“Americans should not blame others in vain,” Iranian general Esmail Gha’ani has declared, “this is a fire they have lit and today has engulfed them.” Gha’ani, a veteran military commander who heads the Quds Force, the branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) responsible for extraterritorial operations, was speaking about the massive fire that has overtaken a U.S. navy vessel in San Diego.
Gha’ani chose his words carefully. He skirted suggesting that Iran had a role in the blaze, instead saying it was the “result of the actions and crimes of the American government” and was “carried out by American elements” themselves. But he signaled American actions abroad will have costs at home, saying that “very difficult days and harsh incidents lie ahead” for the U.S. and Israel.
The repeat incidents suggest a broader sabotage operation at play. Israel and the U.S. are not strangers to such operations in Iran. However, coming months before the U.S. presidential election, such actions smack of desperation and a last-ditch effort to goad Iran into overreaction and dangerously spike U.S.-Iran tensions yet again.
Israel’s Drive for a U.S. War with Iran
“This is a historic opportunity,” an aid to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told journalist Ben Caspit late last year. “You have no idea what we can wheedle from the Americans now, what a golden opportunity we face when the US is about to enter an election year—if we have a unity government headed by [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.”
That government has now been formed and Netanyahu is at its helm despite his ongoing trial on corruption charges. But what might the “historic opportunity” look like? Caspit asserts: “Netanyahu’s people, headed by minister Yuval Steinitz clearly state that a widespread war is likely to erupt in the next six months between Iran and its adversaries in the region, including Israel.” Caspit adds that Israeli defense minister Naftali Bennet has been “ramping up the warmongering” and “threatens Iran on an almost daily basis.”
Netanyahu has a long history of agitating for war with Iran. Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said that during the nuclear negotiations that led to the July 2015 nuclear accord, the Israeli leader “urged” then-U.S. President Barack Obama to “bomb Iran.” Netanyahu himself nearly attacked Iran at least three times in 2010 and 2011, but was blocked to a large degree by President Obama, who opposed such strikes and feared they would lead to a region-wide conflict that the U.S. would be dragged into.
The situation could not be more different with the Trump administration. President Trump has given carte blanche to Netanyahu, whether on annexation of the West Bank, recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, or adopting a regime change policy toward Tehran. Trump has boasted that reneging on the Iran nuclear deal was “probably the biggest thing I did for Israel.”
According to John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor turned nemesis, Trump has already greenlighted Israeli military strikes against Iran. Trump for his part believes a war with Iran would be short.
“I’m not talking boots on the ground,” he proclaimed last year. “I’m just saying if something would happen, it wouldn’t last very long.”
He has also said that he would not need an “exit strategy” in the event of a war with Iran.
As one Trump administration official has stated, the “ultimate goal” of the current U.S. pressure campaign against Iran is to “draw Iran into an armed conflict with the United States.” But for all the Trump administration’s efforts, the Iranian government has neither taken the bait nor imploded or capitulated.
Iranian Restraint Being Tested
In the face of overt aggression from the Trump administration, Iran has alternated between restraint and careful counter-escalation. As the Iranian economy has come under a brutal chokehold, Iran has responded in calibrated fashion to demonstrate the costs of maximum pressure while isolating the U.S. internationally and keeping the nuclear deal alive.
Iran is widely believed to be responsible for attacks on Emirati oil tankers last summer and Saudi oil facilities last fall, which occurred after the U.S. ended sanctions waivers for importers of Iranian oil. After the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Iran also retaliated by launching a ballistic missile barrage at a base that houses U.S. troops in Iraq. Significantly, there were no fatalities in any of these incidents (Iran reportedly gave forewarning to Iraqi officials regarding the Iraq attack).
Iran has enjoyed widespread international support for its efforts to preserve the nuclear deal and restraint in the face of U.S. and Israeli provocations. The U.S. is currently fixated on a far-fetched plan to reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran, but remains extraordinarily isolated on Iran, including from its European allies. This was exemplified at a recent UN Security Council meeting on Iran, where one country after another lined up to voice support for the nuclear accord and rebuke the U.S. for its approach to Iran.
It now seems possible that the nuclear deal will survive Trump’s sabotage and be resuscitated. Trump is dwindling in the polls and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has pledged to return to the accord and get the U.S back on a diplomatic track toward Iran. For Netanyahu and his allied hawks in Washington, this is the worst-case scenario. Despite all their efforts, they will have lost the “golden opportunity” of the Trump presidency to decisively kill the nuclear deal and trigger a head-on U.S.-Iran war. It is perhaps for this reason that Bolton, longtime ally of Netanyahu and staunch advocate of war against Iran, recently proclaimed that “the next few months are an optimal time for Israel to act in its own national security interests.”
A Hot Summer Ahead
The string of blasts on mostly civilian infrastructure throughout Iran should be seen in the context of ongoing efforts to ratchet up U.S.-Iran hostilities. The pernicious pressure campaign against Iran being taken inside the country’s borders tests the limits of Iran’s restraint and invites more fierce reprisals. Already, a media narrative has taken hold that Iran’s “limited response” to U.S. actions “could be an incentive for further operations against it,” as the New York Times has stated.
The recent remarks of Gha’ani, who is Soleimani’s successor, indirectly warns the U.S. of increased costs to America if it continues its current policy. However, Netanyahu and his allies in Washington have likely pinned their hopes on Iran providing a casus belli for further escalation. Any violent reaction from Iran could be seized upon to shift global opinion and engulf the U.S. in a conflict that a Biden administration could not easily undo.
President Trump remains committed to escalating against Iran even as the U.S. battles a worsening pandemic, an economic depression, and internal discord not seen in decades. In May, Trump even vetoed legislation that would prevent military actions against Iran without Congressional authorization. As Trump’s prospects for re-election fade, a dangerous stage has been set for conflict 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.
Brazil’s Trade Union Network UniSaude filed a complaint in the International Criminal Court (ICC) against President Jair Bolsonaro for crimes against humanity and genocide during the COVID-19 crisis.
“Bolsonaro’s management of the pandemic has been criminal and negligent. He has risked the lives of health professionals and the people,” UniSaude denounced.
Despite testing COVID-19 positive, the far-right politician refuses to take preventive measures to protect citizens. He has also been seen greeting his supporters without wearing a mask, promoting meetings, and minimizing the pandemic’s impact in the country.
On Saturday, after learning that he had already overcome the disease, Bolsonaro drove his motorcycle without a mask around the Alvorada Palace.
"Bolsonaro is more than a political problem, he became a public health problem," leaders of Brazilian opposition parties said. https://t.co/lnHP6yqjpt
UniSaude has also condemned the fact that Brazil has been without a health minister for over two months. Since the last health minister resigned from office in May, the inexperienced General Eduardo Pazuello has temporarily occupied this position.
“Brazil’s situation is extremely serious, and this has happened because of Bolsonaro’s unreliable decisions,” UniSaude said.
“Our accusation shows the people’s pain and concern about the health crisis,” nurse Jhuliana Rodrigues assured.
As of Monday, Brazil recorded 2,419,091 COVID-19 infections and 87,004 deaths. Among the infected people, 195,516 are health workers.
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.
Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry hit back at the Trump administration after it offered US $5 million for information leading to the arrest of Supreme Court President Maikel Moreno last week.
“The Venezuelan government once again rejects the Donald Trump administration’s illegal and coercive actions against the Venezuelan people…by way of false accusations and bounties in the style of cowboys and the Wild West,” Caracas said in a statement.
“The US people… deserve institutions dedicated to resolving the serious problems in society, including the justice system, such as determining the truth and perpetrators… in the Epstein case,” the statement continued, referring to notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his high-profile establishment connections.
The Foreign Ministry also pledged to include the move as additional evidence in its case before the International Criminal Court, in which Caracas argues that Washington’s sanctions constitute “crimes against humanity.”
Last week, the US State Department accused Moreno of “participating in transnational organized crime” and of “personally receiv[ing] money or property as bribery payments to influence the outcome of civil and criminal cases in Venezuela.” Moreno has categorically dismissed the allegations as “unfounded.”
The bounty is the latest in a series of similar compensations offered for the arrest of high-profile Venezuelan officials, including US $15 million for President Nicolas Maduro and US $10 million for other important figures, including National Constituent Assembly President Diosdado Cabello and Oil Minister Tareck El Aissami. All three men, alongside Moreno, were indicted by US federal prosecutors in March.
Moreno, who took over as Supreme Court president in 2017, was blacklisted by the US and Canada the same year, alongside dozens of other top officials, including President Maduro. The top judge was likewise sanctioned by Switzerland, Panama and the European Union in 2018.
Since declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security in 2015, Washington has targeted scores of senior Venezuelan officials, freezing their foreign assets and imposing travel bans. Beginning in 2017, the Trump administration levied crippling financial sanctions, which it later escalated into an oil embargo and sweeping ban on dealings with Venezuelan state entities, enforced via secondary sanctions against third parties.
*
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: Venezuela’s chief justice Maikel Moreno, who now has a US $5 million bounty on his head, addresses the Supreme Court. (@MaikelMorenoTSJ / Twitter)
If some Congress members get their way, the Federal Reserve may soon be able to track many of your purchases in real time and share that information with government agencies. This is just one of the problems with the proposed “digital dollar” or “fedcoin.”
Fedcoin was initially included in the first coronavirus spending bill. While the proposal was dropped from the final version of the bill, there is still great interest in fedcoin on Capitol Hill. Some progressives have embraced fedcoin as a way to provide Americans with a “universal basic income.”
Both the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee held hearings on fedcoin in June. This is the first step toward making fedcoin a reality.
Fedcoin would not be an actual coin. Instead, it would be a special account created and maintained for each American by the Federal Reserve. Each month, Fed employees could tap a few keys on a computer and — bingo — each American would have dollars added to his Federal Reserve account. This is the 21st century equivalent of throwing money from helicopters.
Fedcoin could effect private cryptocurrencies. Also, it would limit the ability of private citizens to protect themselves from the Federal Reserve-caused decline in the dollar’s value.
Fedcoin would not magically increase the number of available goods and services. What it would do is drive up prices. The damage this would do to middle- and lower-income Americans would dwarf any benefit they receive from their monthly “gift” from the Fed. The rise in prices could lead to Congress regularly increasing fedcoin payments to Americans. These increases would cause prices to keep rising even more until we face hyperinflation and a dollar crisis. Of course, we are already on the path to an economic crisis thanks to the Fed. Fedcoin will hasten and worsen the crisis.
Fedcoin poses a great threat to privacy. The Federal Reserve could know when fedcoin is used, who is using it, and what they use it for. This information could be shared with government agencies, such as the FBI or IRS.
The government could use the ability to know how Americans are spending fedcoin to limit our ability to purchase goods and services disfavored by politicians and bureaucrats. Anyone who doubts this should recall the Obama administration’s Operation Choke Point. Operation Choke Point involved financial regulators “alerting” banks that dealing with certain businesses, such as gun stores, would put the banks at “reputational risk” and could subject them to greater regulation.
Is it so hard to believe that the ability to track purchases would be used in the future to “discourage” individuals from buying guns, fatty foods, or tobacco, or from being customers of corporations whose CEOs are not considered “woke” by the thought police? Fedcoin could also be used to “encourage” individuals to patronize “green” business, thus fulfilling Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s goal of involving the Fed in the fight against climate change.
Fedcoin could threaten private cryptocurrencies, increase inflation, and give government new powers over our financial transactions. Fedcoin will also speed up destruction of the fiat money system. Whatever gain fedcoin may bring to average Americans will come at terrible cost to liberty and prosperity.
*
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.
By its own admission, Israel’s IDF conducted numerous airstrikes on Syrian targets in recent years.
Last week, Lebanon’s Al-Manar television reported that an Israeli strike near Damascus International Airport killed Hezbollah fighter Ali Kamel Mohsen and four others.
In response, Hezbollah MP Sheikh Hassan Ezzedine said “war between us and this enemy (Israel) will continue, and this path that the martyrs have taken with their blood will continue.”
Along with Iranian military advisors and Russian air support, Hezbollah fighters are involved in aiding Syria combat US aggression, including its ISIS, al-Nusra and other jihadist proxies.
Israeli airstrikes in Syria killed Hezbollah fighters before. Its leadership vowed to retaliate against Israeli aggression when any of its personnel are harmed.
For days, tensions along the Lebanese/Israeli border remain heightened.
On Monday, Lebanese Al-Manar television reported the following:
Israel’s IDF “claim(ed) that “Hezbollah attempted to carry out an infiltration operation and that the Israeli army frustrated the attack and killed a number of its fighters,” adding:
“Hezbollah then issued a statement to refute the Israeli claims and stress that the Israeli army unilaterally opened fire for fear of Hezbollah response to the killing of the martyr Ali Mohsen in the latest raid on Syria.”
Netanyahu regime claims otherwise “are absolutely untrue and aim at fabricating fake victories.”
“The Islamic Resistance did not engage in any clash, nor did it open fire during (the border) incident.”
Gunfire was “from (the Israeli) side only…”
Israeli aggression “will not remain unanswered.”
Last weekend, Lebanon’s military reported that numerous Israeli surveillance drones entered the country’s airspace illegally.
On Monday, explosions and gunfire were heard along the Lebanese/Israeli border — in illegally occupied Sheba’a Farms.
From its 1982 preemptive war on Lebanon until May 2000, Israeli illegally occupied the country’s south to the Litani River.
It still illegally occupies the Ghajar Lebanese village bordering Golan, along with Sheba’a Farms, a 14-square mile water-rich area near Syria’s Golan.
In 1982, Oded Yinon’s document titled “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” laid out a divide and conquer strategy.
It was and remains all about wanting the Middle East map redrawn in cahoots with the US so both countries can dominate the region.
For Israeli hegemonic plans to succeed, it believes Arab states and Iran must be partitioned along ethnic and sectarian lines, transformed into client states.
Israel’s preemptive June 1967 Six Day War followed the plan — illegally seizing the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Syria’s Golan and Lebanese territory.
Both countries have the misfortune of bordering the Jewish state with designs on expanding into their territory.
Israel preemptively attacked Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996, and 2006, along with subsequent Jewish state initiated cross-border incidents.
Does Netanyahu have another war in mind, a possible wag the dog scenario to distract attention from his ongoing corruption trial and days of street protests calling for him to resign?
According to deputy Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem,
“(t)he atmosphere does not indicate a war…in the next few months,” adding:
“There is no change of rules of engagement and the deterrent equation with Israel exists and we are not planning to change it.”
Last summer after two Hezbollah fighters were killed by the IDF in Syria, its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah vowed to respond defensively if Israeli attacks strike its forces again.
On Monday, Southfront reported that Israel deployed “M109 Doher howitzers” along its border with Lebanon, adding:
Gideon infantry and Golani brigade troops were also sent to the border area in Occupied Golan.
The Netanyahu regime warned that it holds Lebanon’s government responsible “for all actions emanating from” the country — ignoring its own hostile cross-border actions.
If further clashes with Hezbollah fighters occur, retaliation will be highly likely, risking more war in this tinder box part of the world.
Israel and the US partner in each each other’s preemptive wars.
Last week, US Joint Chiefs chairman General Mark Milley met with his IDF counterpart General Aviv Kochavi, former IDF chief/current Netanyahu regime war minister Benny Gantz, and other Israeli officials on a visit to an airbase in country to coordinate regional strategy ahead.
Netanyahu was involved by videoconference.
The Jerusalem Post asked if beleaguered Netanyahu seeks US support for striking Iran before US November elections while the most pro-Israel ever Trump regime remains in office.
AP News reported that Milley visited Israel at a time of heightened Middle East tensions — punctuated by the Israeli/Lebanon border incident that could escalate to something more serious.
While Israeli war with Lebanon is unlikely, beleaguered Netanyahu might try anything to stay in power and out of prison.
*
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.”
Medical doctors at an event in front of the US Supreme Court are accused of making false statements.
The video was removed by Youtube and Facebook. They are accused by the corporate media of spreading “fake science”:
“(CNN Business) A video featuring a group of doctors making false and dubious claims related to the coronavirus was removed by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube after going viral online Monday.
The video, published by the right-wing media outlet Breitbart News, featured a group of people wearing white lab coats calling themselves “America’s Frontline Doctors” staging a press conference in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. …
During the press conference, a speaker who identifies herself as a doctor makes a number of dubious claims, including that “you don’t need masks” to prevent spread of the coronavirus, and that recent studies showing hydroxychloroquine is ineffective for the treatment of Covid-19 are “fake science” sponsored by “fake pharma companies.”<
“This virus has a cure, it’s called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax,” the woman claims. “You don’t need masks, there is a cure.”
The claims run contrary to multiple studies on the anti-malarial drug and advice from public health officials to prevent spread of the virus.” (CNN, Business, emphasis added)
Here we have a REAL CASE OF FAKE CNN NEWS which is involved in CENSORING “DUBIOUS CLAIMS” by medical doctors. A desperate attempt to silence American medical doctors, smearing medical professionals. It’s cheap dirty journalism. It’s fake corporate news at its best, applauding outright censorship of medical professionals. Why, because their statement goes against the multibillion interests of Big Pharma.
According to the CNN report, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), is allegedly sponsored by “Fake Pharma companies”. What utter nonsense. Who are these fake pharmaceutical companies?The corporate fake media did not even show up to ask questions to the medical doctors.
The Video is down but we have the entire transcript below. (Scroll down). You can check the credentials of the doctors.
Guess Who is behind this censorship?
Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert” has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC. Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.
In late June, Dr. Fauci launched Remdesevir a “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Sciences Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza. It is $3200 treatment per patient. HCQ has been banned by Fauci. Medical doctors are threatened of loosing their licences if they prescribe HCQ.
Read more on LancetGate. How a peer reviewed May report in The Lancet was used to “kill HCQ”, portraying it as a dangerous drug. It was then discovered that the data to support these claims had been fabricated. The authoritative article was retracted by The Lancet. The Harvard Medical Doctor in charge of the study apologized, “I am sorry”:
It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry. (emphasis added)
Dr. Mehra’s report is fake science. Fake data used to undermine HCQ in favor of Big Pharma’s Remdesivir.
This is the unspoken truth, Read it carefully:
The Lancet study on HCQ was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.
The US corporate media was instructed not to cover Lancetgate. And Fauci gave the green-light to Gilead Sciences Inc. to distribute Remdesevir, a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.
Dr. Fauci is in “conflict of interest”. He suppresses HCQ while endorsing Gilead Sciences Inc.
Read the transcript below. We must ensure that the voice of medical doctors be upheld.
CNN is fake. The Medical doctors are real.
Below is the summary as well as the transcript. The video has been removed by Youtube and Facebook.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 28, 2020
***
Listen to the testimony of American medical doctors.
Thousands of American physicians have been silenced.
“Americans are captured by Fear”.
We cannot live with a spiderweb of fear.
We’re being held down by the spider web of fear. That spiderweb is all around us and it’s constricting us and it’s draining the lifeblood of the American people, American society, and American economy.
Fear is sustained Worldwide by the media and the governments.
But HCQ is being suppressed by Anthony Fauci, who is behind the “Spiderweb of Fear” campaign.
When you apply the lockdown. People are confined. It creates health problems. It triggers alcoholism and drug addiction.
In turn, with the closing down of the national economy, this creates unemployment and poverty. Inevitably the closing down of the economy also triggers a public health crisis.
Thank you. Thank you so much congressmen. So we’re here because we feel as though the American people have not heard from all the expertise that’s out there all across our country. We do have some experts speaking, but there’s lots and lots of experts across the country. So some of us decided to get together. We’re America’s Frontline Doctors. We’re here only to help American patients and the American nation heal. We have a lot of information to share. Americans are riveted and captured by fear at the moment. We are not held down by the virus as much as we’re being held down by the spider web of fear. That spiderweb is all around us and it’s constricting us and it’s draining the lifeblood of the American people, American society, and American economy.
Scroll down for complete transcript
VIDEO
The video was censored all over Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter.
Thank you. Thank you so much congressman. So we’re here because we feel as though the American people have not heard from all the expertise that’s out there all across our country. We do have some experts speaking, but there’s lots and lots of experts across the country. So some of us decided to get together. We’re America’s Frontline Doctors. We’re here only to help American patients and the American nation heal. We have a lot of information to share. Americans are riveted and captured by fear at the moment. We are not held down by the virus as much as we’re being held down by the spider web of fear. That spiderweb is all around us and it’s constricting us and it’s draining the lifeblood of the American people, American society, and American economy.
This does not make sense. COVID-19 is a virus that exists in essentially two phases. There’s the early phase disease, and there’s the late phase disease. In the early phase either before you get the virus or early, when you’ve gotten the virus, if you’ve gotten the virus, there’s treatment. That’s what we’re here to tell you. We’re going to talk about that this afternoon. You can find it on America’s Frontline Doctors, there’s many other sites that are streaming it live on Facebook. But we implore you to hear this because this message has been silenced. There are many thousands of physicians who have been silenced for telling the American people the good news about the situation, that we can manage the virus carefully and intelligently, but we cannot live with this spider web of fear that’s constricting our country.
So we’re going to hear now from various positions. Some are going to talk to you about what the lockdown has done to young, to older, to businesses, to the economy, and how we can get ourselves out of the cycle of fear. Dr. Hamilton.
Thank you, Simone. And thank you all for being here today. I’m Dr. Bob Hamilton. I’m a pediatrician from Santa Monica, California. I’ve been in private practice there for 36 years. And today I have good news for you. The good news is the children as a general rule are taking this virus very, very well. Few are getting infected. Those who are getting infected are being hospitalized in low numbers. And fortunately the mortality rate of children is about one fifth of 1%. So kids are tolerating the infection very frequently, but are actually asymptomatic.
I also want to say that children are not the drivers of this pandemic. People were worried about, initially, if children were going to actually be the ones to push the infection along. The very opposite is happening. Kids are tolerating it very well, they’re not passing it on to their parents, they’re not passing it onto their teachers. Dr. Mark Woolhouse from Scotland, who is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist said the following. He said, “There has not been one documented case of COVID being transferred from a student to a teacher in the world.” In the world.
I think that is important that all of us who are here today realize that our kids are not really the ones who are driving the infection. It is being driven by older individuals. And yes, we can send the kids back to school I think without fear. And this is the big issue right now, as Congressman Norman alluded to, this is the really important thing we need to do. We need to normalize the lives of our children. How do we do that? We do that by getting them back in the classroom. And the good news is they’re not driving this infection at all. Yes, we can use security measures. Yes, we can be careful. I’m all for that. We all are. But I think the important thing is we need to not act out of fear. We need to act out of science. We need to do it. We need to get it done.
Finally, the barrier, and I hate to say this, but the barrier to getting our kids back in school is not going to be the science, it’s going to be the national unions, the teachers union, the National Education Association, other groups who are going to demand money. And listen, I think that it’s fine to give people money for PPE and different things in the classroom. But some of their demands are really ridiculous. They’re talking about, where I’m from in California, the UTLA, which is United Teachers Union of Los Angeles, is demanding that we defund the police. What does that have to do with education? They’re demanding that they stop or they shut all private charter schools, privately funded charter schools. These are the schools that are actually getting the kids educated.
