a man who can now claim a major success in making progress on one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. The news immediately drew rave reviews from America’s friends in Europe and Asia, most of whom have long been caught metaphorically between the Israeli rock and the Palestinian hard place and have been looking for a way out. It was a change from the usual brickbats that the president had become accustomed to receiving, and the U.S. media was also enthusiastic, though less for Trump and more for making Israel “safer” while also casting it in a positive light.

The New York Times is seeing a “broader realignment for the region” which “…could reorder the long stalemate…potentially leading other Arab nations to follow suit.” Such an outcome would mostly benefit Israel, though the Times article does not explicitly say so and Trump framed his announcement more broadly, asserting that “This deal is a significant step towards building a more peaceful, secure and prosperous Middle East. Now that the ice has been broken, I expect more Arab and Muslim countries will follow the United Arab Emirates’ lead.” He then quipped that the agreement should actually be called the “Donald J. Trump Accord” while his national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien later declared that the president “should win the Nobel Peace Prize.”

The overwhelmingly Sunni UAE was clearly motivated in part by its fear of Shi’a dominated Iran and was also undoubtedly subjected to considerable urging by the United States officials around Kushner to help Trump get re-elected. The Gulf countries for reasons of their own are very interested in maintaining Trump in power, so the approach was welcome. One can expect that Kushner and company will now exert maximum pressure to get the Oman and Bahrain to also line up and recognize Israel, and they might also hope to bring in Saudi Arabia. Israel and the anti-Iran coalition countries have had confidential relationships for years, based on mutual hatred of the Persians. Moving forward, any broadening of diplomatic and trade ties could be framed as a grand alliance consisting of the Sunni Arab states and Israel against the greatly feared Iranians. And Washington would undoubtedly supply everyone with the necessary weapons to do the job.

Where will it go from here? America’s upcoming elections will have little impact on the Middle East region as the Joe Biden “I am a Zionist” plus Kamala Harris ticket is, if anything, more closely tied to Israeli interests than is Trump. Israel meanwhile, aided by the U.S., has successfully disrupted Arab unity over Palestine by crafting relationships with states that have never been greatly committed to the Palestinian cause. Jordan and Egypt, heavily bribed by the United States to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, are now joined by the UAE. If, as expected, more of the Gulf Arab states join in, the Palestinians will be in no position to make any demands on the Israeli government. That constitutes a significant victory for Netanyahu and his government and the Palestinians will now have work to do to make their cause relevant to anyone but themselves. And, of course, an emboldened Netanyahu backed by the United States and his new Arab friends might set his sights on a bigger target, taking care of the “Iran problem.”

*

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 American Herald Tribune.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.

Featured image is from AHT