So clearly there are going to be barriers. The barriers will not be science. There will not be barriers for the sake of the children. That’s going to be for the sake of the adults, the teachers, and everybody else, and for the union. So that’s where we need to focus our efforts and fight back. So thank you all for being here and let’s get our kids back in school.
Hello, I’m Dr. Stella Emmanuel. I’m a primary care physician in Houston, Texas. I actually went to medical school in West Africa, Nigeria, where I took care of malaria patients, treated them with hydroxychloroquine and stuff like that. So I’m actually used to these medications. I’m here because I have personally treated over 350 patients with COVID. Patients that have diabetes, patients that have high blood pressure, patients that have asthma, old people … I think my oldest patient is 92 … 87 year olds. And the result has been the same. I put them on hydroxychloroquine, I put them on zinc, I put them on Zithromax, and they’re all well.
American doctors are holding a “White Coat Summit” in Washington, D.C. to address “a massive disinformation campaign” by the media about coronavirus.
Watch as Dr. Stella Immanuel tackles the media's narrative about hydroxychloroquine 👇 pic.twitter.com/5oymtU7TQV
For the past few months, after taking care of over 350 patients, we’ve not lost one. Not a diabetic, not a somebody with high blood pressure, not somebody who asthma, not an old person. We’ve not lost one patient. And on top of that, I’ve put myself, my staff, and many doctors that I know on hydroxychloroquine for prevention, because by the very mechanism of action, it works early and as a prophylaxis. We see patients, 10 to 15 COVID patients, everyday. We give them breathing treatments. We only wear surgical mask. None of us has gotten sick. It works.
So right now, I came here to Washington DC to say, America, nobody needs to die. The study that made me start using hydroxychloroquine was a study that they did under the NIH in 2005 that say it works. Recently, I was doing some research about a patient that had hiccups and I found out that they even did a recent study in the NIH, which is our National Institute … that is the National … NIH, what? National Institute of Health. They actually had a study and go look it up. Type hiccups and COVID, you will see it. They treated a patient that had hiccups with hydroxychloroquine and it proved that hiccups is a symptom of COVID. So if the NIH knows that treating the patient would hydroxychloroquine proves that hiccup is a symptom of COVID, then they definitely know the hydroxychloroquine works.
I’m upset. Why I’m upset is that I see people that cannot breathe. I see parents walk in, I see diabetic sit in my office knowing that this is a death sentence and they can’t breathe. And I hug them and I tell them, “It’s going to be okay. You’re going to live.” And we treat them and they leave. None has died. So if some fake science, some person sponsored by all these fake pharma companies comes out say, “We’ve done studies and they found out that it doesn’t work.” I can tell you categorically it’s fixed science. I want to know who is sponsoring that study. I want to know who is behind it because there is no way I can treat 350 patients and counting and nobody is dead and they all did better.
I know you’re going to tell me that you treated 20 people, 40 people, and it didn’t work. I’m a true testimony. So I came here to Washington DC to tell America nobody needs to get sick. This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax. I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need mask. There is a cure. I know they don’t want to open schools. No, you don’t need people to be locked down. There is prevention and there is a cure.
And let me tell you something, all you fake doctors out there that tell me, “Yeah. I want a double blinded study.” I just tell you, quit sounding like a computer, double blinded, double blinded. I don’t know whether your chips are malfunctioning, but I’m a real doctor. I have radiologists, we have plastic surgeons, we have neurosurgeons, like Sanjay Gupta saying, “Yeah, it doesn’t work and it causes heart disease.” Let me ask you Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Hear me. Have you ever seen a COVID patient? Have you ever treated anybody with hydroxychloroquine and they died from heart disease? When you do, come and talk to me because I sit down in my clinic every day and I see these patients walk in everyday scared to death. I see people driving two, three hours to my clinic because some ER doctor is scared of the Texas board or they’re scared of something, and they will not prescribe medication to these people.
I tell all of you doctors that are sitting down and watching Americans die. You’re like the good Nazi … the good one, the good Germans that watched Jews get killed and you did not speak up. If they come after me, they threaten me. They’ve threatened to … I mean, I’ve gotten all kinds of threats. Or they’re going to report me to the bots. I say, you know what? I don’t care. I’m not going to let Americans die. And if this is the hill where I get nailed on, I will get nailed on it. I don’t care. You can report me to the bots, you can kill me, you can do whatever, but I’m not going to let Americans die.
And today I’m here to say it, that America, there is a cure for COVID. All this foolishness does not need to happen. There is a cure for COVID. There is a cure for COVID is called hydroxychloroquine. It’s called zinc. It’s called Zithromax. And it is time for the grassroots to wake up and say, “No, we’re not going to take this any longer. We’re not going to die.” Because let me tell you something, when somebody is dead, they are dead. They’re not coming back tomorrow to have an argument. They are not come back tomorrow to discuss the double blinded study and the data. All of you doctors that are waiting for data, if six months down the line you actually found out that this data shows that this medication works, how about your patients that have died? You want a double blinded study where people are dying? It’s unethical. So guys, we don’t need to die. There is a cure for COVID.
My gosh. Dr. Emmanuelle also known as warrior. Before I introduce the next guest, I just want to say that I wish all doctors that are listening to this bring that kind of passion to their patients. And the study that Dr. Emmanuel was referring to is in Virology, which talks about a SARS viral epidemic that affects the lungs that came from China. And they didn’t know what would work. The study showed that chloroquine would work. It sounds exactly like it could have been written three months ago, but in fact, that’s study in Virology, which was published by the NIH, the National Institute of Health when Dr. Anthony Fauci was the director. Again, the official publication of the NIH, Virology, 15 years ago showed that chloroquine … we use hydroxychloroquine, it’s the same … little safer … works. They proved this 15 years ago when we got this novel coronavirus, which is not that novel, it’s 78% similar to the prior-
… coronavirus, which is not that novel. It’s 78% similar to the prior version. The COV-1, not surprisingly. It works. I’m now going to introduce our next speaker. Sorry. I forgot to say your name. Sorry.
That’s all right. Dr. Dan Erickson, Dr. Gold asked me to talk about the lockdown, how effective they were and do that cause anything nonfinancial? They always talk about the financial, but you have to realize that lockdown, we haven’t taken a $21 trillion economy and locked it down. So when you lock it down, it causes public health issues. Our suicide hotlines are up 600%, our spousal abuse. Different areas of alcoholism are all on the rise. These are public health problems from a financial lockdown. So we have to be clear on that fact that there is, it’s not like you just lock it down and have consequences to people’s jobs. They also have consequences, health consequences at home. So we’re talking about having a little more of a measured approach, a consistent approach. If we have another spike coming in cold and flu season, let’s do something that’s sustainable.
What’s sustainable. Well we can socially distance and wear some masks, but we can also open the schools and open businesses. So this measured approach I’m talking about, isn’t made up, it’s going on in Sweden and their deaths are about 564 per million. UK, full lockdown, 600 deaths per million. So we’re seeing that the lockdown aren’t decreasing significantly, the amount of deaths per million. Some of their Nordic neighbors have less deaths for a variety of reasons, I don’t have time to go into today. So what, my quick message here in a minute or two is just that we need to take an approach that’s sustainable. A sustainable approach is slowing things down, opening up schools, opening up businesses. And then we can allow the people to have their independence and their personal responsibility to choose to wear masks and socially distance, as opposed to putting edicts on them, kind of controlling them. Let’s empower them with data and let them study what other countries have done and make their own decision. That’s what I’d like to share. Thank you.
You know, South Dakota did something interesting. It’s interesting that you’re from there. So the governor did not restrict access to hydroxychloroquine.
Right. And you were, I believe you were the only state in the union that did that. And there’s been studies out there that attempt to show that it doesn’t work. They’re inaccurate because they’re given at the time, the wrong dose, the wrong patient either too much or a long time. So South Dakota did better because it had access to hydroxychloroquine. Thank you so much.
Okay. So if someone we love does get sick with COVID and you said the word hydro, or however you say it, it’s restricted. How do we get access to that?
Yeah. That’s the number one question we’re all asked every day. I want you to know that you’re not alone. I’ve had many congressmen ask me, how can I get it? So the congressmen can’t get it, it’s tough luck for the average American Joe getting it. It’s very difficult. You have to overcome a few hurdles. Your doctor has to have read the science with a critical eye and have eliminated the junk science. Many studies have been retracted as you know, and number two, the pharmacist has to not restrict it. Many states have empowered their pharmacists to not honor physician prescription. That’s never happened before. That interferes with the doctor patient relationship where the patient talks to the doctor, honestly, and the doctor answers the patient honestly has been violated.
So you have a very difficult time as the average American. Some of the information we’ll share later this afternoon is to show the mortality rates in countries where it’s not restricted and the mortality rates where it is restricted. So I have friends all over the world now because of this. And in Indonesia, you can just buy it over the counter. It’s in the vitamin section. And I’m here to tell the American people that you could buy it over the counter in Iran. Because the leaders in Iran, the mullahs in Iran, think that they should have more freedom than Americans. I have a problem with that. My colleagues have problems with that. We don’t like to watch patients die.
So when people have problems, they should be picking up the phone, they should be calling their state and their federal representatives and senators and say, we are the American people.
Thank you. Thank you, Julie. That is exactly right. If you hear what you’re, when you hear this, if you’re concerned and wondering why you may not be able to get access to it, we need to make four calls, call your governor, call both of your senators and call your Congressman and tell them that you want to know why you’re not able to get access to a drug that doctors are telling you will help end this and help us reduce the number of hospitalizations and reduce the number of deaths. Urge them to read Dr. Harvey Rich’s study from Yale. He’s a Yale professor of epidemiology. And from there you’ll find other studies.
Yes. I wanted to ask how do people trust the data that they are looking at every day? The numbers are so variable when you go to Johns Hopkins, CDC, which divides COVID deaths in different categories related to pneumonia, other things where we get the right information to make sense?
So the only number that I think is worth paying any attention to, and even that number is not so helpful is mortality because that’s a hard and fast number. So the case number is almost irrelevant. And that’s because there’s a lot of inaccuracies with the testing. And also even if the test is accurate, most people are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. So it’s not that important to know. So the case number, which you see rising all the time in the news is basically irrelevant. And if you had told us a few months ago, that that was the number that the media was going to go crazy over, we all would have just laughed at that. I mean, that’s essentially herd immunity. There’s lots of people out there who have tested positive without symptoms or with very mild symptoms. So the only number that’s worth paying attention to is mortality.
When you look at the mortality, this is a disease that takes, that unfortunately kills our most frail members of society. People with multiple comorbid conditions, specifically diabetes, obesity is a big one. We don’t talk about that, but it is. It’s a fact. Coronary artery disease, severe coronary artery disease, people like that. And also if you’re older, it’s a risk factor. But the biggest risk factor is if you have comorbid conditions. If you’re young and healthy, this is not … You’re going to recover. If you’re under 60 with no comorbid conditions, it’s less deadly than influenza. This seems to come as great news to Americans because this is not what you’re being told. I would say the answer is it’s very difficult to get accurate numbers.
Listen to the doctors. [inaudible 00:19:21] the frontline doctors. Have a meeting with the frontline doctors, and maybe I need to say that into the microphone. My message to Dr. Anthony Fauci is to have a meeting with these frontline doctors who are seeing real patients. They’re touching human skin. They’re looking people in the eye, they’re diagnosing them and they’re helping them beat the virus. They’re the ones who are talking to the patients, have meetings with them and do it every single day and find out what they are learning about the virus firsthand. And this is, and it’s important to understand, we have doctors here who are not emergency room doctors. They’re preventing patients from even hitting the emergency room. So if they’re only listening to emergency room or ICU at the very tragic end of a person’s life they’re not getting the full story. They need to come back in here the earlier portion. And they also need to understand what the lockdown and the fears are doing to patients around this country, because there are a lot of unintended consequences, which the doctors can speak about.
Can I say something. My message to Dr. Anthony Fauci is when is the last time you put a stethoscope on a patient? That when you start seeing patients like we see on a daily basis, you will understand the frustration that we feel. You need to start feeling for American people like we, the frontline doctors, feel. I need to start realizing that. They are listening to you. And if they are going to you, you got to give them a message of hope. Got to give them a message that goes with what you already know that hydroxychloroquine works.
Dr. Emmanuel, okay. You mentioned before some remarkable results that you’ve had treating your own patients. She said, I believe she said 300 patients.
We’re working on publishing it right now. We’re working on that, but this is what I’ll say. People like Dr. Samuel [inaudible 00:21:29] published the data. And my question is, and? That will make you see patients. There’s no data around the world. Yes. My data will come out. When that comes out. That’s great. But right now people are dying. So my data is not important for you to see patients. I’m saying that to my colleagues out there that talk about data, data, data.
May I just interject. There is a lot of [crosstalk 00:21:49] data on this. Not every clinician needs to publish their data to be taken seriously. The media has not covered it. There is a ton. I’ve got a compendium on americasfrontlinedoctors.com, there is a compendium of all the studies that work with hydroxychloroquine. The mortality rate was published in Detroit, less than a … It was July 4th weekend. They published it. Mortality by half in the critically ill patients, the patients who are get it early, it’s been estimated that one half to three quarters of those patients, wouldn’t be dead. We’re talking 70,000 to 105 … 70 to 100,000 patients would still be alive if we followed this policy. There’s plenty of published data. [crosstalk 00:22:27].
If I can ask one more question. There was a little girl who just a few days ago [inaudible 00:22:37] otherwise healthy and it was concluded that she died of COVID-19 so I was curious from your perspective, you feel that this little girl possibly died from some other condition and it was attributed to COVID-19 or is there some other reason why she [crosstalk 00:00:22:52].
I will not. I will not be able to say that till I look at the little girl’s history and whatever happened. I know I’ve taken care of a lot of family members and I see a lot of children and they usually get mild symptoms, but I cannot talk about kids that I have not looked at.
Okay. So listen, there are children who are dying of this infection. And the reality is that when they do die, they seem to have comorbidities. Really, you have to kind of look at each individual case. Uniquely there have been a little over 30 patients in the entire country, in the age category of 15 and below who have died of COVID. Frequently they do have comorbidities like heart disease. They have asthma, they have other pulmonary issues. So I don’t know, we don’t know the answer to this nine year old girl, tragically. She passed, and she’s no longer with us, but there’s probably, if you dig into it, there’s probably a story behind it.
I mean, I think that it is common knowledge that with the schools not being open, when you think about what your experience in junior high and high school-
… not being open. When you think about your experience in junior high and high school, what do you think about? You think about parties and you think about football games, socializing. Those are the things we think about. Those are all being shut down, folks. Nobody is having fun anymore. And I will tell you that these are critical years of life to be out mixing with other kids, other people, and that has been shut down. So yes, there are lots of comorbidities that go along with shutting down. We’re talking about anxiety, we’re talking about depression, loneliness, abuse is happening, and kids who have particular… Children who have special needs, kids are not doing well either. So, there is a long list of complications that occur when you quarantine and lockdown people.
So an extension to what you were just talking about, we hear all these studies and all this polling that moms are afraid to go back to work because of letting their children go to school, they shouldn’t go to school because then they’re exposed, and if the moms go back to school, then the elderly grandparents, they’re [crosstalk 00:25:04].
Sure. Yeah, this is a big issue because people are afraid not that their children are going to get particularly ill, because I think they’re learning the truth is that this infection is being tolerated well by children. But certainly, they look at their environment, their particular unique family, and I think in some situations that may be an appropriate fear. However, I do think that as a general comment, a general rule through the country, kids can go back to school. Maybe a few kids here and there, their living situation, who they’re being cared for, that can be a potential problem. But again, for younger children in particular, they’re not the ones passing on the disease to the adults.
We’re talking about, we can’t open our businesses. We can’t go to school and parents are scared to get treated. And I personally, have put over a hundred people on hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis. Doctors, teachers, people who are health care workers, my staff, me, I see over 15 to 20, sometimes 20, 15, 10 patients a day. I use a surgical mask. I’ve not been infected. Nobody I know has been infected that’s around me. So this is the answer to this question. You want to open schools, everybody get on hydroxychloroquine. That is the prevention for COVID. One tablet every other week is good enough. And that is what we need to get across to the American people. There’s prevention and there is cure. We don’t have to lock down schools. We don’t have to lockdown our businesses. There’s prevention, and there is cure. So instead of talking about a mask, instead of talking about lockdowns, instead of talking about all these things, put our teachers on hydroxychloroquine.
Put those that are high risk on hydroxychloroquine. Those that want it. If you want to catch COVID, that’s cool, but you should be given the right to take it and be prevented. So that’s the message. All this stuff that we’re putting together, it’s not necessary because hydroxychloroquine has a prevention. Hydroxychloroquine is a prevention for COVID.
And you guys also said that previous doctors have used it, but they’ve used it in the wrong dosage. So I keep hearing the drug, but then what is the right dosage. What is the right mixture?
Yeah, that’s a great question. Because the whole political situation has driven the fear towards this drug. So let’s address that. This drug is super safe. It’s safer than aspirin, Motrin, Tylenol. It’s super safe. All right. So what the problem is in a lot of those studies, they did very, very high doses, massive doses all through the country. They did the remaps study, the solidarity trial. That was the world health organization trial, and also the recovery trial. They use 2,400 milligrams in the first day. All you need is 200 twice a week for prophylaxis. They used massive toxic doses. And guess what they found out? When you use massive toxic doses, you get toxic results. The drug doesn’t work when you give toxic doses. It’s a very safe drug. It concentrates in the lungs, 200 to 700 times higher in the lungs.
It’s an amazing drug because in the bloodstream, you’re not going to get high levels, but you get massive levels in the lungs. So you’re going to find yourself, if you prophylax, that as soon as the virus gets there, it’s going to have a hard time getting through because the hydroxychloroquine blocks it from getting in. And then once it gets in, it won’t let the virus actually replicate. Bring in zinc and zinc will mess up the copy machine called the RDRP. So with the combination of drugs, it’s incredibly effective in the early disease. By itself, it’s incredibly effective as a prophylaxis. Does that answer to the question?
Yeah. I want to emphasize on something that Dr. [inaudible 00:29:20] just said, because I love the question. This is a treatment regimen that’s very simple, and it should be in the hands of the American people. The difficult aspect of this is that at the moment, because of politics, it’s being blocked from doctors prescribing it, and it’s being blocked from pharmacists releasing it. They’ve been empowered to overrule the doctor’s opinion. Why is this not over the counter? As you can get it in much of the world and almost all of Latin America, in Iran, in Indonesia, in Subsaharan Africa, you can just go and buy it yourself. And the dose, my friends is 200 milligrams twice in a week and zinc daily. That’s the dose. I’m in favor of it being over the counter. Give it to the people. Give it to the people.
Hi, Dr. James Todaro [inaudible 00:30:13]. I just want to add a couple of comments to what Dr. Gold was saying. If it seems like there is an orchestrated attack that’s going on against hydroxychloroquine it’s because there is. When have you ever heard of a medication generating this degree of controversy? A 65 year old medication that has been on the World Health Organization’s safe, essential list of medications for years. It’s over the counter in many countries. And what we’re seeing is a lot of misinformation. So I coauthored the first document on hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for coronavirus. This is back in March and that kind of kicked off a whole series of a storm on it. And since then, there’s been a tremendous amount of censorship on doctors like us and what we’re saying. And a number of us have already been censored. That Google document that I coauthored was actually pulled down by Google. And this is after now, many studies have shown that it is effective and it is safe. You still can’t read that article. And there’s also this misinformation out there. And unfortunately, this has reached the highest orders of medicine. In May there was an article published in The Lancet. This is one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals in the world. The World Health Organization stopped all their clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine because of this study. And it was independent researchers like us who care about patients, who care about the truth that dug into this study and determined that it was actually fabricated data. The data was not real. And we did this so convincingly that this study was retracted by The Lancet less than two weeks after it was published. This is almost unheard of, especially for study of this magnitude.
So I apologize to everyone for the fact that there is so much misinformation out there, and it’s so hard to find the truth. And unfortunately, it’s going to take looking at other places for the truth. That’s why we formed frontline doctors here to try to help get the real information out there.
Most of my thoughts, I actually publish on Twitter. Twitter has been great lately. So, James Todaro, M D. T-O-D-A-R-O M-D but I also have a website medicineuncensored.com, which contains kind of a lot of the information about hydroxychloroquine I think is much more objective than what’s going on in other media channels.
One point, in terms of Twitter. That’s important because as I understand not only from doctors, but from other people in the media, that YouTube has blocked information specifically about hydroxychloroquine.
I’ll go ahead and address that real quickly. I would say Facebook and YouTube have taken the most draconian measures to silence and censorship people. And this is coming from the CEO of YouTube, as well as Mark Zuckerberg saying anything that goes against what the World Health Organization has said is subject to censorship. And we all know the World Health Organization has made a number of mistakes during this pandemic. They have not been perfect by any means. Twitter, although they have some flaws and faults and flag certain content and stuff, they really still remain one of the freest platforms to share dialogue, intelligent discussion regarding this information. And many of us here today actually connected on social platform mediums like that.
Sure thing. I’m Dr. Joe. Ladapo. I’m a physician at UCLA and I’m a clinical researcher also. And I’m speaking for myself and not on behalf of UCLA. So I want to say that I’m thinking of the people who are behind the screens that are watching what you guys were broadcasting. And I want to share with you because there’s so much controversy and the atmosphere is so full of conflict right now that what this group of doctors is trying to do fundamentally, is really to bring more light to this conversation about how we manage COVID-19 and the huge challenge. And that’s what this is ultimately about. And bringing light to something means thinking more about trade offs, about one of my colleagues said on unintended consequences. And I actually think that’s not even the right word, the right word is unanticipated consequences. Really thinking about the implications of the decisions we’re making in this really, really extraordinary time that we’re in.
So, I’m sure people are listening to some of the discussion about hydroxychloroquine and wondering, what are these doctors talking about? And, these are doctors that take care of patients, board certified, med school, great med schools, all of that. How could they possibly be saying this? I watch CNN and NBC, and they don’t say anything about this. And that’s actually, that’s the point. There are issues that are moral issues, that really there should be a singular voice. So for me, issues related to whether people are treated differently based on their sex or race, or their sexual orientation. I personally think those are moral issues and there’s only one position on those. But COVID-19 is not a moral issue. COVID-19 is a challenging, complex issue that we benefit from having multiple perspectives on. So it’s not good for the American people when everyone is hearing one perspective on the main stations. There’s no way that’s going to service. So, the perspective most people have been hearing is that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work. That’s the perspective that most people have been hearing on the mainstream television.
That’s the perspective that most people have been hearing on the mainstream television, and I believe that perspective too, until I started talking to doctors who would look more closely than some of the physicians behind me here, who would look more closely at the data and at the studies.
So it is a fact that several randomized trials have come out so far, that’s our highest level of evidence, and have shown that hydroxychloroquine… Their findings have generally been that there’s no significant effect on health benefit. So, that’s a fact, that the randomized control trials have come out… So far that have come out. In fact, there were two or three big ones that came out over the last two weeks, [inaudible 00:36:44] Internal Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and I think one other journal.
It is also a fact that there have been several observational studies. These are just not randomized controlled trials, but patients who are getting treated with this medication that have found that hydroxychloroquine improves outcomes. So both of those things are true. There’s evidence against it and there’s evidence for it. It is also a fact that we are in an extraordinarily challenging time. Given those considerations, how can the right answer be to limit physician’s use of the medication? That can’t possibly be the right answer. And when you consider that this medication before COVID-19 had been used for decades, by patients with rheumatoid arthritis, by patients with lupus, by patients with other conditions, by patients who were traveling to West Africa and needed malaria prophylaxis, we’ve been using it for a long time, but all of a sudden it’s elevated to this area of looking like some poisonous drug. That just doesn’t make sense.
Then when you add onto that the fact that we’ve had two of the biggest journals in the world, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet, as my colleagues say, retract studies that found, interestingly, that hydroxychloroquine harmed patients. Both of these studies. They had to retract these studies, which really is unheard of. That should raise everyone’s concern about what is going on. At the very least, we can live in a world where there are differences of opinion about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, but still allow more data to come, still allow physicians who feel like they have expertise with it use that medication, and still talk, and learn, and get better at helping people with COVID-19.
Listen, let me just put a little bit of that. I have seen 350 patients and counting. Put them on hydroxychloroquine. They all got better. This is what I would say to all those studies, they had high doses, they were given to wrong patients. I will call them fake science. Any study that says hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, is fake science and I want them to show me how it doesn’t work. How is it going to work for 350 patients for me and they’re all alive, and then somebody say it doesn’t work? Guys, all them studies, fake science.
I’ve heard there’s an increase in anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, and various mental health issues as a result of school closures and shutdowns. Is it your recommendation that [inaudible 00:39:48] federal funding for programs will help deal with those issues?
Yeah, I don’t understand how you would go to that conclusion. If the problem was that the schools are shut down, and it’s causing it, then we need to open up the schools.
Yeah. I would go to the school. I would open up the schools, because the most important thing for children is to socialize, and to be with other kids, and to learn. Yeah. [crosstalk 00:40:14] Yeah. Let’s get kids back in school.
Kids back in school. We’re in favor of kids back in school.
Speaker 15: (40:22)
Thank you everyone. [crosstalk 00:04:24]. Thank you very much. And we are going to be going back live continuing our summit, so you can continue watching. Once we get back, we may be running.
That depression is caused by low zinc levels. When you go into a hospital nowadays, they don’t test for those zinc levels. Low zinc levels are manifested by loss of sense of smell, loss of taste. Why are these also symptoms of COVID, right? COVID, loss of sense of smell, loss of taste, right? And the reason is because zinc is the natural thing that used to fight the COVID. What happens is the zinc stops RNA polymerase, and the hydroxy chloroquine allows the zinc to go into the cells.
Let me explain it a little bit better. The zinc stops RNA polymerase, and it’s used up by your cells in the normal fighting of COVID. So if you never took hydroxychloroquine, you’d still be zinc depleted. We’re in a natural state of zinc depletion in the United States, but the COVID decreases your zinc even more, and you need it to fight off any virus. That’s why your mom always said, “Take your zinc,” right?
Okay. My question was about if federal funds should be diverted to helping therapists, social workers and other frontline workers to deal with the psychological issues that were mentioned by your colleague, that shut downs in the government and school closures cause an increase in suicidal ideation, and substance abuse, and anxiety. So those environmental factors are what caused those mental health issues. Doesn’t it stand to reason that then funds to help those institutions deal with the problem should be receiving more funding?
Oh no, it’s not really about… It’s not my expertise either, actually. But I was wondering since your colleague said that as a result of school closures and government shutdowns, which caused an increase in suicidal ideation, anxiety, substance abuse, and a variety of other issues, I’m wondering if federal funding should be diverted to frontline workers, social workers, mental health therapists?
The answer your question is this, I see it this way, harm has already come is what we’re saying. So the answer to the question is, harm has already come. What should we do about that harm? I don’t know the inner workings of the government, but to say that harm has already come, and to say that we’re going to do something about it, it makes sense. To me as a doctor, I think if we know harm is coming, if you and I know we already got run over by a car, I think it makes sense to let me go ahead and go to the hospital to get my-
Dr. Fauci has played a central role in blocking HCQ:
Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert” has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead’s Remdesivir.
Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.
Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June . According to Fauci, Remdesevir is the “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Science Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.
We are excited to announce that a number of new GRTV video productions are under way (in English, French and Spanish). The video interviews essentially consist of dialogue and analysis on current global trends and topics, including COVID and the looming economic crisis amongst other important subjects.
The production of these videos is made possible in large part via contributions from our readers: Your support is essential! Please help us further develop this project by making a donation or taking out a membership with us. Click below for more details:
For the last forty years, neo-liberalism has dominated economic thinking and the formulation of economic policies Worldwide.
But the corona virus crisis has exposed, in a dramatic way, its internal contradictions, its incapacity to deal with the corona crisis and its incompetence to restore the real economy ruined by the crisis.
In this article, we will focus on the relationship between Neoliberalism and the Corona Crisis:
Neoliberalism has prevented the governments from controlling effectively the initial outbreak of the corona virus.
Neoliberalism has made the wave of virus propagation higher and wider, especially in the U.S.
Neoliberalism can shake the foundations of the U.S. economy.
Neoliberalism may not survive the corona virus crisis in the U.S.
To save democracy and the global economy, We need a new economic model which supports the future of humanity, which sustains human livelihood Worldwide.
1. Neoliberalism and the initial Outbreak of the Corona Virus
The most important part of neoliberalism is the relation -often of a corrupt nature- between the government and large corporations. By corruption, we mean illegal or immoral human activities designed to maximize profit at the expense of people’s welfare. In this relation, the government may not be able to control and govern the large corporations. In fact, in the present context, the corporations govern and oversee national governments.
Hence, when the corona virus broke out, it was difficult for the government to take immediate actions to control the virus break-out to save human lives; It was quite possible that the price of stocks and large corporations’ profit had the priority.
The theory known as neoliberalism distinguishes itself from the old liberalism prevailing before the Great Depression.
It became widely accepted mainly because of its adoption, in the 1970s and 1980s, by Ronald Reagan, president of the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher, prime minister of Great Britain as an economic policy agenda applied nationally and internationally.
The justification of neoliberalism is the belief that the best way to ensure economic growth is to encourage “supply activities” of private sector enterprises.
Now, the proponents of neoliberalism argue that public goods (including health and education) can be produced with greater efficiency by private companies than by the State. Therefore, “it is better” to let the private enterprises produce public goods.
In other words, the production of public goods should be “privatized”. Neoliberals put profit as the best measure of efficiency and success. And profit can be sustained with government support. In turn, the private companies’ policy is that of reducing the labour costs of production.
Government assistance includes reduction of corporate taxes, subsidies and anti-labour policies such as the prohibition of labour unionization and the abolition of the minimum wage.
Reduction of labour cost can be obtained by the automation of the production of goods
Under such circumstances, close cooperation between the government and the private corporations is inevitable; even it may be necessary.
But, such cooperation is bound to lead to government-business collusion in which the business receives legal and illegal government support in exchange of illicit money such as kick-backs and bribes given to influential politicians and the people close to the power.
As the collusion becomes wider and deeper, an oligarchy is formed; it is composed of corporations, politicians and civil servants. This oligarchy’s raison d’être is to make money even at the expense of the interests of the people.
Now, in order to protect its vested interests, the oligarchy expands its network and creates tight-knit political community which shares the wealth and privileges obtained.
In this way, the government-business cooperation can be evolved by stage to give birth to the corruption culture.
Some of the neoliberal countries may be at the stage of the collusion; some of them may find themselves at the stage of oligarchy; some of them may be at the stage of corruption culture.
South Korea
When the progressive government of Moon Jae-in took over power in 2017, South Korea under the 60-year neo-liberal rule by the conservatives was at the stage of corruption culture.
The progressive government of Moon Jae-in has declared a total war against the corruption culture, but it is a very long way to go before eliminating corruption.
In South Korea, of six presidents of the conservative government, four presidents were or are in prison for corruption and abuse of power. This shows how deeply the corruption has penetrated into the fabrics of the Korea society
In Japan, since 1957, there were twenty-one prime ministers of whom 75% were one-year or two-year prime ministers despite the four-year term of prime ministers. The short life span of Japanese prime ministers is essentially due to the short term interest pursued by the corrupted golden triangle composed of big business, bureaucrats and politicians. Unless, Japan uproots the corruption culture, it will be difficult to save the Japanese economy from perpetual stagnation.
Lobbying and “Corruption Culture”
Many of the developed countries in the West are also the victims of corruption culture. In the U.K. the City (London’s Wall Street) is the global center of money laundry.
In the U.S. the big companies are spending a year no less than $2.6 billion lobbying money for the promotion of their interests, while the Congress spends $ 2.9 billion and the Senate, $860 million for their respective annual operation. Some of the big companies deploy as many as 100 lobbyists.
It is unbelievable that the amount of lobbying is as much as 70% of the annual budget of the whole legislative of the U.S.
True, in the U.S., lobbying is not illegal, but it may not be morally justified. It is a system where the law makers give privileges to those who spend more money, which can be considered as bribes
Under such lobbying system, each group should deploy lobbyists to promote their interests. The immigrants, the native Indians, the Afro Americans, the alienated white people and other marginal groups cannot afford lobbyists and they are often excluded from fair treatment in the process of making laws and policies
Some of the developed European countries are also very corrupted. The international Transparency Index rank, in 2019, was 23 for France, 30 for Spain and 51 for Italy.
In the case of the U.S. its rank increased froom18 in 2016 to 22 in 2019. Thus in three years, the degree of corruption increase by 22.2%
What is alarming is that, in the corruption culture, national policies are liable to be dictated by big businesses.
In South Korea, under the conservative government, it was suspected that the national policies were determined by the Chaebols (large industrial conglomerates), not by the government.
As matter of fact, during the MERS crisis in 2015, the anti-virus policy was dictated by the Samsung Group. In order to save its profit, Samsung Hospital in Seoul hid the infected so that the number of non-MERS patients would not decrease.
In Japan, the Abe government made the declaration of public health emergency as late as April 6, 2020 despite the fact that the infections were detected as early as January, 2020.
This decision was, most likely, dictated by Keiretsu members (grouping of large enterprises) in order to save investments in the July Olympics. Nobody knows how many Japanese had been infected for more than three months.
Similarly, Trump was well aware of the sure propagation of the virus right form January, but he waited until March 13, 2020 before he declared the state of effective public health emergency. The obvious reason was the possible fear of free fall of stock price and the possible loss of big companies’ profits.
The interesting question is: “The delayed declaration of public health emergency, was it Trump’s decision or that of his corporate friends?” It doesn’t matter whose decision it was, because the government under neoliberal system is controlled the big businesses.
So, as in Japan, Italy, Spain, France and especially, the U.K, Trump lost the golden time to save human lives to keep profit of enterprises.
God knows how many American lives were sacrificed to save stock price and company profit!
Thus, the neoliberal governments have lost the golden chance to prevent the initial outbreak of the dreadful virus.
2. Neo-liberalism and the Propagation of Corona-Virus
We saw that the initial outbreak of the virus was not properly controlled leading to the loss to golden time of saving human lives, most likely because of the priority given to business and political interests.
The initial outbreak of the virus was transformed into never-ending propagation and, even now, in many states in the U.S. the wave of the virus is getting higher and wider.
This tragic reality can be explained by four factors:
people’s mistrust in the government,
unbounded competition,
inequitable income distribution,
the absence of public health system.
These four factors (above) are all the legacies of neoliberalism.
The people know well that the corrupted neoliberal government’s concern is not the welfare of the people but the interest of a few powerful and the rich. The inevitable outcome is the loss of people’s trust in the unreliable government.
This is demonstrated by Trump’s indecision, his efforts of ignoring the warning of the professionals, his fabricates stories and above all, his perception of who should be given the right to receive life-saving medical care at the hospital.
Under such circumstances, Americans do not trust the government directives and guidelines, allegedly implemented to protect people from the virus.
The guideline of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) for self quarantine, social distancing and wearing face masks has little effect. There is another product of neoliberalism which is troublesome. I mean its credo of unbounded competition.
It is true that competition promotes efficiency and better quality of products. However, as competition continues, the number of winners decreases, while that of losers rises. The economy ends up being ruled by a handful of powerful winners. This leads to the segregation of losers and leads to the discrimination of people by income level, religion, race and colour of skin.
In the present context, largely as a result of government policy, there is little to no social solidarity; each individual has to solve his or her own problems. I was sad when I saw on TV a young lady in California saying:
“To be killed by the COVID-19 or starve to death is the same to me. I open my shop to eat!”
This shows how American citizens are left alone to fight the coronavirus. Furthermore, neoliberalism has another unhappy legacy; it is the widening and deepening income inequality.
The U.S. is the richest country in the world, but it is also a country where income inequality is the most pronounced. I will come back to this issue in the next section. In relation to the corona virus crisis, income inequality means an army of those who are most likely to be infected and who are unable to follow CDC guidelines of testing, self quarantine and social distancing. Finally, the privatization of public health services has made the whole country unprepared for the onslaught of the virus.
In fact, in the U.S. there is no public health system. For three months after the first breakout of the virus, the country lacked everything needed to fight the virus.
There was shortage of testing kits and PPE (personal protective equipment);
there were not enough rooms to accommodate the infected;
there was shortage of qualified medical staff;
there was lack of face masks.
Thus, neoliberalism has made the U.S not only to lose the golden time to prevent the initial breakout but also it has let the wave of virus to continue. Nobody knows when it will calm down. As a matter of fact, on July 4, there were 2.9 million infected and 132,000 deaths; this gives a death rate of 4.6%. Given U.S. population of 328 million, we have 402.44 deaths per million inhabitants which is one of highest among the developed countries. The trouble is that the wave of virus is still going higher and wider. On July 4, the confirmed cases increased by 50% in two weeks in 12 states and increased 10% to 50% in 22 states.
3. Neo-liberalism and the very Foundation of the U.S. Economy
The message of this section is this. The foundation of the American economy is the purchasing power of the consumers and the job creation by small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The consumer demand is 70% of the GDP, the SMEs create 66% of jobs. Unfortunately, because of neoliberalism, the consumers have become very poorer and the SMEs have been neglected in the pro-big-company government policies. The COVID-19 has destroyed the SMEs and impoverished the consumers. Nobody would deny the contribution of neo-liberalism to globalization of finance, the creation of the global value chain and, especially the free trade agreement.
All these activities have allowed GDP to grow in developed countries and some of new industrial countries. However, the wealth created by the growth of GDP has gone to countries already developed, some developing countries and a small number of multinational enterprises (MNE). The rich produced by GDP growth has led to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few privileged. What is more serious is this. If the skewed income distribution in favour of a decreasing number of people continues for long, the GDP will stop growing and decades-long deflation is quite possible, as it has happened in Japan.
According to the OECD data, in the period, 1975-2011, the GDP share of labour income in OECD countries fell by 13.8% from 65% to 56%. In the case of the U.S., in the same period, 1970-2014, it fell by 11%. The falling labour-income share is necessarily translated into unequal household income distribution. There are two popular ways of measuring income distribution: the decile ratio and the Gini coefficient.
The decile ratio is obtained by dividing the income earned by the top 10% income earners by the income earned by the bottom 10% income earners . The decile ratio in 2019 was 18.5 in the U.S. as compared to 5.6 in Finland. The decile ratio of the U.S. was the highest among the developed countries. Thus, in the U.S. the top 10 % has an income 19 times more than the bottom 10%, while, in Finland, the corresponding ratio is only 6 times. This shows how serious the income gap is in the country of Uncle Sam.
The Gini coefficient varies from zero to 100. As the value of the Gini increases, the income distribution becomes favourable to the high-income households. Conversely, as the value of the Gini decreases, the income distribution becomes favourable to low-income households. There are two types of Gini: the gross Gini and the net Gini. The former refers to Gini before taxes and transfer payment, while the latter refers to Gini after taxes and transfer payment. The difference between the gross and the net Gini shows the government efforts to improve the equality and fairness of income distribution The gross U.S.- Gini coefficient in 2019 was 48.6, one of the highest among the developed countries.
Its net Gini was 38.0 so that the difference between the gross and the net Gini was 12.3%. In other words, the U.S. income distribution improved only by 12.3% by government efforts as against, for example, an improvement of 42.9% in the case of Germany, where the gross Gini was 49.9 while the net Gini was 28.5 The net Gini of the U.S. was the highest among the developed countries. The implication is clear. The income distribution in the U.S. was the most unequal. To make the matter worse, the government’s effort to improve the unequal income distribution was the poorest among the developed countries. There are countless signs of unfortunate impacts of the inequitable income distribution in the country called the U.S. which Koreans used to admire describing it as “mi-gook-美國미국 – Beautiful Country”. Now, one wonders if it is still a “mi-gook”.
The following data indicates the seriousness of poverty in the U.S. (data below prior to the Coronavirus crisis).
In the U.S. the richest 1% of the population has 40% of all household wealth. (2017 data)
More than 20% of the population cannot pay monthly bills.
About 40% do not have savings.
31% of private sector worker do not have medical benefits.
57% of the workers in the service sector have no medical benefits.
These data give us an idea on how so many people have to suffer from poverty in a country where per capita GDP is $65,000 (2019 estimate), the richest country in the world. Most of the Americans work for small- and medium-sized companies (SMEs). In the U.S., there are 30 million SMEs. They create 66% of jobs in the private sector. The SMEs are more severely hit than big companies by the coronavirus.
In fact, 66% of SMEs are adversely affected by the virus against 40% for big firms. As much as 20% of SMEs may be shut down for good within three months, because of the virus. Under the forty years of neoliberal pro-big corporation policies, available financial resources and the best human resources have been allocated to big firms at the expense of the development of SMEs.
The most damaging by-product of neoliberalism is no doubt the widening and deepening unequal income distribution for the benefit of the big corporations and the uprooting of SMEs. This trend means the shrinking domestic demand and the disappearance of jobs for ordinary people.
The destruction of the domestic market caused by the shrinking consumer demand and the disappearance of SMEs can mean the uprooting of the very foundation of the economy.
The experience of Japan shows how this can happen. The economic depression after the bubble burst of 1989, Japan had to endure 30-year deflation. The government of Japan has flooded the country with money to restore the economy, but the money was used for the bail-out of big corporations neglecting the healthy development of the SMEs and impoverishing the ordinary Japanese people. South Korea could have experienced the Japanese-type economic stagnation, if the conservative government ruled the country ten more years.
The neoliberal pro-big company policy of Washington has greatly depleted consumer demand and SMEs even before the onslaught of the coronavirus. But, the COVID-19 has given a coup de grâce to consumer demand and SMEs To better understand the issue, let us go back to the ABC of economics. Looking at the national economy from the demand side, the economy consists of private consumer demand (C), the private investment demand (I), the government demand (G) and Foreign demand represented by exports of domestic products (X) minus domestic demand for imported foreign products (M).
GDP=C + I + G + (X-M)
In 2019, the consumer expenditure (C) in the U.S. was 70% of GDP, whereas the government’s spending (G) was 17%. The investments demand (I) was 18%. The net exports demand (X-M) was -5%.
In 2019 the composition of Canadian GDP was: C=57%; I=23 %; G=21 %; X-M=-1%.
Thus, we see that the U.S. economy heavily depends on the private domestic consumption, which represents as much as 70% of GDP compared to 57% in Canada. The government’s contribution to the national demand is 17% as against 21% in Canada. In the U.S. a small government is a virtue according to neoliberals. In the U.S. the private investments account for only 18% of GDP as compared to as much as 23% in Canada. In the U.S., off-shoring of manufacturing jobs and the global value chain under neo-liberalism have decreased the need for business investments at home. It is obvious then that to save the American economy, we have to boost the consumers’ income. But, the consumer income comes mainly from SMEs. We must remember that the SMEs create 66% of all jobs in the U.S. Therefore, if consumer demand falls and if SMEs do not create jobs, the US economy may have to face the same destiny as the Japanese economy. This is happening in the U.S. The corona virus crisis is destroying SMEs and taking away the income of the people.
The coronavirus crisis is about to demolish the very foundation of the American economy.
4. Corona Virus Crisis and the Survival of Neoliberalism
The interesting question is this. Will neo-liberalism as economic system survive the corona virus crisis in the U.S.?
There are at least four indications suggesting that it will not survive.
First, to overcome major crisis such as the corona virus invasion, we need strong central government and people-loving leader. One of the reasons for the successful anti-virus policy in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore was the strong central government’s role of determining and coordinating the anti-virus policies. As we saw, the gospel of neo-liberalism is the minimization of the central government’s role. Having little role in economic policies, the U.S. federal government has proved itself as the most incompetent entity to fight the crisis. It is more than possible that the U.S. and all the neoliberal countries will try to get away from the traditional neoliberal governance in which the government is almost a simple errand boy of big business.
Second, the people’s trust in the neoliberal leaders has fallen on the ground. It will be difficult for the neoliberal leaders to be able to lead the country in the post-corona virus era.
Third, the corona virus crisis has made the people aware of the abuse of power by the big companies; the people now know that these companies are interested only in making money. So, it may be more difficult for them to exploit the people in the era of post-COVID-19.
Fourth, the U.S. economy is shaken up so much that the neoliberal regime will not able to recover the economy. Thus, the survival of neo-liberalism looks uncertain. But, if the coronavirus crisis continues and destroys SMEs and if only the big corporations survive owing to bailout money, neo-liberalism may survive and we may end up with authoritarian governance ruled by the business-politics oligarchy.
5. Search for a New Economic Regime: Just-Liberalism
One thing which the corona-virus crisis has demonstrated is the fact that the American neo-liberalism has failed as sustainable regime capable of stopping the virus crisis, restore the economy and save the democracy. Hence, we have to look for a new regime capable of saving the U.S. economy and democracy. We would call this new regime as “Just-liberalism” mission of which is the sustainable economic development and, at the same time, the just distribution of the benefits of economic development. Before we get into the discussion of the main feature of the new regime, there is one thing we should discuss. It is the popular perception of large corporation. Many believe that they make GDP grow and create jobs. It is also the popular view that the success of these large corporations is due to the innovative managing skills of their founders or their CEOs. Therefore, they deserve annual salary of millions of dollars. This is the popular perception of Chaebols in South Korea.
But, a great part of Chaebols income is attributable to the public goods such as national defence, police protection, social infrastructures, the education system, enormous sacrifice of workers and, especially tax allowances, subsidies and privileges. In other words, a great part of the Chaebols’ income belongs to the society, not the Chaebols. Many believe that the Chaebols create jobs, but, in reality, they crate less than 10% of jobs in Korea. We may say the same thing about large corporations in the U.S. In other words, much of the company’s income is due to public goods. Hence, the company should equitably share its income with the rest of the society. But do they?
The high ranking managers get astronomical salaries; some of them are hiding billions of dollars in tax haven islands.
We ask. Are large corporations sharing equitably their income with the society? Are the corporate tax allowances they get too much? Is the wage they pay too low? Is CEO’s income is too high?
It is difficult to answer these questions.
But we should throw away the mysticism surrounding the merits of large corporations; we should closely watch them so that they do not misuse their power and wealth to dictate national policies for their own benefit at the expense of the welfare of the people. The new regime, just-liberalism, should have the following eight features.
First, we need a strong government which is autonomous from big businesses; there should be no business-politics collusion; there should be no self-interest oligarchy of corruption.
Second, it is the time we should reconsider the notion of human right violation. There are several types of human right violation in developed countries including the U.S. For example, the racial discrimination, the inequality before the law, the violation of the right of social security and the violation of the right of social service are some cases of violation of human rights defined by the U.N. The Western media have been criticizing human right violation in “non-democratic countries”, but, in the future, they should pay more attention to human right violation in “democratic countries.”
Third, the criterion of successful economy should not be limited to the GDP growth; the equitable distribution of the benefits of GDP growth should also be a criterion; proper balance between the growth and the distribution of growth fruits should be maintained.
Fourth, market should not be governed by “efficiency” alone; it must be also “equitable”. Efficiency may lead to the concentration of resources and power in the hands of the few at the expense of social benefit; it must be also equitable. As an example, we may refer to the Chaebols (big Korean industrial conglomerates) which kill the traditional village markets which provide livelihood to a great number of poor people. The Chaebols may make the market efficient but not equitable. The Korean government has limited Chaebols’ penetration into these markets to make them more equitable.
Fifth, we need a partial direct democracy. The legislative translates people’s wish into laws and the executive makes policies on the basis of laws. But, in reality, the legislative and the executive may pass laws and policies for the benefit of big companies or specific group of individuals and institutions close to the power. Therefore, it is important to provide a mechanism through which the people – the real master of the country – should be allowed to intervene all times. In South Korea, if more than 200,000 people send a request to the Blue house (Korean White House) to intervene in matters judged unfair or unjust, the government must intervene.
Sixth, those goods and services which are essential for every citizen must be nationalized. For example, social infrastructure such as parks, roads, railways, harbours, supply of electricity should not be privatized. Education including higher education should be made public goods so that low income people should get higher education as do high income group.
This is the best way to maximize the mass of innovative minds and creative energy to develop the society. Above all, the health service should be nationalized. It is just unbelievable to see that, in a country where the per capita GDP is $63,000, more than 30 million citizens have no medical insurance, just because it is too expensive. Politicians know quite well that big companies related to insurance, pharmaceutical products and medical professions are preventing the nationalization of medical service in the U.S. But, the politicians don’t seem to dare go over these vested interests groups and nationalize the public health system. Remember this. There are countries which are much poorer than the U.S. But, they have accessible universal health care insurance system.
Seventh, the economy should allow the system of multi- generational technologies in which not only high-level technologies but also mid-level technologies should be promoted in such a way that both high- tech large corporations and middle-tech SMEs can grow. This is perhaps only way to insure GDP growth and create jobs.
Eighth, in the area of international relations, it is about the time to stop wasteful ideological conflict. The difference among ideologies is narrowing; the number of countries which have abandoned the U.S. imposed democracy has been rising; the ideological basis of socialism is weakening. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 48% of countries are democratic, while 52% are not. According to Freedom House, in 2005, 83 countries had net gain in democracy, while 52 countries had net loss in democracy.
But in 2019, only 37 countries had net gain while 64 countries had net loss. Between 2005 and 2018, the number of countries which were not free increased by 26%, while those which were free fell by 44%. On the other hand, it is becoming more and more difficult to find authentic socialism. For example, Chinese regime has lost its pure socialism long time ago. Thus, the world is becoming non-ideological; the world is embracing ideology-neutral pragmatism.
To conclude, the corona virus pandemic has given us the opportunity to look at ourselves; it has given us the opportunity to realize how vulnerable we are in front of the corona virus attack.
Many more pandemics will come and challenge us. We need a world better prepared to fight the coming pandemics. It is high time that we slow down our greedy pursuit for GDP growth; it is about the time to stop a wasteful international ideological conflict in support of multibillion dollar interests behind Big Money and the Military industrial complex.
It is therefore timely to find a system where we care for each other and where we share what we have.
*
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.
Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co- director of the Observatoire de l’Asie de l’Est (ODAE) of the Centre d’Études de l’Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Center of Research on Globalization (CRG).
On July 26th, Germany’s Die Welt (The World) Sunday newspaper headlined “USA threatens German Nord Stream 2 contractors” and reported that, “The construction of the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline has long been a thorn in the US’s side. Now they are increasing the pressure on German and European companies involved in the project — and announce sanctions. German politicians are outraged.”
The U.S. regime is demanding that Germany cut pipelined gas from Russia and replace it with far costlier gas from U.S. fracking companies, which are facing hard economic times and are desperate to increase their exports. The news-report said:
The United States had previously legally enforced the implementing provisions of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) [which started] on July 15. The companies and their banks are threatened if they continue to participate in the pipeline’s construction. The sanctions include complete exclusion from the US market and entry bans for employees. At a press conference in Washington, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo summarized the aim of the measure for the companies concerned as follows: “Get out now or bear the consequences.” …
When asked by WELT AM SONNTAG, the German energy company Uniper “regretted that with the announced revision of the CAATSA guidelines, the US is still trying to undermine an important infrastructure project that we believe is important for Europe’s energy security.” “A clear encroachment on European sovereignty”. …
For the parliamentary director of the CDU/CSU group in the European Parliament, Markus Pieper (CDU), the American threat of sanctions is “a clear violation of everything we understand by commercial law”. Pieper criticized the recent expansion of the CAATSA sanctions law of 2017 “German companies are now on par with Iran”. “The fun is slowly coming to an end.” Germany and Europe “urgently need to develop a counter-strategy”.
For the very first time, the U.S. regime is so desperate to crush Russia, as to endanger America’s continued alliance with Europe and especially with Germany.
This is unprecedented, and must be marked as a turning-point in post-World-War-II history, because if the U.S. empire ends up losing Germany, then it will cause the end of America’s anti-Russia military alliance, NATO, and maybe even the end of America’s anti-Russia diplomatic and economic alliance, the EU. (The Cold War was against Russia, not actually against communism.)
On June 30th, Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper had bannered “Former Chancellor Schröder: USA Ending Transatlantic Partnership” (“Altkanzler Schröder: USA kündigen transatlantische Partnerschaft auf”) and reported that “Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has condemned possible new US sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline as ‘deliberate termination of the transatlantic partnership’.” Schröder was from Germany’s mainstream non-conservative Party, the Social Democrats. But now Germany’s mainstream — and ruling — conservative Party, the CDU/CSU, is rejecting the U.S. regime for its imposing “a clear violation of everything we understand by commercial law,” and German industry is more bluntly asserting the broader reality, that the U.S. regime’s demand is “a clear encroachment on European sovereignty.”
That last phrase includes “a clear encroachment on German sovereignty” but goes even further because it presumes (correctly) that to violate Germany’s sovereignty is simultaneously to violate Europe’s sovereignty, because Germany is part of Europe. The statement is, by its underlying truthful assumption, an assertion that today’s Germany is a state in the nation of Europe, and that THEREFORE any violation of German sovereignty is a violation also of European sovereignty. That speaker captured the full significance of what is actually at stake here.
Reluctantly, Germany’s conservative mainstream Party (which happens to be the Party that was in power when the U.S. regime ordered Germany in 1991 that the Cold War against communism would secretly continue as being a war against Russia) finds itself forced finally by German public opinion to join Germany’s non-conservative mainstream Party (Schröder’s Social Democrats), in rejecting the demand by the U.S. imperial regime — its demand to terminate participation in the new pipeline to bring into the EU gas from Russia.
If the Trump administration of the U.S. regime will continue, instead of abandon, its demand that Europe replace Russian gas by American gas (and other non-Russian gas), then The Atlantic Alliance (Europe’s participation in America’s permanent war against Russia and against any Government — such as Iran — that is on friendly terms with Russia) will consequently end.
However, if the Trump Administration will abandon its demand, then the U.S. President will find himself at war against his own country’s legislative branch, because both houses of it, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, voted over 90% for this demand, and Trump personally signed it into law. Therefore, in order for him to abandon the demand now would be for him to violate a U.S. law, which expresses the virtually unanimous will of the U.S. aristocracy (the billionnaires who funded the careers of those members of Congress). He would be like a King who has become abandoned by his own aristocracy. No monarch can stay in power who violates the will of his own aristocracy. This would virtually guarantee his political opponent’s, Joe Biden’s, win in America’s upcoming Presidential election: Biden would be the almost unanimous choice of America’s billionaires, both Republican and Democratic Party billionaires.
Consequently, Trump now faces a difficult choice: Either he will break up and end The Atlantic Alliance, or else he will continue it and lose the Presidency to his domestic opponent, Biden and the Democratic Party. It’s his choice. If he opts to continue The Atlantic Alliance, he will hand the White House to his domestic opponent, who is likely to win it in any case. However, by Trump’s backing down and accepting Germany’s new-found insistence upon its and the EU’s independence from the U.S. regime, Mr. Biden would be inheriting an empire that is, and will continue to be, inevitably in decline. A turning-point in world history has been reached, and there will be no turning back from it.
*
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.
When it comes to overinflated coronavirus death counts, we recently outlined how a fatal motorcycle accident in Florida was added to the state’s COVID-19 death toll. Still, no precise data shows just how overinflated death counts are on a state by state level.
We have to rely on real journalism, such as a new report via CBS12 West Palm, that made a shocking discovery about deaths being incorrectly attributed to the virus.
CBS12 said a 60-year old man who died from a gunshot blast to the head was labeled as a virus death. A 90-year old man who fell and died from a hip fracture was another. Even a 77-year old woman who died of Parkinson’s disease was somehow labeled a virus-related death.
Source: CBS12
CBS12’s I-Team investigated these statistical anomalies by combing through the Medical Examiner’s spreadsheet of all people who recently died of the virus in Palm Beach County.
What they found are “eight cases in which a person was counted as a COVID death, but did not have COVID listed as a cause of contributing cause of death.”
For more color on how a COVID-19 death is determined, it must be an immediate or underlying cause of death. So a gunshot to the head, a falling accident, and or Parkinson’s disease certainly doesn’t fit the defined criteria of classifying these deaths as virus-related.
Residents in South Florida are furious about the overinflated death toll:
“I think it is completely misleading,” said Rachel Eade, a Palm Beach County resident who has been researching the same issue.
“We need to remove those cases that are not COVID exclusive, and we need to be giving people that information,” said Eade, who is one of the plaintiffs suing Palm Beach County for its mask mandate.
Eade told the I-Team she’s been digging around in medical reports and said, out of the 581 deaths, only 169 deaths are listed as COVID-19 without any contributing factors.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently told Fox News that his staff has been informed about virus deaths being incorrectly reported.
DeSantis said, “I think the public, when they see the fatality figures, they want to know who died because they caught COVID.”
“If you’re just in a car accident – and we have had other instances where there is no real relationship, and it’s been counted, we want to look at that and see how pervasive that issue is as well.”
Palm Beach County Medical Examiner’s office and Operations Manager Paul Petrino told the I-Team the eight cases were, in fact, errors. He said his medical staff was in the process of relabeling those deaths.
Readers may recall, here’s Dr. Scott Jensen on Fox News in April providing more color on the situation.
If virus-related deaths are being overinflated in Florida, is the same being done in other states?
*
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.
With hindsight, a few years from now, it may well appear to us that the year 2020, the beginning of the third decade of the twenty-first century, marked the dawn of a new parasitic age. We can tell this much even by looking at one of the year’s most popular films. Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite (2019) tells the story of the poor Kim family living in a basement apartment of a decrepit house (a banjiha) in a Seoul ghetto. Both parents, Ki-taek and Chung-sook, as well as their young adult children, Ki-woo and Ki-jung, are all precarious gig workers. They scramble together to make ends meet, taking on every and any odd job they can find.
The apartment sits mostly below ground, but a window pane in the kitchen breaches the surface somewhat, giving them a ground level perspective of the outside world. The space, in this way, is an apt metaphor for the subordination (sub-ordination) of the poor, festering below the surface of ordinary life.
One day, the family is visited by Ki-woo’s friend, Min-hyuk, a university student who is about to go abroad for a study trip. Min works as a tutor for the daughter of the wealthy Park family and he invites Ki (who also goes by the name Kevin) to take over in his absence. But in order to work as a tutor, Ki must forge documents proving his credibility. After being accepted as a legitimate tutor and gaining the trust of the Park family, Ki recommends his sister as an art therapy tutor for the young son of the Park family. Jung, however, must also hide her identity and forge her credentials. The Kims further encroach upon the Park family as the children recommend their parents (again, hiding their real identities) to work for the household to replace the current chauffer and the trusted family housekeeper, whom the children frame in order to have them fired and replaced. Far from a dubious act, their scam is seen more as a necessary strategy of subsistence for precarious workers, an effect of the “entrepreneurialization” of labour and new competitive struggles of workers amongst each other over scarce temporary jobs. Meanwhile, Mr. Park, the patriarch of the family, works in the field of “legitimate”/capitalist scamming, otherwise known as high finance. The contrast between the Kims and Parks in this way evokes the vast cleavages between the precariat class and the wealthy, in whose favour the system is undoubtedly rigged.
Contrasting Living Conditions
The film is stunning in its visual depiction of the class differences between the families, especially through the juxtaposition of the two homes, particularly the kitchen and living spaces of each. Both homes have kitchens and living areas that have a window that looks out upon the world outside. For the Kims living in the banjiha, the window only breaches slightly above ground, where they are able to see the largely grungy slums of the inner city. The family witnesses a drunken man urinating in front of their kitchen window, apparently a regular occurrence as they recount to each other. Inside, the claustrophobic space of the kitchen is grimy and confining, an apt visual portrayal of the constraints of the poor.
This contrasts well with the home of the Parks, whose kitchen and living areas are spacious and pristine, appearing in some ways quite sterile, a perception augmented by the distanced engagement between the members of the Park family, who appear largely separate from each other, the children escaping into their own separate bedrooms, with Mrs. Park spending most of her time alone, while Mr. Park is off at work, in comparison with the very close and tight-knit family relationship of the Kims, a trope not uncommon in the depiction of the individuality and independence of the wealthy. The living area in the Parks’ home backs onto a large window expanding the size of one wall of the entire room. Through the window, the family gazes onto the fresh green space of the backyard, a stark departure from infested streets of the inner city. The class distinction between the two families couldn’t be more apparent.
One night, while the Parks are on a family camping trip, the Kims (now all employed by the Park family) decide to enjoy the luxuries of the empty house together. In the middle of their festivities, late at night, the doorbell rings. They see on the external security camera that it is the old housekeeper, Moon-gwang, waiting there in the rain. She tells them that in her haste to leave the house after being fired she forgot to take something with her. She is let into the house and quickly runs to the basement where she uncovers a secret bunker below the house. Her husband has been hiding in the bunker from loan sharks and she’s come to rescue him. However, amidst the commotion, she discovers the Kims’ secret, that they’ve fooled the Park family, and threatens to turn them in. Ultimately, the two families struggle and fight with each other over who will maintain access to and feed off of the wealthy Park family, hence the title of the film, “parasite.”
The title, of course, seems appropriate given that the two families’ struggle over who will be able to devour and thrive off of the wealthy living of the Park family. The visual metaphor of the underground bunker, and the basement apartment reflect the parasitic portrayal of the poor feeding off of the rich. But things are surely not so clear cut. While the poor families battle against each other like vermin, beneath the surface of the shiny veneer of the rich, we might do well to turn things around and to ask what in fact is the source of their poverty in the first place?
Capitalism is the Parasite
Popular opinion is sure to read the parasite from the gaze of the elite, in which case it is the poor who are parasitic upon the wealthy. This, after all, is the leading practice of perceiving the abject and the excluded. The poor are typically portrayed as scum; vultures living off of the remainders and shreds of life of the rich. But by asking about the source of the wealth of the elite we are able to understand the reverse. Doing so lets us connect the film to a great number of issues facing us today, which intersect in the capitalist system. As Marx famously put it in Capital, Volume 1, “Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” From the perspective of capital, then, Marx notes, the labour-power that it has paid for is its property and it is its right to so consume it during the time in which it has paid for the labour commodity. “If the worker consumes his [own] disposable time for himself, [it appears to capital that] he robs the capitalist.”1 As in a camera obscura, Marx’s words describe here the inverted form with which the capitalist parasite is commonly misperceived or kept hidden by the very form of its own crises.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, most of us have had to limit and self-regulate our everyday lives, going into lockdown and quarantine. While millions of people are laid off of work as businesses have ceased operations and are no longer making any profit, the world’s wealthiest few, including big tech giants like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk, have increased their wealth substantially.2 As the old socialist saying goes, during times of prosperity, profits are privatized and rise to the top, whereas during times of crisis, risk, debt, and loss are socialized, and endured by the expanding bottom. The neoliberal myth of trickle down, it would seem, is only true in the case of socializing losses. It is loss that trickles down while the parasitic capitalists appropriate the world’s wealth, especially and even during a time of great crisis for many. What we see all too often is that the capitalist system, much like a parasite, exhausts and devours global resources, leaving the majority to scramble and fight amongst ourselves for access to basic needs. In this sense, we should see the Park family, not the Kims, as the real parasites of the movie.
We should think about the coronavirus in these terms, as well. The virus, not unlike a parasite, infects and replicates, and eats away at all forms of life confronting it. The culprit of the pandemic seems to be the virus itself, this nonhuman force of nature; but what we have been seeing is that, as another popular meme has put it, the real virus is capitalism– that is, the capitalist system that erects further barriers to our collective treatment of the virus. The true crisis is not simply the virus itself, but the limited capacities in the public health care system to meet the needs for treatment amongst the population.3 This is a system, we should add, that has become relatively starved due to decades of neoliberal austerity measures and cutbacks to social and public services, benefits, and institutions that subsidize the costs of life and living, and that provide access to needs. In this sense, capitalism is very much the real virus, indeed.4
Systemic crises are all around us, and not least as we are also currently seeing with the mass Black Lives Matter protests against racism, police violence, and police murders of African Americans, like George Floyd, in the United States.5 The police, Donald Trump, and much of the Right Wing media all want to make the protesters look parasitic upon society.6 Trump has referred to the protesters as “thugs,” while Fox News personality, Tucker Carlson has said that debates about racism are driven by “hysteria” that is spreading like a “disease.”7 But we must remember that, while the corporate media creates the illusion that the people are the robber-looters of society – just as it appears to the capitalist that workers’ use of their own disposable time robs the capitalist from consuming the labour commodity – it is in fact the capitalist, neoliberal and very much white supremacist system that continues to be the true vampire-like parasite, sucking the lifeblood out of the people.8
Beyond Posthumanism
Viewed from this angle, we can see how truly topsy-turvy is the parasite metaphor when it originates in the ruling ideology that deflects attention from the parasitic system of capital and projects its own contradictions onto false enemies. This practice is even deployed in much of the critical literature on climate change and the environment. For instance, we should even be hesitant deploying concepts like the Anthropocene and subscribing the fashionable idea that there is an Anthropocentrism at the core of our environmental troubles, for this merely abstracts from the historical relations of empire, capital, and class, as Jason W. Moore describes, displacing environmental and ecological crises onto an ill-conceived notion of humanity as a collective actor, and ignoring the class disparities so well represented in films like Parasite.9 Also unhelpful are the Object-Oriented Ontology and New Materialist thinkers, like Timothy Morton, who are on the brink of declaring that humans are the real parasite of the Earth.10 As Morton himself puts it, “In symbiosis, it’s unclear which is the top symbiont… Am I simply a vehicle for the numerous bacteria that inhabit my microbiome? Or are they hosting me? Who is the host and who is the parasite?”11
The danger in Morton’s contrasting of innocent and alive but nonhuman nature with the guilty and parasitical human species, is that it has the potential to devolve into nihilistic activism, such as “death politics.” For example, Patricia MacCormack’s The Ahuman Manifesto advocates for the cessation of human reproduction and the death of humans with calls for “an end to the human both conceptually as exceptionalized and actually as a species.”12 The risk in seeing humans (as a whole) as the uniform culprit of the global environmental catastrophe is that it misses the systemic forest for the individual trees. While right-wing governments compel and guilt the working class back to work to revivify the coronavirus-slumping economy, and while the anti-racist protesters are labelled “thugs” when demonstrating against a system that degrades and even murders their comrades, the theory of the Anthropocene ends up portraying the victims of the vampiristic system as themselves virus-like and parasitic. In this way, the theory of the Anthropocene ends up supporting the ruling capitalist ideology by portraying humanity, not the capitalist system, just as so much of the historical portrayals of racialized and colonized peoples, as well as the working class, as viruses and parasites leeching off of the system.
With so much attention being paid to the problems of the Anthropocene, and less to those of the social relations of capitalism, it is no wonder that post-humanism is becoming the dominant ideology of twenty-first century capitalism. Post-humanism, that is, both as a critique of the hubris of previous historical humanisms, and as an ideology of transhumanist technological transcendence of the limitations of corporeal humanity. On both ends, the critique of humanism displaces the cause of our collective inter-species problems from the capitalist system onto humanity as such. Instead, we should focus our critical attention on the capitalist system, and demonstrate how capitalism is incompatible with all life. We need to move from the prism of the Anthropocene to that of the Capitalocene.
Capitalism, rather than the people, is the real virus, the true parasite upon our thriving in the world today. What we need to learn is, not how to be post-human, but how to build and rethink a neo-humanism, in which, as Kate Soper puts it, human beings acknowledge our collective responsibility to each other, to the planet, and to other species – a humanism, that is, in which emancipation is both universal and equitably post-capitalist, and in which human agency drives action rather than the “objective” laws of the market.13 In other words, if capitalism is the parasite, then perhaps the project of Democratic Socialism, or something like it, is the cure.
Fantasies of Emancipated Futures
Parasite concludes, first with a bloody and violent climax where Ki-taek stabs Mr. Park to death in the middle of the family’s backyard party in a burst of violent outrage. Ki-taek then flees the scene and disappears from sight, confusing the police and the media about his whereabouts. Rather than read the film’s conclusion as an expression of the inevitable violence of the degraded and humiliated working class in the absence of a Socialist alternative, we might instead reflect upon the final moments of the film in which Ki-woo fantasizes about his father’s survival. It is unclear whether or not the final moments of the film are a fantasy scenario that he dreams up about his father. He seems to imagine that his father was able to go back into the bunker, hiding and evading the authorities after killing Mr. Park. Ki-woo imagines that one day he will be able to then earn enough money to buy the house and in that way set his father free.
For some Posthumanist thinkers, such as Donna Haraway, the problem of the Anthropocene is in perceiving a time called the future that prohibits us from being fully present.14 Futurisms, according to her are what inevitably lead us toward our demise in a kind of dystopian chaos. We need to, as the title of her book claims, “stay with the trouble.” But can we really imagine telling those suffering from the exploitative and degrading conditions of capitalism, or those suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, or those affected by rampant racism from an integrated system of white supremacy – can we really imagine saying to the abject: “don’t worry, just stay with the trouble”? Far from offering this un-sagely advice we should instead reflect upon the strategy of the film. It is not by staying with the trouble, but by imagining emancipated futures that we will be driven to set ourselves free from the capitalist parasite.
*
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 Flisfeder is an associate professor of Rhetoric and Communications at The University of Winnipeg. He is the author of Algorithmic Desire: Toward a New Structuralist Theory of Social Media(Northwestern University Press, Forthcoming 2021), Postmodern Theory and Blade Runner (Bloomsbury, 2017), The Symbolic, The Sublime, and Slavoj Žižek’s Theory of Film (Palgrave Macmillan 2012), and co-editor of Žižek and Media Studies: A Reader (2014). He is currently working on project called “The Hysterical Sublime,” a critical study of the aesthetics, rhetorics, and ethics of new materialist and posthumanist critical theory, funded by a SSHRC Insight Development Grant.
Notes
Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1, translated by Ben Fowkes (New York: Penguin Classics, 1990), p. 342.
Both Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and New Materialism are schools of thought that make it their mission to trouble an apparent Anthropocentrism, focusing respectively on the reduction all things equally, human and non-human, real and unreal alike, to objects of different sorts, or to the vibrancy of all matter. See for instance Graham Harman, Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything(New York: Pelican Books, 2018); Levi R. Bryant, The Democracy of Objects (London: Open Humanities Press, 2011); and, Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010). Elsewhere, I have argued that the turn to OOO and New Materialism is the product of the neoliberal period and the reification of all human life as “human capital.” Both approaches and their critique of Anthropocentrism have been popularized, in other words, at the moment when capitalism has finally reified all of life and living. Despite the long history of colonialism and sexism, where non-European, non-masculine people were not even regarded as human, OOO and New Materialism emerge at the moment when the White middle classes are now, too, being dehumanized as a result of global neoliberal capitalist governance. But this is equally the product of a misguided attempt to grapple with the twin crises of climate change and the rise of digital automation and artificial intelligence. See Matthew Flisfeder, Algorithmic Desire: Toward a New Structuralist Theory of Social Media (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2021).
Timothy Morton, Humankind: Solidarity With Nonhuman People (New York: Verso, 2019), p. 1. Morton, here, echoes the work of the post-humanist philosopher, Michael Serres in The Parasite, translated by Lawrence R. Schehr (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minesota Press, 2007), p. 14.
Patricia MacCormack, The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the end of the Anthropocene (New York: Bloomsbury, 2020), p. 5. Like Morton, MacCormack’s book is also influenced by Serres’ scholarship.
Kate Soper, “The Humanism in Posthumanism.” Comparative Critical Studies 9 (2012): 377. I draw here, too, upon Andreas Malm’s critique of posthumanism in The Progress of This Storm (New York: Verso, 2018).
We should be clear about one thing: “news” is a commercial product, like toothpaste or chewing gum. It is also designed more or less according to the same principles and with few exceptions “sold” by the same kind of hawkers.
The term “fake news” has one effect which many apparently do not understand– it implies that there is news which is not “fake”.
It might be useful to consider how advertising works– news is a form of advertising. A product is announced with “less sugar” or even with “zero sugar”. I think everyone here can imagine the products to which I am referring. Of course the “less sugar” or “zero sugar” seem like positive qualities. But in the products concerned the difference is like saying “gentler slavery” or “zero whipping” of slaves. It begs the question whether the product that has less or none of some currently fashionable “negative content” is in and of itself a desirable product.
Is a mystery liquid sold as a beverage– originally with addictive cocaine– virtuous or more virtuous by reducing its official sugar content?
Is “news product” — actually an advertising vehicle from its very inception– better when it is not “fake”?
The luxury goods business spends an appreciable amount of money lobbying for police interdiction of counterfeit products. However, all industry insiders know that counterfeiting is beneficial advertising for the “real” goods. If the counterfeits were entirely eliminated it would devalue those very brands. The contrast between “real” luxury goods and “fakes” is part of the vanity the promotes the brand as such.
In the same way when people of whatever political persuasion complain about “fake news” their pleas in fact support the illusion that the “news” per se is not fake. In fact there is no objective news. Moreover the news items are actually destructive since they are designed to undermine the notion of necessary information, i.e. historical background and context to interpret events or facts that are to be understood as events.
“Conspiracy theory” as a pejorative is really an attack not on “news” which is actually senseless but on any attempt to establish context, historical or otherwise, for data that needs interpretation. The “news” is a TV dinner packaged as if it were a Lego kit. If you spread all the Lego pieces on your table and have never seen the box, it will certainly take a while to build what is intended. You might build something else. But a TV dinner needs no box. Rip off the foil and you have the reconstituted turkey product with all the artificial ingredients, clearly separated in the aluminum tray. The big compartment is the meat, the smaller ones are for potatoes and veg. If you prefer to cook your own meals then you are a conspiracy theorist…
*
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.
Malaysia’s politicians were crowing. “We are confident that we are securing more money from Goldman Sachs compared to previous attempts, which were far below expectations,” statedFinance Minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz. “We are also glad to be able to resolve this outside the court system, which would have cost a lot of time, money and resources.”
The second part of this statement is worth pondering. Not willing to go the distance with Goldman? Costs in terms of litigation and time? Such language is surely not the sort a sovereign power uses regarding a corporation, which speaks much to the problem. Malaysians would have reason to be suspicious, wondering if their government had thrown in the towel a bit too early against a company famed for its financial vigilantism. The very fact that the Malaysian government made a deal with Wall Street’s Mephistopheles should have also done its bit to cause alarm.
Whichever way the financial mind looks at this, Goldman is certainly getting more out of the bargain than their despoiled clients. In the current settlement, no one from their piratical outfit will spend time behind bars for the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal, which saw the hearty plundering of Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund under their watch. The company will have to fork out a manageable $3.9 billion, a heavily discounted sum considering the original total being sought: $7.5 billion. Having been one of its clients, the Malaysian government pursued the bank, which had underwritten and arranged bond sales for the fund to the vast sum of $6.5 billion. Enabling the raising of capital in 2012 and 2013 was something the bank was also handsomely remunerated for: $600 million, no less.
Goldman’s tactics of negotiation lived up to expectations and down to base ethical considerations. First came a compensation offer of $243.73 billion last year, rejected by the then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad for its slap-in-the-face value. It was “peanuts”, he scoffed at the time.
The offer was duly increased. In November 2019, Mahathir rejected the sum of $1.75 billion. “We are not satisfied with that amount so we are still talking to them … If they respond reasonably we might not insist on getting that $7.5 billion.” A key feature of Goldman’s negotiating strategy had worked: their accusers and prosecutors were not going to get full satisfaction. Attrition seemed to be working.
Both parties are indelibly stained in this enterprise. Malaysian politics is fairly adept at funnelling funds and looting assets in the name of the public good and there was no more fitting company than Goldman to oversee the pinching. Despite Chief Executive David Solomon’s apology to the Malaysian people, the bank has also made it clear that it was not working for the easiest of clients. As it asserted in a statement in December 2018, “Certain members of the former Malaysian government and 1MDB lied to Goldman Sachs, outside counsel and others about the use of proceeds from these transactions.”
Those proceeds – some $4.5 billion – were certainly put to use, implicating former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor in numerous indulgent purchases. (When robbing the public purse, do it with appropriate extravagance.) Most fittingly, some of the proceeds went to fund a Hollywood film whose very premise is animal greed as virtuous, self-destructive pursuit. Razak’s stepson, Riza Aziz, was the producing arm behind The Wolf of Wall Street, using amounts drawn from 1MDB amounting to $248 million.
For some time, it was alleged that the entire effort had one name behind it: Low Taek Jho, known as Jho Low. In an effort to shift the keenly focused spot light on his sizeable contribution, the Malaysian financier insisted in January that he was merely a humble operator, greasing the palms, oiling the wheels. “People and companies act as introducers or intermediaries all the time.” He had been asked “to assist because of my good relationships with influential foreign businessmen and decision makers.” Jho Low is right – to a point – and certainly in his interlocutor’s claim that he is “an easy target for all those above given the fact that I’m not a politician.” More thought had to be given to “global and financial and other institutions and advisers that actually organised and facilitated the fundraisings at issue”.
When lawsuits were filed in July 2016, the US attorney general Loretta Lynchdescribed the 1MDB affair as “the largest kleptocracy case” in US history. “A number of corrupt IMDB officials treated this public trust as a personal bank account.” Lynch spoke of the laundering of money “through a complex web of opaque transactions and fraudulent shell companies, with bank accounts in countries around the world, including Switzerland, Singapore and the United States.” The enigmatic hand prints of Goldman go far.
The Wall Street giant is also facing the prospect of another settlement with the DOJ which threatens to raid its profits. The staff are no doubt ready, and additional money is already being put aside for regulatory reasons. With supreme insincerity, the bank promises to reflect about this latest chapter in international financial kleptocracy. “There are important lessons to be learned from this situation, and we must be self-critical to ensure that we only improve from the experience.” The sinner, chastened, readies for the next transgression.
Mahatma Gandhi, in one of his more quoted remarks, observed that “the world has enough for everyone’s need, but not everyone’s greed.” The Goldman approach has a different take to his sagacious observation: the greed will always come before the need and there is ample amount to be had. It is a philosophy that has enabled it to escape the calamities of the subprime market collapse in 2009 and survive such catastrophes as the Wall Street crash. While it has received something of a battering, the company has seen worse. Expect much and more of the same: greed sells, and while stumbles are bound to take place, budget for them.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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]
When an event is unexplained, it can’t be repeated. Cuba’s astonishing internationalism, the “good news” of the pandemic, is talked about (outside Cuba) as if a miracle, without cause. Support grows for the Nobel Prize nomination but the justification for the Henry Reeve Brigade, established in 2005, is left out. The explanation is ideas.
It is urgent according to Eddie Glaude in a new book on James Baldwin.[i] Well, he doesn’t exactly say that. But for Baldwin, “what kind of human beings we aspire to be” is most important and the explanation for Cuba’s success is precisely that.
In Zona Roja, Enrique Ubieta Gómez says Cuban medical workers – fighting Ebola in 2014 — know about existence: We exist interdependently. Ubieta describes Cuban internationalism as an “inescapable ethic”. Once you’ve lived it, you cannot not live it.
You know human connection – a fact of science – and you learn its energy.
Ubieta’s explanation is existential. Baldwin used similar language. In 1963, he wrote, “Perhaps the whole root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we … imprison ourselves … to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have.” Glaude supports Baldwin’s call to “begin again”, with the “America idea”, shedding its “old ideas”. He might look South. Latin American independistas raised precisely Baldwin’s question: how to resist the “lie at the heart of the [imperialist] nation” when it is about “love, life and death”, that is, everything.
Truth is not enough. If Galileo had just provided truths, he wouldn’t have been condemned. Galileo became threatening when he made those truths plausible with a larger picture of “cosmic humility”, contradicting the establishment’s comforting identity. One thing we might learn from Galileo, according to astrophysicist Mario Livio in a new book, is that he didn’t just observe truths and tell stories about them. His “phenomenal capacity for abstraction” let him see where those truths led.[ii]
Truths are easy when unexplained. Consider Olga Tokarczuk’s Flights. It gives truth about people traveling everywhere “escaping their own lives, and then being safely escorted right back to them”.[iii] We see people running through airports with “flushed red faces, their straw hats and souvenir drums and masks and shell necklaces”. All this “moving around in a chaotic fashion … [to] increase their likelihood” of being in the “right place at the right time”even has meaning. A “travel psychologist” explains that such chaos “appears to call into question the existence of a self understood non-relationally”.
It is funny to expect deeper meaning regarding people “moving around in a chaotic fashion” to increase their likelihood of being in the right place at the right time from a “travel psychologist” at an airport between flights. We laugh because we do in fact expect that, absurdly.
We get truth from Flights but it’s dismissible. Annushka, for instance, escapes her unbearable life : to “go, sway, walk, run, take flight”. She finds happiness when “she does not have a single thought in her head, a single care, a single expectation or hope.” She’s “happy”, free of her identity, her life, her responsibilities. But she is also cold, hungry, dirty, alone, tired, and homeless. The image is silly.
In fact, the idea underlying it is silly, namely, that to have no thoughts, you should have no identity, no responsibilities. It’s as pervasive as friction, from which Galileo abstracted to get truth about inertia. In fact, to be happy with no expectations or hope, as Annushka is, is not silly. But understanding how that is so requires a “phenomenal capacity for abstraction” from social expectations.
Flights doesn’t do that. It responds to an expectation identified by Cuban philosopher and diplomat Raúl Roa in 1953 as the “world’s gravest crisis”.[iv] It was indeed the “America idea”: Human beings imprisoned in discrete selves, defined by action and results. It is not humanist, as claimed, Roa argues, because it omits “the fact of death”, as Baldwin recognized. There were “few dissenters” to the “man of action” during the Renaissance, and Roa saw there would now be none because of US power.
Baldwin tried to escape that power by living outside the US. He struggled with what it had “made of him”. But “American power follows one everywhere”.
Emily Dickinson, “the greatest poet in the English language”, abstracts from expectations Flights dignifies. According to biographer Martha Ackman, Dickinson lived as if busyness and travel is not progress.[v] She never apologized for, nor defended, the priority she gave to silence and solitude. As result, we get truth from her poetry: about what it means to be human. For, she was in fact not detached from a world she never visited physically or had any desire to.
She lived as if isolation and detachment are not synonymous. But to know where this leads, you must abstract from the “America idea” that equates human worth and utility. Comfortably, though, Dickinson is odd — “America’s most enigmatic and mysterious poet”– and her way of life therefore dismissible.
Lord of all the Dead, like Flights, leaves comforting “old ideas” in place.[vi] Javier Cercas tells the story of his great-uncle who fought a “useless war” for Franko. His memoire does give truth but doesn’t explain it, so his story, which for him is just a story, cannot itself explain, and is dismissible.
Achilles in The Odyssey is “lord of all the dead” because he died young and beautiful, and gained immortality. That his great uncle was “politically mistaken, there’s no doubt.” But was he a human failure? Cercas’ answer is no. At one level, Cercas rejects the Greeks’ ideal of “beautiful death” because it denies the existential reality of decrepitude: There is no escaping it. But on the other hand, Cercas assumes the separation of mind and body that makes “beautiful death” worth speculating about: the idea that the body decays and that the mind somehow escapes nature’s universal laws of causation.
He ends the book speculating about immortality. Nobody dies, he writes. We’re just transformed, physically. He himself, at book’s end, is in the “eternal present”. It doesn’t explain what needs to be explained, given the real story of this book which is what Cercas calls the “silent wake of hatred, resentment and violence left over by the war”. The “silent wake” is explained by ignorance precisely of shared humanity Cercas names but doesn’t explain. It is decrepitude: “the fact of death”.
It is known by every human being. Cercas tells a story about his great uncle but denies the significance of that story because he tells it with the “old ideas” in place, the ones Glaude says need to be shed, like “swaddling clothes” to “begin again” as Baldwin urged. Glaude is not sure it can happen. But it has happened. That’s the “good news” about the Henry Reeve Medical brigade, if it were explained.
On Friday, March 20, Cuban president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, speaking nationally, outlined new measures to slow the pandemic. The good news, he said, is that Cuban people supported the decision to accept the Braemar, a UK cruise ship refused docking elsewhere because of infected passengers. A century ago, another ship sought aid from Cuba. Its passengers were Jews. It was turned away.
That, Diaz-Canel said, was before the Revolution. The good news was the expectation that the Braemar should be helped. That expectation is the success of the Cuban revolution. It explains the Henry Reeve Brigade. Expectations come from practises, from what is lived. Diaz-Canel then said, “one day the truth will be known.” But what truth? It’s not the truth that solidarity is good. No, the truth that will be known is not moral. Instead, it is what that truth– the moral one about solidarity — does existentially when acted upon, and lived, and why that matters in a global crisis.
Baldwin’s humanism wasn’t easy to understand. Glaude’s thoughtful book goes some distance toward explaining. It’s not clear, though, whether he knows the consequences. Bill V. Mullen, in a 2019 book, says Baldwin should be “understood the way we understand Fanon, García Marquez, Assata Shakur”: They wrote outside the US, aware of imperialism.[vii]
It may be what it takes for Cuba to cease being a dismissible miracle.
*
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.
If you watch the US mainstream media’s 24 hour news coverage on recent events around the world no matter what time of the day it is, Covid-19 and China dominate the headlines while ignoring recent escalations in the Middle East involving Israel and its Arab neighbors as they come closer to another war in an already devastated region.
The Times of Israel reported that the Israeli government
“sent a message to Hezbollah warning the Lebanese terror group against any retaliatory action in response to the killing of one of the organization’s fighters in an airstrike in Syria on Monday night, which was attributed to Israel.”
According to various reports, Israel has killed one of Hezbollah’s fighters Ali Kamel Mohsen Jawad in another cross-border attack in Syria last week and now fears that Hezbollah will retaliate, but Israel’s military and intelligence community has issued a statement aimed at Hezbollah, Lebanon and Syria warning them not to retaliate considering that Israel would most likely launch a multi-front attack on all entities involved. The report said that “the airstrike attributed to Israel on Monday night hit weapons depots and military positions belonging to Syrian regime forces and Iran-backed militia fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.”
For the record, The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is a UK government funded pro-opposition group to the Assad Government. In a statement by the Israeli army, “The IDF holds the Syrian regime responsible for the fire against Israel earlier today” and that “the IDF will continue operating with determination and will respond to any violation of Israeli sovereignty.” What was revealing was an unannounced meeting between the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley and Israel’s top military leaders including Defense Minister Benny Gantz:
US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, made an unannounced visit to Israel, meeting with Defense Minister Benny Gantz, IDF chief Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi and Mossad director Yossi Cohen, along with other top brass.
Israeli television commentators speculated on the possible significance of the visit, particularly regarding the threat posed by Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah. “In light of a situational assessment in the IDF and in accordance with the Northern Command’s defense plan, the IDF’s deployment will change in both the military and civilian arena. with the goal of strengthening defenses along the northern border,” the IDF said in the statement. In a tacit threat, the IDF preemptively warned Beirut that it sees the state of Lebanon as “responsible for all actions emanating from Lebanon”
Something big is about to take place as the IDF “cleared some troops out of positions directly along the border, moving them deeper into Israel, so that they would not represent a clear target for Hezbollah, while still allowing them to defend the frontier” according to the report.
However, Milley’s visit at the Nevatim Air Base in southern Israel is significant according to another report by the Times of Israel ‘US military chief visits Israel to talk regional threats, amid tensions in north’ stating that “the visit came at a time of heightened tensions with Iran and its allies across the Middle East.” General Milley was briefed by Israel’s Intelligence agencies including Mossad and Israel’s military intelligence unit, Aman on the threat they face from Iran and its allies. After the briefing, Gantz declared that “the need to continue the pressure on Iran and its proxies that threaten regional and global stability” signaling to it’s neighboring enemies “not” to test Israel.
Lebanon has two major problems to deal with besides another catastrophic war, for starters it has a severe economic crisis with a collapsing currency.
The other problem is their newly discovered offshore oil and gas reserves which the US and Israel would love to get their hands on. Lebanon’s offshore oil reserves is estimated to be at 865 million barrels and has gas reserves that range from 25 trillion cubic feet (an estimate published in 2018 by the Chatham House which is part of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a think tank based in London) to 96 trillion cubic feet in 2013, an estimate claimed by the Lebanese Energy Minister at the time, Gebran Bassil. Either way, Lebanon hosts Hezbollah on its territory and has discovered an abundance of natural resources in its offshore territories, its a prime target for Israel and the US.
War Will Begin in the Middle East, Not Asia?
The recent incident involving Iran’s Mahan air passenger plane traveling from Tehran to Beirut over Syria and a US F-14 fighter jet who apparently came dangerously close to the plane according to Iranian media is a sign of aggression that sends a message to Iran and its allies including Hezbollah that the US and Israel is prepared for war. Israel does not want Washington to focus on China since the upcoming US elections are months away and Israel is not sure what is going to happen come this November with Trump and his pro-Israel administration. Israel cannot afford to have Washington start a new war with China so for the time being tensions between the US and China will lead to a new Cold War 2.0.
The Middle East is an important region that remains a strategic part of the world’s economy with its valuable natural resources, a fact too important to ignore for western Big Oil interests and Israel. The meeting between US and Israeli military officials is significant and should be taken seriously, but the world is consumed with news on Covid-19 and China. Another Middle East war can happen either before or after the November elections and that depends on how desperate Israel becomes. Israel can pull Washington’s strings and ignite a war between the US and Iran before the situation intensifies in the South China Sea.
While the world is occupied by a virus and the tensions in the South China Sea continue between the US and China and an upcoming Presidential election, a new conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors is a real possibility, making it one of the most dangerous periods in human history.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Made-in-the-USA economic collapse is the most diabolical scheme ever concocted by dark forces in the country.
It’s all about engineering the largest ever wealth transfer from ordinary people to corporate favorites and the nation’s super-rich.
It also aims to consolidate corporate America to greater size and dominance by eliminating many tens of thousands of small, medium-sized, and some large businesses.
There’s nothing accidental about what’s going on, including COVID-19 outbreaks nationally and worldwide.
What’s happening was planned many months in advance before unleashed on Americans and humanity in January — an unprecedented high crime, war by other means on ordinary people worldwide.
The diabolical scheme’s toll rises daily — more people becoming ill, more losing jobs because of shuttering businesses, many never to reopen.
A permanent US underclass exploded in size that includes mass joblessness, impoverishment, and misery far exceeding the worst of the 1930’s Great Depression.
Instead of New Deal jobs creation programs and other initiatives to help ordinary people during hard times, the Trump regime and GOP congressional leadership reportedly is set to unveil a let ‘em eat cake scheme this week. See below.
Based on what’s known, it includes scant extended benefits for ordinary Americans in contrast to trillions of dollars of free money for the nation’s privileged class.
Both right wings of the nation’s one-party state are miles apart on agreeing to extended benefits for the nation’s unemployed and otherwise needy.
In May, House Dems passed the so-called $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act.
Opposed by the GOP controlled Senate, its leadership and party faithful want aid going largely to corporate America, crumbs alone for ordinary people in need.
Reportedly this week, maybe on Monday, GOP House and Senate leadership will introduce a $1 trillion scheme it wants unfolded in stages.
It replaces unemployment benefits of $600 weekly with about 70% of lost wages, less than half of current benefits.
On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin falsely claimed expiring benefits disincentivize America’s unemployed to seek jobs — citing no evidence as proof because none exists.
He added that GOP proposed benefits will reduce what’s expiring to about $200 weekly, one-third the current amount, along with another $1,200 for qualified low-income households.
Trump and congressional GOP leadership want benefits largely going to corporate favorites and the nation’s privileged class — including protection of businesses from COVID-19 related lawsuits.
Reportedly, the GOP plan extends the eviction moratorium for residential buildings that have federally guaranteed mortgages.
Government aid for millions unemployed Americans with no prospect of returning to work near or longer-term is essential — because of the unavailability of jobs for millions of jobless who want them.
Whatever is agreed on this week by Republicans and Dems, if anything, is likely to be much less than what’s needed.
The hardest of hard times ever in America continue with no end of them in prospect for the nation’s working class.
*
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.”
The law firm of former Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon confirmed this week that it will represent a Venezuelan businessman sanctioned by the Trump administration and facing extradition from Cape Verde.
Alex Saab, 48, was arrested on the archipelago island in June while on a technical stop-over in his private jet. He was allegedly en route to the Islamic Republic of Iran to negotiate food import contracts on behalf of the government’s subsidised CLAP food program, as well as medicine and other imports needed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
A Colombo-Venezuelan entrepreneur of Lebanese descent, Saab was sanctioned by the US Treasury Department last year for allegedly running a “vast corruption network” profiting from overpriced contracts with the CLAP food program, which benefits an estimated six million of Venezuela’s poorest families. He also faces federal indictments in Florida, New York and Washington DC-based courts.
After receiving a US extradition request on June 29, the Cape Verde government decided to authorize it on July 14, moving Saab’s legal team to start an appeals process.
Prior to Garzon’s arrival, the defense had two habeas corpus requests denied and filed an injunction with the Barlavento Appeals Court to have the extradition request annulled.
For its part, Garzon’s Madrid-based law firm, ILOCAD, said in a statement on Tuesday that Saab’s case is an example of the White House using judicial process to “pressure Venezuela on the level of international politics.”
“Mr Saab’s rights are being violated by this extradition process,” the statement went on to say, with ILOCAD pledging to take the case to the African Union and the United Nations.
Garzon made his name in 1998 when he attempted to extradite former Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet to face justice in Spanish courts. He is currently coordinating Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s defense against extradition from the UK to the US.
Following the first financial sanctions in August 2017, the US Treasury Department has moved to target strategic sectors of the Venezuelan economy, including banking, shipping, and especially oil. Washington has likewise imposed sanctions against companies allegedly involved in food imports for the CLAP program and torpedoed oil-for-food agreements with Mexican firms.
With additional reporting by Lucas Koerner from Philadelphia.
*
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.
Environmentalists are watching with great interest to see what Canada’s Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson will decide, by July 30, about the Vista coal mine, a massive venture near Hinton, Alberta, owned by Coalspur, which is in turn owned by U.S. coal giant Cline Group.
Wilkinson is reconsidering a December 2019 decision to keep the federal government out of the approvals process for a major expansion of Vista. Recently, 47 NGOs published an Open Letter urging him to order a full federal assessment under the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA).
The Open Letter addressed to Wilkinson states:
“Coalspur, the company behind the Vista mine, has not been straight with you or with the public. Last year, you declined to order an impact assessment based on the information that Coalspur provided. It has since come to light that they failed to disclose material facts about the size and scale of the mine. And it now appears that they have further expansion plans with the company now saying publicly that they want to increase their annual production to 20 million tonnes of coal per year. This new information warrants that you order a federal impact assessment.” [1]
Currently, Vista is approved to extract about 6 million tonnes per year.
As Ecojustice’s Sean O’Shea explained by email,
“Under the IAA a new mine 1/8th the size of Vista would have to be [federally] assessed because it is assumed that such a project has the potential to cause adverse impacts. However, an expansion to an existing mine does not have to be assessed if it is less than 50% the size of the original mine.”
And that’s where the information provided by Coalspur raised major questions.
Tweaking the Numbers
O’Shea told me,
“Coalspur has engaged in what’s called ‘project splitting’ to try to avoid impact assessment for the Vista Mine expansion. Last year, Ecojustice flagged to the [Impact Assessment] Agency that the Vista Phase II expansion was likely to surpass this 50% threshold. Coalspur responded by decreasing the size of its Phase II proposal.”
As The Narwhal has explained,
“The tweak [in size] meant the Impact Assessment Agency re-calculated that the Vista coal mine expansion ‘would result in an increase in the area of mining operations between 42.7 to 49.4 per cent,’ so it was just below the 50 per cent threshold.”[2]
On that basis, the federal government decided last December that the Vista expansion did not need federal assessment, and any concerns about harms to the environment and Indigenous peoples would be covered by a provincial assessment by Alberta Energy Regulator.
But, as Sean O’Shea explained to me,
“Less than two months later, Coalspur applied to the Alberta Energy Regulator for permits to engage in new underground mining activities on the Vista site. And publicly, Coalspur is now saying that they want to increase production even further from about 15 MT/year [million tonnes per year] to 20 MT/year.”
Ecojustice and others question Coalspur’s “technical and legal manoeuvres” to avoid federal assessment. On May 1, 2020 Ecojustice – on behalf of its clients Keepers of the Water, Keepers of the Athabasca, and the West Athabasca Watershed Bioregional Society – formally requested that Minister Wilkinson reconsider the decision, giving him 90 days to respond (by July 30).
Fraser Thomson, an Ecojustice lawyer, told The Energy Mix that
Wilkinson “has powers under the Impact Assessment Act reserved for exactly this kind of situation when a project slips through the cracks. Those powers are built into the Act as a safety net. So when you have a proposal for such a massive mine extracting one of the most dangerous commodities to our climate, it seems the Minister has to use these powers. If not now, when?” [3]
Thermal Coal
Vista is potentially one of the largest thermal coal mines on the continent. Thermal coal is low-grade coal largely used only for coal-fired electricity production, which is being phased out across Canada and in the U.S. Coalspur and its parent company Cline Group want to export Vista’s thermal coal to the Asian region.
U.S. coal billionaire Chris Cline bought the Vista mine in 2015 and considered it a necessary project with vast potential. As Cline told Forbes in 2017, “I think [Vista] could be the last mine operating after they’ve shut down all the rest of the coal in the world.” Vista began shipping coal for export in May 2019. Just a few months later, Cline died in a helicopter accident in July.
The Forbes 2017 profile stated:
“Cline thinks the carbon crusade is folly: ‘I’m all for getting sulfur and mercury and nitrogen oxide out of the air – that’s common sense,’ but ultimately, he posits, ‘global cooling’ will be a bigger threat. ‘I believe in our children’s lifetimes that they’ll wish they had paid us per ton to put more C02 in the air’.” [4]
But that view is not widely shared, and coal companies have been in deep financial difficulty for several years.
As David Suzuki recently wrote,
“Coal isn’t coming back, nor should it. From start to finish, it’s one of the most destructive energy sources. Extracting it often requires blasting away entire mountaintops, polluting air, water and soil. Burning it creates enormous amounts of deadly pollution, along with CO2 and methane emissions that drive global heating.” [5]
Suzuki and others have noted an element of hypocrisy in Canada’s position. “Even though Canada is moving to phase out coal-fired electricity, we’re happy to export it to other countries,” he wrote. “It’s like a drug dealer who knows the harms of addiction, and so quits a personal habit but continues to sell to others.” [6]
The Open Letter to Minister Wilkinson states:
“As a founding member and co-chair of the ‘Powering Past Coal Alliance,’ Canada has led global efforts to phase out thermal coal and made this a cornerstone of its climate plan. Canada has committed up to $275 million to the World Bank to help developing countries phase-out their dependence on traditional coal-fired power. The Vista mine expansion would undermine these efforts and harm Canada’s credibility as a climate leader in the run up to next year’s crucial climate conference in Glasgow. Canada can’t expect to be taken seriously in asking other countries to get off coal if we’re still willing to sell it to them.” [7]
Whatever the decision, Minister Wilkinson’s response will be very revealing.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
[1] Ecojustice.ca, “Open-letter: 47 groups urge Minister Wilkinson to act n Vista thermal coal mine,” July 2020.
[2] Sharon H, Riley, “Here’s what you need to know about the Vista mine, Alberta’s thermal coal project that ‘sidestepped’ a federal review,” The Narwhal, March 10, 2020.
[3] Mitchell Beer, “The Interview: Canada Mustn’t Allow Vista Coal Mine Expansion Without Environmental Assessment, Thomson Says,” The Energy Mix, July 9, 2020.
[4] Christopher Helman, “Chris Cline Could Be The Last Coal Tycoon Standing,” Forbes, December 26, 2017.
[5] David Suzuki, “David Suzuki: Coal power should be relegated to the ash heap of history, The Georgia Straight, July 22, 2020.
Divided on how to deal with Turkey, some European leaders are calling for sanctions and others are calling for a reset in Euro-Turkish relations. French President Emmanuel Macron and the German Chairman of the Parliamentary Group of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber, have been in a hurry in recent days to push for sanctions against Turkey because of its provocations against Greece and Cyprus.
“Regarding the situation in the Mediterranean, we have all seen the military actions on the part of Turkey. We have also seen the decision on Hagia Sophia, which is an example of religious chauvinism. A symbol and monument of peace and reconciliation has now changed,” Weber said last Thursday. “The issue is not just Greek-Turkish or Cypriot-Turkish, it is Euro-Turkish” and added that “we would like to emphasise in the presence of Mr. Michel [President of the European Council] and Mrs von der Leyen [president of the European Commission] that we must send clear messages and that we stand on the side of the Greeks and the Cypriots. It is time to act now, possibly to consider sanctions against Turkey. We must act and act now.”
On the same day as Weber’s comments, Macron received his Cypriot counterpart, Nikos Anastasiadis, in Paris. Macron stressed the need for sanctions against Turkey in light of what Ankara has done in the last two weeks by issuing NAVTEX (navigational text messages) for research in not only in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but also in Greek maritime space to the south of Kastelorizo island. This is on top of turning Hagia Sophia into a mosque.
“Europe must stand up for its sovereignty. Let us not leave our security in the Mediterranean in the hands of other actors. Once again, I want to express France’s full solidarity with Cyprus and Greece in the face of Turkish violations of their sovereign rights. The maritime space of an EU member state must not be threatened,” said the French president in a Facebook post he wrote in the Greek language.
The reaction of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs was immediate, with spokesman Hami Aksoy retaliating by blasting the French side, something that Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu is doing more often as well lately. Within Europe however, other messages have been heard that are more conciliatory with Turkey.
Of particular interest was a July 23 article published on the Politico website by Nathalie Tocci, director of Istituto Affari Internazionali and a special adviser to European High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell. She had also been a special adviser to Borrell ‘s predecessor, Federica Mogherini. For a few years now, Tocci has also held a position on the board of the Italian energy giant ENI, which operates in the Cypriot EEZ and in Libya.
“The EU has not moved to implement sanctions on Ankara and is unlikely to do so in future,” Tocci wrote in Politico, stressing that Athens, Nicosia and Paris had to “start treating Turkey as a partner, rather than an adversary.” She added that now the priority should be given to the goal of modernizing the EU-Turkey customs union.
However, Borrell’s Italian adviser also noted in her article that Turkey could supposedly work for European interests in Libya, without defining what united European interests are in Libya. This of course is an unfathomable suggestion since there are competing European interests in Libya, especially since countries like Italy are willing to ignore that Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood government in the Libyan capital of Tripoli signed a Memorandum of Understanding to split Greek maritime space between themselves. The above issues are supposed to be discussed in an upcoming meeting between Borrell and Çavuşoğlu that will take place before the end of August.
Greco-Turkish relations especially intensified last Tuesday when Turkey announced that it will conduct a search for gas deposits in Greece’s maritime space with an escort of 17 warships until August 2. Greece’s quick naval response by dispatching warships to the area ensured that Turkish ships remained in Turkish waters, with most ships returning to port. German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that “the Greeks are not joking” and will respond to any violation of their maritime space.
Merkel also told Erdoğan that she has to continuously defend herself from European allegations that she is an unquestionable loyal ally of Turkey, and that amongst these accusations was the moment the Turkish president chose to escalate tensions with Greece and Cyprus. “You are exposing me,” she told Erdoğan.
This is because the Germans have had an unbreakable and continuous relationship with the Turks since at least the early 1800’s. Although Berlin traditionally defends or is indifferent to Turkish aggression against Greece and Cyprus, even Erdoğan’s erratic behavior has been undefendable for the Germans.
This leaves Italy as the only state willing to ignore Turkish aggression against European Union members. This is because its East Mediterranean policy is guided by the interests of oil giant ENI. Nevertheless, Italy is a big enough EU member to have some influence in European policy and can disrupt plans to sanction Turkey. Once again, the EU has demonstrated that there is no true unity within the bloc, even when member states are being violated against on a daily basis by Turkey.
*
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.
If you look to Global Research as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events, or to experience honesty and transparency in your news coverage, please consider making a donation or becoming a member. Your donations are essential in enabling us to meet our costs and keep the website up and running. Click below to become a member or to make a donation to Global Research now!
Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned Americans on Thursday to be cautious about any new coronavirus vaccine, pointing out that key parts of testing are being skipped.
“The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether,” Kennedy said during an online debate on mandatory vaccinations with renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. The debate was aired by Valuetainment and moderated by Patrick Bet-David.
The much-anticipated 1986: The Act film by Andrew Wakefield has finally been released, revealing the truth about the infamous 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and its detrimental impact on the lives of innocent children.
Now available for online streaming as of July 8, the film is described as a “forensic examination” of the NCVIA, which for nearly 35 years has unjustly shielded the vaccine industry from all liability associated with vaccine-induced injuries and deaths.
In the following video, Dr. Carrie Madaj questions what “it is to be human”. Why? Because the so-called “COVID” vaccines deploy recombinant DNA/RNA technology that “rewrites” the genetic code much as Monsanto, for example, rewrites the genetic code of numerous seeds (including tomatoes, corn, etc) not to mention the application of genetic bio-technology to animals.
The program, which was first launched in late 2018, will see Trust Stamp’s digital identity platform integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “Wellness Pass,” a digital vaccination record and identity system that is also linked to Mastercard’s click-to-play system that powered by its AI and machine learning technology called NuData. Mastercard, in addition to professing its commitment to promoting “centralized record keeping of childhood immunization” also describes itself as a leader toward a “World Beyond Cash,” and its partnership with GAVI marks a novel approach towards linking a biometric digital identity system, vaccination records, and a payment system into a single cohesive platform. The effort, since its launch nearly two years ago, has been funded via $3.8 million in GAVI donor funds in addition to a matched donation of the same amount by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.
Most of the vaccines currently under process by big pharma are likewise mRNA vaccines, a type never before used on humans.
The Gates/Fauci vaccine against covid-19 is no ordinary vaccine. It uses three needles, two of which are electrodes that will alter the DNA of every cell in the body.
Gates and Fauci have bypassed all required phase-one animal testing, normally a 10-year testing requirement, as well as human safety testing. This assault on our bodies will likely be issued as mandatory, since it is being developed under emergency powers. Trump’s attorney, Alan Dershowitz, has stated categorically that “you have no constitutional right to refuse a vaccine”.
The Korean War is not publicly commemorated like the Civil War or World War II, so it is little wonder that the Korean War massacre, No Gun Ri, is also hidden from public memory. The event is one of the deadliest acts committed by U.S. ground troops in the 20th century. If reports of upwards of 300 civilians killed are correct, then the event is comparable to better known tragedies such as the 1968 My Lai Massacre.
What Happened?
On July 26, 1950, the U.S. 8th Army, the highest level of command in South Korea, ordered that all Korean civilians traveling and moving around the country must be stopped. It was declared that “no refugees will be permitted to cross battle lines at any time. Movement of all Koreans in groups will cease immediately.” The army stated that it was fearful of North Korean guerrilla troops disguising themselves as peasants.
One day earlier, U.S. soldiers had rousted hundreds of civilians from villages near the town of Yongdong in central South Korea and ordered them south along the main road, as a North Korean invasion force pushed toward the area. On July 26, these civilian refugees approached a railroad bridge near the village of No Gun Ri.
Members of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment dug in near No Gun Ri and only three days into their time at the war front opened fire on the civilians. One veteran recalls being instructed “fire on everything, kill ’em all.” Over the course of a three-day barrage of gunfire and air strafing, hundreds of South Korean civilians were killed. Survivors recall a stream under the bridge running red with blood and 7th Cavalry veterans recall the near constant screams of women and children. Estimates range anywhere from 100 to upwards of 300 deaths.
Uncovering the Story Five Decades Later
This tragic event was almost unreported outside of the Korean peninsula until 1999 when three Associated Press (AP) journalists, Sang-Hun Choe, Charles J. Hanley, and Martha Mendoza, brought the story to international attention. Choe had originally become aware of the allegations when one of the survivors wrote a book in 1994 about the events. Initially the AP did not allow the story, but in 1998 he was able to pursue it with Hanley and Mendoza. They conducted an extensive investigation, including hundreds of interviews with veterans and Korean survivors and a review of thousands of military documents. However, they had to fight for close to a year to get the story published.
Their original story, which included testimony from numerous U.S. soldiers and Korean survivors, prompted an immediate investigation by the U.S. military and they won a Pulitzer Prize for their work. The ultimate report by the U.S. military, which left out or ignored numerous pieces of evidence, found that the deaths at No Gun Ri were “an unfortunate tragedy” and “not a deliberate killing.”
Charles Hanley noted that “the story of No Gun Ri was shocking when it emerged in 1999, but within the following decade it became clear that events like this were quite common place during the Korean War, and it is in some ways what war is all about.” Immense pressure is still placed on journalists to mitigate reporting on stories such as these. The No Gun Ri massacre serves to illustrate once again the horrors of war and the challenges of accurately reporting them.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Story prepared by Zinn Education Project intern Rachel Mullin based on an interview with Charles Hanley, journalist and co-author of The Bridge at No Gun Ri: A Hidden Nightmare from the Korean War and Ghost Flames: Life and Death in a Hidden War, Korea 1950-1953.
Today is the 60th day of protests since the murder of George Floyd. This weekend, people marched in cities across the country in solidarity with Portland and in opposition to the US becoming a police state.
President Trump sending troops to cities added fuel to the nationwide uprising against racist police violence. Protests have grown not only in Portland but in Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Omaha, Austin, Oakland, San Francisco, New York, and Washington, DC, among other cities.
Trump is not a ‘law and order’ president, he is a chaos and disorder president. He is mistaken to think that increasing conflict in cities throughout the country will save his failing 2020 campaign. Just as his hyped attack on Central American caravans backfired before the 2018 mid-term elections, this escalation is also backfiring as people are mobilized to stand against Trump’s authoritarianism.
While Trump’s actions are the focus of current protests, Portland demonstrates there is a long history of police violence that preceded Trump. Mayors have allowed police violence and Joe Biden, when he was Chair of the Judiciary Committee, authored legislation that led to over-policing and encouraged police militarization. While Trump sending in militarized troops to cities needs to be opposed, police violence is bigger than Trump.
Trump Sends In Federal Troops, Escalates Violence
While federal officers protect federal buildings across the country that is not what Trump is doing. He is using the excuse of protecting federal buildings as cover for sending in federal troops to dominate cities.
On June 1, President Trump made his plan clear warning governors that if they did not get control of the cities, he would send in troops. He told governors “You have to dominate, if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time.”
June 1 was also the day that National Guard troops in Washington, DC fired tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets into non-violent protesters in Lafayette Park across from the White House so Trump could walk across the park for a widely denigrated photo-op holding a bible in front of St. John’s church. Trump said last week that he sent personnel to Portland because “the locals couldn’t handle it.”
The presence of federal troops in Portland and being sent to other cities is based on an executive order signed on June 26 to protect “Federal monuments, memorials, statues, or property.” Homeland Security director, Chad Wolf, created a task force made up of Border Patrol, Coast Guard, U.S. Marshals, and other agencies. Three different operations have been announced: Wolf’s “Protecting Americans Communities Task Force”; the Department of Justice’s crime-fighting “Operation Legend” announced on July 8; and “Operation Diligent Valor,” which includes the Portland police mission.
Legal analysts and commentators are debating whether the actions of federal troops in Portland are legal. The government argues they are merely protecting buildings and when they go blocks away they are investigating who damaged buildings. The Oregonian questions that writing, “Even if the federal agencies have legitimate license to defend the courthouse, ‘The real question is: Is it being used as a pretext?’”
It is evident from federal troop actions in Portland that this generalized federal policing is beyond federal authority. Reports and videos of unidentified Border Patrol agents in camouflage grabbing people off the street, stuffing them into unmarked vehicles, and driving off are unconstitutional, illegal actions.
Oregon officials including the governor and Portland mayor have asked Homeland Security to keep its troops off of Portland’s streets but Chad Wolf has refused. Oregon’s senators have also opposed Trump sending paramilitary squads to Portland.
Some, including the District Attorney of PhiladelphiaLarry Krassner, say federal troops should be prosecuted when they violate the law. The Oregonian reported that Steven Wax, a former Federal Public Defender, called on Oregon’s US attorney and the Multnomah County district attorney to convene grand juries with subpoena powers to investigate alleged criminal acts by federal officers. Potential charges could include kidnapping, assault, and racketeering conspiracy, he said. The district attorney and attorney general are conducting a criminal investigation focused on the injury of a protester, 26 year old Donovan La Bella, on July 11 who was shot in the head with an impact munition near the federal courthouse and subsequently needed surgery.
As our guest on Clearing The FOG, constitutional lawyer Mara Verheyden-Hilliard makes the point that courts need to protect the rights of all people to protest and not make journalists and legal observers a separate category with greater rights than others.
The Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC) carries weaponry of the sort usually used in Afghanistan or Iraq. John Rudoff.
Paramilitaries Instead Of The Military
We describe these federal agents as “troops” because that is what they are. President Trump threatened to use the Insurrection Act to deploy armed services to states but people in the military and legal scholars opposed him. Instead, Trump has sent militarized troops from civilian agencies into the cities.
The Department of Homeland Security sent Border Patrol Tactical Units (BORTAC) from Customs to Portland. BORTAC is an elite paramilitary unit that includes snipers and other highly trained troops who often operate outside of the US and are based along the Mexican border. These “Specialized Response Teams” wear the US Army’s camouflage and use military gear. BORTAC units have been deployed to war environments, including Iraq and Afghanistan. While not a violation of Posse Comitatus, which forbids the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, they subvert the intent of the Act.
In addition to on-the-ground troops, the US is using the US Air Force ‘Cougar’ surveillance plane over Portland. The Intercept reports the flight data shows tight, circular surveillance flights over Portland. Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Government Secrecy Project, asks “What is their mission? Under what authority are they operating, and who authorized them?”
Trump is using police as a prop in the 2020 election with Portland as a campaign stage. The campaign seeks to win votes in the suburbs, which he won by 4 percent in 2016 but is now losing by double digits. Trump’s re-election campaign has spent over $983 million in 2020, more than the $878 million spent in his entire 2016 campaign. Despite this spending, he is behind Biden by landslide margins in all of the battleground states. He fired his campaign manager and is obviously getting desperate.
Trump is mimicking the ‘law and order’ campaign of Richard Nixon but this is a different era when police violence and racism are on video for all to see. Protests after police murdered George Floyd took place in cities of all sizes and in many suburbs. A national consensus is developing that racist police violence exists and it must end. Images of militarized police shooting and tear-gassing unarmed protesters is likely to backfire against Trump.
Police Violence Is Bigger Than Trump
Before the federal troops arrived, Portland police were using extreme violenceand chemical weapons against protesters. The Portland Police Bureau already had a temporary restraining order for its violation of protesters’ free speech rights and another for arresting journalists and legal observers. Another court ruling largely prohibited local police from using tear gas, but that has not stopped federal troops from doing so. When Mayor Ted Wheeler, who also serves as the police commissioner, came to the courthouse protests people jeered him and signs called him ‘Tear Gas Ted.’ Wheeler was teargassed himself by the federal troops.
The Intercept describes how the Portland Police Association has dominated elected officials for decades. In meetings with the mayor, one police union president would put his gun on the table. The union contract protects racist cops making it hard to fire those who’ve used deadly force. When the new contract was being considered in 2016, people protested at City Hall and the police rioted forcing protesters outside where police in riot gear then surrounded the building as city officials approved their union contract.
The NY Times reports that of the 35 cities in the United States with populations larger than 500,000, Portland is the whitest with 71 percent of residents categorized as non-Latino whites and only 6% are Black. This stems from the state being founded as a state for white people. A 19th-century law called for whipping any Black person found in the state. In the early part of the 20th century, Oregon’s Legislature was dominated by members of the Ku Klux Klan. As the destination of Lewis and Clark, Oregon symbolized the conquest of the American West and the subjugation of Native peoples.
Police violence in Portland is disproportionately against Black people including being stopped by police and targeted with the use of force. Slate reports,“When the police chief banned chokeholds in 1985 after officers killed a Black man with the hold, officers made T-shirts that said, ‘Don’t Choke ’Em. Smoke ’Em.’ In 2012, the Justice Department reported that the PPB had an unconstitutional ‘pattern or practice’ of using excessive force against people with mental illnesses.” The Portland police have also been sympathetic to right-wing, white supremacist organizations when they demonstrated in the city.
With this history of white domination, some would think racist policing would not be a political issue but the evidence of racist police brutality has struck a chord not only in Portland but across the country. Portland has had a strong protest movement over inequality, neoliberalism, wars, and more. The police have a long history of using violence against protests resulting in court settlements for victims. Now, opposition to racism, capitalism, and fascism has led to a unified movement.
Most local officials have opposed Trump’s threats to send troops to their cities and have threatened litigation. Lori Lightfoot, a neoliberal Democratic mayor, initially opposed federal troops coming to Chicago but, after a phone call with Trump and a promise that troops would work under the control of the US Attorney with a very limited role, she changed her mind. Lightfoot, a former federal prosecutor, has faced protests at her home for this.
Alliances with federal police can be problematic. Separate from the current controversy, Albuquerque, Atlanta, St. Paul, San Francisco, and Portland all pulled out of federal-local task forces because federal agents have violated local rules regarding racial profiling, use-of-force policies, and requirements to wear body cameras.
While Trump is putting himself at the center of current police violence, the reality is police violence is bigger than Trump. The system-wide challenges with policing are deeply entrenched. Police defend the status quo including racial injustice and class inequality. Whenever political movements develop to respond to racial and class unfairness, the police have undermined their politically-protected constitutional rights. Now that the conflict has heightened, it is time for the people to resolve it.
Retired US Army major intelligence officer Jenine Betschart (center) protests outside the Multnomah County Justice Center along with the ‘Wall of Moms’ as night fell on the city. Daily Mail.
People Can Protect The Right To Protest And Limit Police Powers
Militarized police violence is the wars abroad coming home. Strategic tactics like the Wall of Moms and veterans in broad opposition to militarized federal police demonstrate how movements can stop Trump’s authoritarianism, limit the actions of police and protect the right to protest.
At the beginning of this century, mass protests in Washington, DC against corporate trade agreements led to violent responses by DC and federal police. Litigation by the Partnership for Civil Justice followed. The result was large monetary awards to protesters but also agreements between the parties that put in place “best practices” to protect the right to protest in Washington, DC. Now both local police and federal police are bound by these agreements.
We interview Mara Verhayden-Hilliard on this week’s Clearing the FOG Radio(available Monday night) about whether the current protests could also lead to the protection of our rights. The overreach of President Trump and the violent reaction of local police is an opportunity for change. To succeed requires smart litigation that protects all protest, not a hierarchy protecting media or legal observers, and the litigation must act in synergy with the people.
People cannot give up the streets but must oppose violent police with strategic tactics that continue to pull people to support the movement and oppose police violence. Our goal is to transform the concept of public safety to mean programs that meet people’s basic needs and build a national consensus for policing that is defunded, demilitarized and democratically controlled. Already the movement has changed the opinions of people in the US, we must build on that success, and continue the pressure for change no matter who is elected president.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.
Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned Americans on Thursday to be cautious about any new coronavirus vaccine, pointing out that key parts of testing are being skipped.
“The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether,” Kennedy said during an online debate on mandatory vaccinations with renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. The debate was aired by Valuetainment and moderated by Patrick Bet-David.
Kennedy is part of a political family, being the son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. Both were murdered in the 1960s.
Another aspect of testing was equally unsatisfying, Kennedy said. The Moderna vaccine was tested “on 45 people. They had a high-dose group of 15 people, a medium-dose group of 15 people, and a low growth group of 15 people.”
“In the low-dose group, one of the people was so sick from the vaccine they had to be hospitalized,” he explained. “That’s six percent. In the high-dose group, three people got so sick they had to be hospitalized. That’s twenty percent.”
In spite of these significant problems,
“they’re going ahead, and making two billion doses of that vaccine.”
Another problem with the testing of the coronavirus vaccine is that it’s tested not on “typical Americans,” but a carefully selected group of people who don’t suffer from certain conditions.
“They use what they call exclusionary criteria,” Kennedy said. “They are only giving these vaccines in these tests that they’re doing to the healthiest people.”
“If you look at their exclusionary idea criteria: You cannot be pregnant, you cannot be overweight, you must have never smoked a cigarette, you must have never vaped, you must have no respiratory problems in your family, you can’t suffer asthma, you can’t have diabetes, you can’t have rheumatoid arthritis or any autoimmune disease. There has to be no history of seizure in the family. These are the people they’re testing the vaccine on.”
He asked,
“What happens when they give them to the typical American? You know, Sally Six-Pack and Joe Bag of Donuts who’s 50 pounds overweight and has diabetes.”
Kennedy stressed several times that
“any other medicine … that had that kind of profile in its original phase-one study would be [dead on arrival].”
“No medical product in the world would be able to go forward with the profile that Moderna has,” he reiterated.
During the course of the debate, Kennedy also talked about the regular vaccines most people take, from Hepatitis B to the flu shot, emphasizing that no proper testing had ever been done, which is mandatory for any other medication. Vaccines “are the only medical product that does not have to be safety-tested against a placebo,” he explained.
In a study involving placebos, one group of people would be injected with the actual vaccine, while another group would be injected with saline solution, which would not have any effect in preventing a particular disease. The people who are part of the study would then be observed to see if there are any differences between the two groups, both regarding the disease vaccinated against, and side effects.
As these tests are never done on vaccines, “nobody knows the risk profile of any vaccine that is currently on the schedule. And that means nobody can say with any scientific certainty that that vaccine is averting more injuries and deaths than it’s causing.
In fact, it should be the opposite, Kennedy said, with vaccines being tested even more thoroughly than any other medication.
“It’s a medical intervention that is being given to perfectly healthy people to prevent somebody else from getting sick,” he pointed out. “And it’s the only medicine that’s given to healthy people … and particularly to children who have a whole lifetime in front of them. So you would expect that we would want that particular intervention to have particularly rigorous guarantees that it’s safe.”
Kennedy said
“it’s not hypothetical that vaccines cause injury, and that injuries are not rare. The vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars” over the past three decades, “and the threshold for getting back into a vaccine court and getting a judgment – [the Department of Health and Human Services] admits that fewer than one percent of people who are injured ever even get to court.”
He mentioned another reason not to trust blindly any company currently producing vaccines in the United States. Each one of the four vaccine producers “is a convicted serial felon: Glaxo, Sanofi, Pfizer, Merck.”
“In the past 10 years, just in the last decade, those companies have paid 35 billion dollars in criminal penalties, damages, fines, for lying to doctors, for defrauding science, for falsifying science, for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans knowingly.”
“It requires a cognitive dissonance,” Kennedy commented, “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.”
While Kennedy is often described as being against vaccines altogether, he stressed that he does not oppose vaccines, as such. He accused his critics of “marginalizing me and silencing me” by misrepresenting his actual position.
In May, Kennedy signed an appeal created by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò aimed at raising public awareness among people, governments, scientists, and the media about the serious dangers to individual freedom caused during the spread of Covid-19.
The appeal raised concern at one point about a COVID-19 vaccination in relation to human freedom.
“We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against Covid-19, however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool.”
The appeal made it clear that for Catholics it is “morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”
Comments on the YouTube video of the debate between Kennedy and Dershowitz indicated, almost unanimously, that Kennedy had won the debate. Dershowitz conceded many points, arguing, however, that from the point of view of constitutional law, the coronavirus vaccine could be made mandatory.
Dershowitz, who has provided legal counsel to and defended people like Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Julian Assange, cited a 1905 Supreme Court ruling as precedent. Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
Kennedy clarified that the state government at the time had offered people to either be vaccinated or pay a five dollar fine. Dershowitz’s argument, however, was that based on constitutional law, including this precedent, “the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
Kennedy said,
“I think there’s a big constitutional chasm between, you know, that remedy, which is paying a fine, and actually going in and holding somebody down and forcibly injecting them.”
President Trump has already said that the new coronavirus vaccine would not be mandatory, but available for those “who want to get it. Not everyone is going to want to get it.” A LifeSiteNews petition saying no to mandatory vaccinations has garnered more than 650,000 signatures and can still be signed here.
The ethical issue of many vaccines being derived from cell lines of aborted babies was not discussed during the debate.
*
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.
Kunihiko Iida wants the world to know that the atomic bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 75 years ago next month are still claiming lives and causing suffering.
Iida was 3 years old in August 1945. His father had died in battle; he was living with his mother and her parents in a house 900 meters from Hiroshima’s hypocenter, the spot right beneath the detonation. The blast crumpled the house. The family fled the city, but Iida’s mother and older sister soon died from their injuries, a fact the little boy didn’t grasp. “Until I entered elementary school, I thought they were living and that we would meet someday,” he says.
His injuries left him bedridden for years, and he has suffered debilitating illnesses ever since. Childhood anemia caused him to collapse at school. He’s had ulcers and asthma, underwent two surgeries to remove brain tumors, and now has thyroid growths. “There has never been a break in these illnesses,” he says.
Yet Iida has survived. Thousands of others died prematurely over the years because of radiation-induced cancer, a tally that is still growing. Collectively, they have left an important legacy. Most of what is known today about the long-term health effects of radiation has come out of research with those survivors. The work, now run by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), is making “major contributions to our understanding of radiation effects,” even today, says Richard Wakeford, a radiation epidemiologist at the University of Manchester. RERF studies also underpin the limits that countries have set for occupational and medical exposure to radiation.
Iida has participated in the studies since the late 1950s, because, he says, “They are trying to accurately grasp the misery of the atomic bomb,” something he hopes will promote peace. People don’t understand the unique impacts of nuclear weapons, Iida says. He and other participants “have helped the entire world,” says Ohtsura Niwa, chairman of RERF.
The survivors’ ranks are now rapidly thinning. About 70% of the original 120,000 participants enrolled in RERF’s Life Span Study (LSS) have died; most of those remaining are in their 80s and 90s. “We have an ethical obligation” to follow the cohort through the last surviving member, Niwa says—but at the same time, “We have to expand our mission.”
RERF researchers believe they can continue to gather epidemiological findings from existing life and health histories of the LSS participants, but they are also starting entirely new studies, for example of the molecular mechanisms by which radiation exposure leads to cancer. And biological samples from 30,000 study participants collected over 7 decades await genomic analysis.
One unanswered question is whether an individual’s exposure to radiation can genetically damage their offspring. “No one can say that there is no effect on the second generation,” says Katsuhiro Hirano, a Hiroshima area schoolteacher whose mother was irradiated; he now heads an association of second-generation bomb survivors that is pushing for greater recognition of their health concerns. So far, there’s no evidence that radiation damage can be passed down, but Hirano says survivors’ worries resonate among others exposed to radiation, including victims of nuclear accidents, power plant workers, and uranium miners. “This campaign is not just about ourselves,” he says. “We want to work with radiation victims the world over.”
The Hiroshima bombing on 6 August 1945 killed an estimated 90,000 to 120,000 people, who died either instantaneously or over the following weeks and months from injuries or acute radiation sickness, the result of damage to bone marrow and the intestinal tract. The bomb that leveled Nagasaki 3 days later claimed another 60,000 to 70,000 lives. The estimates are rough because “there were no bodies left to count near the hypocenter: The heat and energy literally vaporized the closest persons. And many bodies were swept out to sea with the tides, after dying burn victims sought relief in Hiroshima’s numerous rivers,” science sociologist Susan Lindee of the University of Pennsylvania wrote in her 1994 book Suffering Made Real: American Science and the Survivors at Hiroshima.
Within 6 weeks of the bombings, three U.S. and two Japanese expert teams were at work in both cities to study the biological impact of the radiation. Their objectives differed. The Japanese were primarily trying to understand the medical effects on survivors. The Americans wanted to know how and why people died from atomic blast radiation. That might help triage victims—separating those who might be saved from those doomed to die—during future nuclear wars.
The first U.S. teams gathered what information they could and left Japan within months. But in November 1946, U.S. President Harry Truman approved the creation of a broader research effort. Under the umbrella of the National Research Council, a new Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC)—RERF’s predecessor—would seize the “unique opportunity for the study of the medical and biological effects of radiation,” Lindee writes, quoting a U.S. Navy proposal. The results would be useful not only during war, but also for peaceful uses of atomic energy. ABCC grew quickly. By 1951, it employed 143 allied and 920 Japanese personnel in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
One of ABCC’s most immediate concerns was the possible impact of radiation on survivors’ children. It was clear that the bombings affected children already conceived in August 1945, resulting in an increased number of babies born with a small head size. And fruit fly studies showing that irradiation of adults causes heritable genetic changes and birth defects in offspring suggested there might be longer term effects.
To watch for birth defects among children born in later years, ABCC enrolled expecting mothers and had staffers collect information on how close to the hypocentre they and their husbands had been and details on previous pregnancies. After the women gave birth, they recorded any defects and every baby’s sex, weight, length, and head circumference.
The Japanese public was not convinced. A-bomb survivors, hibakusha in Japanese, have long suffered discrimination over fears they might be physically or psychologically impaired and that their children might inherit genetic defects. The stigma has affected female survivors more than men.
One of them is Michiko Kodama, who was 7 years old and inside a wooden school on the outskirts of Hiroshima on the day of the bombing. She escaped without major injuries, but in the following weeks she lost many relatives to acute radiation sickness, including a beloved cousin who died in her arms, begging for water she couldn’t swallow. Kodama had difficulty finding a job when she finished school, until a teacher helped her land a position at a local company. There, in her early 20s, she met a man who took her to meet his family. His mother told Kodama there was no problem with her background and character. “But you can’t marry my son because you are a hibakusha,” Kodama recalls the woman saying. “People said hibakusha had the blood of the devil.”
Several years later, a friend introduced Kodama to a man who looked past her status. They married and had two daughters. But the bias persists: Years later, the mother of one daughter’s boyfriend opposed their marriage because of the girl’s hibakusha background. The son defied his mother and the young couple married.
The good news about birth defects was counterbalanced in the early 1950s by discouraging findings on another front. “Leukemia is a very rare disease, but clinicians became aware that it was appearing a lot among the survivors,” says Kotaro Ozasa, an RERF epidemiologist. ABCC showed the disease was especially prevalent among those closest to the hypocenter. Previous studies among people exposed to radiation in a medical context had hinted at the link, Wakeford says, but “the findings from Japan provided convincing evidence.”
By then, ABCC was planning to follow the survivors for decades more. A 1950 census had helped identify 280,000 hibakusha all over Japan. From among those still living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ABCC recruited about 75,000 for its LSS, along with 25,000 unexposed controls. The cohort covered men and women of all ages, who had been at various distances from the explosions. “That census from 1950 created the entire foundation” of ABCC’s cohorts, says RERF epidemiologist Eric Grant, although another 20,000 people were added later.
How radiation exposure affected health
Studies in Hiroshima (shown on map below) and Nagasaki conducted over the past 75 years have yielded important insights into the health effects of radiation. Researchers went to great lengths to determine survivors’ exposure, which depended partly on their distance from the hypocenter of the bombings.
Estimating the combined gamma and neutron radiation exposure for each individual was a challenge. Scientists began by calculating the expected radiation at various distances from the hypocenter, then verified those numbers in several ways. They cut samples from the copper roof ornaments of temples, for instance, and used mass spectrometry to check for a nickel isotope created by the bombs’ neutron bombardment. To study the degree to which buildings might have shielded victims, Oak Ridge National Laboratory built several typical Japanese houses at the Nevada Test Site and measured radiation levels inside and outside during atomic bomb tests in 1957 and 1958.
In the 1960s, ABCC also interviewed 28,000 survivors, asking for details on their exact location at the time of the blast, what sort of building they were in and on what floor, and even which way they were facing and whether they had been sitting or standing. The investigators used those details to assign a dose for every person in the LSS. (In the 1980s, they refined their work down to the level of individual organs.)
Year after year, the researchers have tracked the incidence of more than a dozen different types of cancers in the survivors, along with mortality. “Radiation risk is very complex,” says RERF epidemiologist Alina Brenner. It depends on sex and age at exposure and can be influenced by genetic susceptibility and lifestyle factors such as smoking. And risks “change over time as a population ages,” she says. But the sheer size and duration of the LSS, along with its detailed data on exposure, age, and sex, allowed researchers to draw many conclusions as the decades passed.
Dose was clearly very important. Among those who were within about 900 meters of the hypocenter and received more than 2 grays of radiation, 124 have died of cancer. (That dose is about 1000 times the average annual radiation dose from natural, medical, and occupational sources combined.) In its latest LSS update, RERF scientists conclude—based on comparisons of cancer deaths between the exposed group and unexposed controls—that radiation was responsible for 70 of those deaths (see graphic, above). Scientists call this number, 56.5%, the attributable fraction. The numbers of deaths are low because few who were close to ground zero survived the blast, explains Dale Preston, a biostatistician at Hirosoft International who previously worked at RERF. But among these people, “Most of the cancers are due to the radiation,” Preston says.
At 1 gray of exposure, the dose roughly 1100 meters from the hypocenter, the attributable fraction is 34.8%, and it decreases linearly for lower doses. Women suffered more radiation-associated cancers than men, largely because of cases of breast cancer. Both men and women exposed at a younger age were more at risk as they aged: “It’s thought that actively dividing cells are more susceptible to radiation effects, so younger people are more sensitive,” Ozasa says. Radiation most increased the risk of leukemia among survivors, followed by cancer of the stomach, lung, liver, and breast. There was little impact on cancers of the rectum, prostate, and kidney. Exposure also heightened the risk of heart failure and stroke, asthma, bronchitis, and gastrointestinal conditions, but less so; for those with a 2-gray exposure, 16% of noncancer deaths were deemed attributable to radiation.
The findings have had an “outsized influence” on policies and practices to make the use of ionizing radiation safer, says Kimberly Applegate, a radiation health expert retired from the University of Kentucky and a member of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The shielded rooms now routine for x-ray procedures and the dosimetry badges that track the accumulated exposure of health care and nuclear power plant workers are based in part on RERF data. ICRP is also using the data to develop recommendations for space tourists and astronauts traveling to Mars.
Whether RERF’s findings—based on one-time exposure—can shed light on the risks for those exposed to low doses over long periods of time is still a topic of debate. “Nobody really knows” what happens at low doses, says Robert Ullrich, RERF’s head of research. But so far, RERF’s conclusions are consistent with studies of those exposed to low doses at work, he says.
Participants themselves didn’t reap benefits from the studies, at least at first. Many joined expecting treatment for their ills, Iida says. But ABCC did not offer treatment because it might be seen as an admission of responsibility for their suffering by the United States. “ABCC did not have a good reputation among the hibakusha,” Iida says. Its top positions were held by U.S. scientists, adding to strains that led to a reorganization of ABCC into RERF in 1975. Japan and the United States now have equal representation on the Board of Councilors, key positions are split, and both countries contribute roughly half of its annual budget, now $31 million.
RERF now shares tests results and other individual data with study participants and provides them with counseling and referrals; the Japanese government subsidizes health care for most hibakusha. In 2017, at a ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the commission’s founding, Niwa expressed regret that ABCC had studied bombing victims without treating them. “Survivors still feel there is an asymmetrical relationship” with RERF, says Akiko Naono, a sociologist at Kyoto University who studies hibakusha issues. They are the source of data but still see little in return.
U.S. researchers studying Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing victims in 1945 initially worked from train cars. The research continues to this day. (RADIATION EFFECTS RESEARCH ORGANIZATION)
New data are still coming in. In papers published in 2018 and 2019, for example, RERF scientists reported that women exposed to bomb radiation at the age of menarche, the first occurrence of menstruation, were at a higher risk of developing breast or uterine cancer later in life than those exposed before or after puberty. The proliferation of breast and uterine tissue during puberty provides “a lot of potential for DNA damage induced by radiation,” Brenner says.
The breast cancer study also gives a glimpse of RERF’s future agenda. The first analysis did not try to distinguish among the several major breast cancer subtypes, which vary in their biological mechanisms and prognoses, Brenner says. RERF is now analyzing cancerous tissue collected from patients to determine whether any of those subtypes occur more frequently in radiation victims. If so, that could provide hints about just how radiation damages tissue and raises cancer risk.
Samples are one resources RERF has in abundance. During detailed biennial health examinations of more than 23,000 of the survivors (including some exposed in utero), researchers have collected and preserved blood and urine samples, some dating back to the late 1950s. RERF has also amassed frozen cell lines from parents and children in 500 families in which at least one parent was exposed to radiation, plus an equal number of control families.
DNA in those samples—which so far has not been sequenced—could provide a check on the early data about the health of survivors’ offspring. Despite the reassuring findings about birth defects, some researchers worry radiation may have caused mutations in testes and ovaries that children born years later might have inherited. Researchers plan to compare the number and types of mutations found in the families to see whether any are more common in children of radiation-exposed parents, Ullrich says.
RERF hasn’t yet seen any evidence of radiation-linked health effects in a study of 77,000 children of survivors. That could be “because we may not have the statistical power to be able to see” an impact, Ullrich says. Based on the findings, the Japanese government has refused to provide health care or screenings to the second generation.
But the possibility of harm still haunts survivors’ children, including Hirano. His mother, then 20, went searching for relatives in Hiroshima 2 days after the bombing, exposing herself to residual radiation. Hirano has no medical problems, but like many children of survivors, he has stories about health issues in his family. His mother had two stillbirths before he was born, and a cousin, also a second-generation survivor, died of leukemia in his 30s. “Many second-generation A-bomb survivors have great anxiety about their health,” he says. And those directly exposed to the bomb are often wracked with guilt if their children get sick or die, he says. Kodama is an example. Her youngest daughter died of ear canal cancer at age 45 in 2011. Ever since, she has wondered: “Was it because of the damage to my genes?”
Hirano’s association of survivors’ children is now taking the matter to court, seeking recognition as hibakusha and the health care that goes with it. “But the biggest hope of our movement,” he says, “is that there never again be second-generation victims” of atomic bombs.
*
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.
Dennis Normile is a contributing correspondent in Shanghai, China.
Sultan Abdul Hamid II, in the face of a rising secular nationalism in the late 1800s, that culminated in the Young Turk movement, tried to restore the influence of the Ottoman Empire among Islamic nations and the Empire’s many peoples by stressing the importance of Islam and the Ottoman Caliphate, of the role of the Ottomans as the protectors of Islam and, in the modern world, a bulwark against western colonialism.
Over a hundred years after he left power, after the Empire was broken up by the western powers after the First World War, after the Turkish nationalists under Mustafa Kemal, known as Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, kicked the British, French, Greeks and Italians out of Anatolia and Constantinople and established Turkey as a secular democratic state in 1923, President Erdogan has adopted the mantle of Abdul Hamid, and his claim to be the defender of Islam, as a means of shoring up his own weakening support in Turkey, and as a means of raising the prestige of Turkey among Islamic nations and the world.
Until last week his pro-Islamic policies have been of concern mainly to Turks, divided between those who support his actions and those who oppose the retreat from the foundation of the secular state by Ataturk, which followed a century of reformist Sultans beginning with Selim III, who reformed the army on Western lines in early part of the 19th century but was overthrown and lost his life at the hands of the the elite unit that formed the backbone of the Sultan’s troops, the Janissaries.
Twenty years later, modern reforms continued under Sultan Mahmud II, who instituted administrative and secular legal reforms to guarantee equal rights and the benefits of western “progress” to the citizens of the Empire, reforms that were rational and progressive for the time, and a charter of reorganisation, the Tanzimat, was drawn up to serve as a model for internal reforms throughout the century. Its purpose was to transform the Ottoman state from a medieval society into a modern liberal state, an objective that was alternately promoted or obstructed depending on who the Sultan was and the internal opposition he met.
Abdul Hamid II, in the latter part of the 19th century, continued the reforms and flirted with a democratic constitution for a time. He instituted many modern reforms within the Empire, but his suspicions of the west and its designs on the oil resources of the Empire and the attempts by the western powers to undermine Ottoman society from within as well as without caused him to reject the new constitution and to use religion in the vain hope of reversing the Ottoman’s declining fortunes.
This tension between backward looking religious institutions, and suspicions of the west, often justified, and the hopes of the expanding intellectual elite, continued through the reign of Abdul Hamid II and continues today with the arrival on the scene of President Erdogan.
President Erdogan, to the dismay of progressive sections of Turkish society has fallen back on the reactionary elements of Ottoman rule and a rejection of a secular society in favour of a fixation on the glories of the Ottoman past, relying on religion and foreign adventures in Syria, Iraq, Libya and increased hostility to Greece to compensate for economic and political failures at home, a foreign policy that Ataturk predicted would only bring disaster and was to be avoided. Ataturk had the wisdom to renounce imperial expansion. He believed that a modern and progressive Turkish state could only be achieved by concentrating on the core lands of what is now modern Turkey so that the Turkish nation would be a nation that combined the cultures of the East and the West and would establish an element of stability in the Middle East.
Erdogan clearly has the intention of rejecting the legacy of Ataturk, of continuing to express claims to lands that were once under Ottoman rule. He continues to interfere in Syria, Iraq and Libya, destroyed by the NATO alliance, of which Turkey is a shaky member, and continues to mount threats against Greece with naval exercises and offshore oil drilling in waters claimed by Greece.
But his most recent action on July 10, of rescinding Ataturk’s 1934 decree making the Christian Church of Hagia Sophia a museum, over 500 years after Mehmet took Constantinople in 1453 and turned the church into a mosque, is reverberating far beyond Turkey’s borders. For Hagia Sophia is not just any church. Also known as St. Sophia, the Church of Holy Wisdom, it was the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople, head of the Orthodox Church in the West and is of central importance to the Orthodox Christians of the East, including Russia whose Patriarch in Moscow is considered, by Russians, the inheritor of leadership of the Orthodox Church since the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans.
It is an ancient symbol of Christianity, first consecrated by the Roman Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, in the year 360. The present building is the third on the site, redesigned by the Emperor Justinian of the Eastern Roman Empire and dedicated by him on December 26, 537. And it was another emperor, the last, also named Constantine, who, on hearing that the Ottoman soldiers had breached the great walls of the city during the final siege, threw off his robes, took his sword, leaped into battle where the fighting was thickest, offering his life to defend the city, and was never seen again. It was a Tuesday, May 29, 1453. It is still considered an unlucky day in the Greek world, the day the waning crescent moon was high in the sky, as depicted on the Turkish flag.
The Church of Holy Wisdom is an ancient symbol of Christianity, in particular the Orthodox Church that is composed of hundreds of millions of worshippers, half of them in Russia, the rest in Eastern Europe, North Africa, Greece, the Balkans and the Americas. Its loss to the Ottomans was a shock to the Christian world when it happened, but over 500 years, its use as a mosque was accepted as a fait accompli. Ataturk’s decision to turn it into a museum to show respect to both the Christian and Islamic worlds was an important step towards creating some mutual respect and toleration between the two religions that worship the same God. Even Erdogan first thought so, and besides, there were already more than enough mosques in Istanbul. Why create another and offend everyone in the Orthodox world, offend, in particular, Russia?
The answer is, firstly, to shore up Erdogan’s support in Turkey where his party has not done well in local elections in Istanbul and Ankara. He wants to please the Islamists in his own and other such parties, while striking a big Turkish slap at the secular parties; secondly, it is a statement to the world that Turkey is a rising regional power, which, under Erdogan’s leadership, will do as it pleases in its sphere of influence and is another crack in the NATO alliance as Turkey and Greece face off against each other, Turkey expands its already large navy and defends its airspace with Russian S400 antiaircraft systems.
Russia, always anxious to calm tensions, has reacted with caution. Dmitry Peskov, President Putin’s press secretary, stated that the change in the status of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul will not affect relations between Russia and Turkey, that it is an internal affair of Turkey, and hoped that the Turks will take into account the status of Hagia Sophia as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and its sacred sacred significance for hundreds of millions of Christians. But among the Orthodox Christians there is anger and resentment at this slap in the face of them and Russia. The feelings are echoed in Greece, the Balkans and elswhere. But it may affect future relations between Russia and Turkey as they try to work out a modus operandi in Syria, Libya, Iraq, The Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean.
The American government condemned the action but the fact that Erdogan ignored them is another sign not only that Turkey is a rising power, but that the United States is a declining power in the region, that the balance of power in the region and the world is shifting, adjusting, reacting to the weakening power of the United States. In such times, conflicts can break out that can lead to world conflicts. The increasing tensions between Turkey and Greece, and now perhaps Egypt, as it prepares to move into Libya as well, can draw in the bigger powers, or at the least create further instability in the region which is already a tinder box. We must expect more provocations from Erdogan as events unfold and further conflict in the regions as a result. And all the while that Hagia Sophia, designed as an epxression of God, is used for political and strategic ends, religion as politics, we can suppose that the God that both religions worship sits sadly on high, dismayed by the folly of the creatures He created.
*
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.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Longstanding US plans call for waging wars from space.
In 1985, the US Space Command (USSPACECOM) was created.
In December 2018, Trump ordered it be made a unified combatant command for war under the US Strategic Command, saying:
“Pursuant to my authority as the Commander in Chief and under section 161 of title 10, United States Code, and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I direct the establishment, consistent with United States law, of United States Space Command as a functional unified combatant command.”
His order advanced US plans for preemptively waging real time star wars.
Washington refuses to negotiate a treaty with Russia and China that bans weaponization of space.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans nations from placing WMDs (not conventional weapons) in earth orbit or otherwise in outer space.
It restricts use of celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, bans space bases and outer space weapons testing.
The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibits nuclear testing in outer space.
Established in 1984 to negotiate arms control and disarmament agreements, the UN Conference on Disarmament strongly opposes weaponizing space.
The 1972 ABM Treaty banned testing or deploying weapons in space. The treaty became null and void after Bush/Cheney pulled out in June 2002.
In January 2001, representing overwhelming world community sentiment, the UN General Assembly’s Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space Resolution A/55/32 said the following:
“The exploration and use of outer space shall be for peaceful purposes and be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development,” adding:
“(The) prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security.”
Space is the final frontier. Last December, the US Space Force Act established the Pentagon’s Space Force as part of the US Air Force — headed by a chief of space operations.
If the US militarizes space, Russia and China will respond defensively in similar fashion.
Last week, the Trump regime falsely accused Russia of conducting an anti-satellite missile test that’s able to destroy low-earth-orbit satellites in space — no credible evidence presented because there is none.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry debunked the accusation, saying it’s a pretext for the Trump regime to pursue an arms race in space, adding:
“The tests held by the Defense Ministry of Russia on July 15 this year created no threats for other space vehicles and, most importantly, violated no norms or principles of international law.”
“According to the information of our Defense Ministry, the Russian inspector-satellite inspected a Russian space vehicle at a close distance using the small satellite’s specialized equipment.”
“As a result, valuable information on the technical condition of the inspected object was obtained and transmitted to ground-based control systems.”
“We consider (false accusations by the Trump regime) another anti-Russia move, as part of a Washington-initiated purposeful (dis)information campaign for discrediting the Russian space activity and our peaceful initiatives for preventing an arms race in outer space.”
“American and British representatives are again trying to present the situation in a distorted form to distract the attention of the international public from real threats in outer space, justify the steps they are taking to deploy weapons in outer space and secure additional financing for these purposes.”
“Naturally, they keep silent about their own efforts in the field of military space, including the implementation of the programs of possibly involving inspector satellites and repair satellites as anti-satellite means.”
“It is not clear what goal the (Trump regime is) pursuing.”
“We would want to hope that they are not trying in this way to pre-determine the tonality and the results of (a scheduled Russia/US July 27) meeting (on this issue) and (thus) complicate the process of developing a bilateral dialogue on space issues and strategic stability as a whole, which is so important for the entire international community.”
“(I)nitiatives (Moscow is) promoting for preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space…are supported by a majority of UN member states…”
Russia seeks the establishment of a legally binding treaty on the world community of nations that prohibits the deployment of all weapons in space.
It’s committed not to be the first nation to militarize outer space.
“We confirm our readiness for discussing the entire range of space activity problems with the participation of representatives of” other nations, its Foreign Ministry said.
On Friday, Russia’s Defense Ministry called false US and UK accusations about testing a space-based anti-satellite weapon by Russia’s military part of a “targeted (dis)information campaign (to) discredit (legitimate, non-threatening) Russian space activities.”
The phony accusation comes at a time when the US and UK are moving toward militarizing space for warmaking purposes — instead of working cooperatively with Russia, China, and other nations to keep outer space weapons-free.
Because both right wings of the US war party seek dominance over other nations by whatever it takes to achieve their imperial aims, today is the most perilous time in world history.
Nuclear war by accident or design is an ominous possibility.
Instead of going all-out to prevent what could destroy planet earth and all its life forms, bipartisan US policymakers are pursuing their aims with no regard for the potential catastrophic risks.
*
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.”
There is little doubt about it. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is the puffed-up hawk of the Trump administration, talons at the ready, beak protruding. While the president coos at the prospect of seeing, or admiring, the next strongman of international relations, Pompeo hovers over selected authoritarian targets. This Jekyll-Hyde appraisal of foreign policy is a ready recipe for chaos and one that has done much to confuse Washington’s friends and foes.
The largest authoritarian target for the Trump administration remains China. China is convenient; China is destiny. The US imperium has always needed, on some level, handy demons to justify vast military budgets and its sprawling network of military bases. Lacking enemies would naturally lessen the case and show up the jingoes as men and women of straw. When the Soviet Union vanished, ending the most expensive, phoniest confrontation in modern history, the rogues’ gallery suddenly seemed empty, largely because many of those rogues were sponsored or backed by the US imperium. This was a time ludicrously called the “end of history” by that most fatuous of political observers, Francis Fukuyama. But candidates of wickedness were eventually found: President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil”, born in the embers of New York’s World Trade Centre; the shop-for-terror al-Qaeda network; a miscellany of terrorists.
Pompeo’s speech, delivered at the Nixon Library in California on July 23, was a dusted off version of innumerable statements made during the Cold War, notably in its initial freeze. The capitalist and communist blocs had taken shape, and the language of freedom was much in use. On March 12, 1947, President Harry Truman appeared before a joint session of Congress to explain why the United States should care whether Greece or Turkey should fall to communism or not. Turkey was “freedom-loving”; the Greeks were “threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by communists”. Both countries needed aid – in the order of $400 million.
In justifying his position, Truman laid out what would become the doctrine that bore his name. “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” He was adamant that “[t]he free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.”
Now, the communist Asiatic demonology has shifted, finding form in the Chinese state tinged yellow and red. According to Pompeo, battle cries are needed, a good stiffening of the sinews.
“It’s time for free nations to act. Not every nation will approach the China challenge the same way, nor should they. Every nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its national security, its economic prosperity, and its ideals from the tentacles of the CCP”.
There was no small measure of irony in the fact that Pompeo’s speech was made at a library named after the US president that insisted China be engaged as part of a policy that came to be known as détente. During that period, the Soviet Union was, within limits, tolerated. The PRC was brought in from the cold. President Richard Nixon, the greatest ideological shape changer of the Cold War, was happy to hunt communists actual and fictional in domestic politics just as readily as he was to accommodate them in foreign policy when it suited.
Pompeo called Nixon “a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.” But, he urged,
“We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.”
The Trump administration’s tweet and sound bite understanding of history is incapable of understanding accommodation of the Nixon sort. This is the Bogeyman reading of discomfited imperialists, all adolescent and power point.
“We imagined engagement with China would produce a future bright with the promise of comity, and cooperation,” Pompeo spoke with resignation. “But today we sit wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) fail in its promises to the world … reading news headlines of repression in Hong Kong and Xinjiang … seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike blows to our companies … watching the Chinese military grow stronger and more menacing.”
Pompeo’s rhetorical questions to his audience merely served to illustrate an encyclopaedic ignorance, matched only by its colossal naiveté.
“What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China? Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true? Is this China’s definition of a win-win situation?”
Arrogant, even dotty questions, but typical of a superpower finding its crown of hegemony a bit loose, an increasingly poor fit. To engage China was to only do so on US terms. China should have, to use that irritating sporting metaphor, “played ball”. More money somehow makes one freer, a claim nonsensical in its envisaging, and disproved by historical examples such as the Chile of Augusto Pinochet.
The questions posed by Pompeo merely serve to justify the US case for encircling China, a measure that will only serve to divide, not unite, nation states, and titillate eager war mongers. It will also put Washington’s allies in a damn awful mess. But this will not bother the think tankers in countries such as Australia, where deputy sheriffing is not only natural but deemed necessary. Into the breach they go, folly-ridden.
*
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]
On July 23, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan presented Yerevan’s position on the tension on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and the process of peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
“The co-chairs countries of the OSCE Minsk group have made a great contribution to the resumption of the ceasefire. In this regard, the participation of the Russian Federation was particularly effective, which was shown at the level of both the Ministry of foreign Affairs and the General Staff of the Armed forces [of Russia]. ” – said Pashinyan.
In his statement, the Prime Minister expressed the main trends of Armenia’s foreign policy: the development of cooperation with the West in close strategic partnership with Russia. However, this statement rather seems to be superficial and demonstrative, because in recent years Yerevan has done everything possible to weaken its close ties with Moscow.
The conflict on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border escalated on July 12, when military personnel of the two countries clashed near the Tovuz region of Azerbaijan. Since then, the situation has remained very tense. Tovuz district is a strategic area for Azerbaijan. There are three major energy pipelines: the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan gas pipeline, the Baku — Tbilisi — Erzerum gas pipeline, and the Baku — Supsa oil pipeline, which runs into the black sea ports of Georgia. In addition, the Baku — Tbilisi — Kars railway and the Baku — Tbilisi highway are located there. If in this conflict Baku receives a large support from Turkey, both political and military, it seems that Armenia should count on Russia’s help. However, Moscow is in no hurry to intervene in the conflict and emphasized the importance of a diplomatic solution. The Russian position is preceded by many reasons, and one of them is the anti – Russian policy of the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan.
On May 8, 2018, after three weeks of demonstrations and protests, a young opposition Deputy Pashinyan, assumed the post of Prime Minister of Armenia.
Despite the fact that the population of Armenia is less than 3 million people, the protests initiated by Pashinyan attracted tens of thousands of protesters. They led to the resignation of Sargsyan, who, after having been President for 10 years, carried out a constitutional reform, transferring power from President to Prime Minister, and tried to stay in power by taking the position of Prime Minister. This caused indignation of the population. In addition, the residents of Armenia were dissatisfied with the increasingly deteriorating economic situation: the devaluation of the ruble led to a decrease in remittances from Russia and an influx of Armenians from abroad, who faced difficulties to find work. Meanwhile, Republican-linked structures effectively monopolized imports in many import sectors, prompting accusations of corruption.
Acting Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan leads a March in Yerevan, November 24, 2018.
Apparently inspired by Gandhi’s example, Pashinyan went by foot from Gyumri, Armenia’s second largest city, to the capital, Yerevan. The journey took two weeks, and it made Pashinyan looking like an ordinary man of the people: he had a gray beard, and he changed his suit to a camouflage t-shirt and cargo pants. Pashinyan managed to mobilize young students and activists, and actively used social networks to promote the movement.
In order not to disappoint the forces that brought him to power, the new Prime Minister had to quickly change the course of Armenia’s foreign policy.
The war in Nagorno-Karabakh, which officially ended in 1994, strengthened Armenia’s ties with its main ally, Russia, which ensured the country’s security. Yerevan concluded a number of international agreements and agreements with Moscow, which primarily affected the military sphere:
Armenia received two targeted loans in the amount of 200 and 100 million dollars with a minimum interest rate (3% per year) for the purchase of modern weapons at domestic Russian prices, which is 3-5 times cheaper than prices on world markets;
Armenia became the only country to which Russia has provided the Iskander mobile short-range ballistic missile system;
Russia and Armenia signed agreements on the creation of a joint air defense system and a common group of troops;
joint Russian-Armenian defense production using modern technologies was developed in Gyumri;
the countries closely interacted in the field of strategic intelligence;
Armenia has agreed to maintain the 102nd Russian military base in Gyumri, four guards of the Border Troops Department of the FSB of Russia and the Russian Air Force base “Erebuni” in Yerevan.
Illustrative Image
Yerevan supported the formation of the CSTO and from the first days of its functioning became its reliable member. In 2013, Armenia joined the Customs Union and then the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) in order to cooperate closer with Russia, primarily in the interests of strengthening its national security. The strategic partnership is supported by the interaction of the two countries in key sectors of the economy: nuclear, gas, electricity, transport, etc.
However, over the past few years, Yerevan has begun to ignore the fact that Russia is the only country capable of ensuring Armenia’s security and sovereignty.
Yerevan, apparently, expects that Moscow will not give up military bases on the territory of Armenia and will be ready to make concessions to preserve them. However, the strategic significance of the Armenian foothold for Russia has significantly decreased due to the expansion of Russian military infrastructure in the Middle East, including naval and air bases in Syria. Also in the political dimension, the role of Armenia decreased, as Russia and Turkey had improved their bilateral relations. Moreover, the economic significance of the Armenian market is insignificant both for the Russian state and for Russian private companies.
Thus, given that Moscow is much less interested in strategic partnership than Yerevan, Pashinyan, continuing the anti-Russian course of his policy, is sacrificing the national security of his own country. For a long time, Armenia has pursued a nationalist foreign policy that was significantly at odds with the foreign policy position of its formal strategic ally. Furthermore, while enjoying Russian military protection, Armenia has declined to support Russia over key issues on the international agenda.
Archive PHOTOLURE/ITAR-TASS/Mkhitar Khachatryan
In 2014 Armenia voted against the UN resolution on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but did not officially recognize the reunification of Crimea with Russia, aiming not to spoil relations with the West. Today, Ukraine has paid off with Armenia, supporting Azerbaijan in the recent conflict. In response to the statements of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry on the situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, protesters poured borsch (a traditional Ukrainian dish) over the building of the Ukrainian Embassy in Yerevan.
The arrests of the first President of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Robert Kocharian, who was loyal to the pro-Russian foreign policy, became widely known. The new government arrested him three times over the March 2008 crackdown.
A few days ago, on July 16, the Armenian Parliament adopted the law “on audiovisual media” by an overwhelming majority (79 against 17). Among other things, the law implied the removal of all foreign-language channels from the free state broadcasting network, which significantly restricted the broadcasting of Russian TV channels. According to the National Commission on Television and Radio Broadcasting, these channels pose a threat to the national security of Armenia. By ostentatiously restricting access to Russian channels, representatives of the new Armenian government are dealing another blow to relations with Moscow.
“Against the background of Armenia’s statements about the allied, fraternal nature of our strategic relations, the thesis about “Russian TV channels that pose a threat to national security” is perplexing,” the Russian Embassy in Yerevan said.
One of the factors that influenced the turn of Armenia’s foreign policy was the creation of a legal regime favorable for the active development of various public organizations funded mainly by the West. These NGOs already have the ability to attack the key national security agency – National Security Service of Armenia, to lobby for initiatives that contradict traditional values of Armenia, and even to launch activities in Nagorno-Karabakh. One of their main aims is to undermine the stability of Russian-Armenian allied relations. All of the above facts confirm that pro-Western NGOs in Armenia are actively engaged in activities that contradict the national interests of the country.
Foreign organizations such as the Soros Foundation, the European Foundation for Support of Democracy, and the American National Foundation for Support of Democracy fund the following NGOs in Armenia: Right SIDE of Lilit Martirosyan, Union of informed citizens of Daniel Ioannisyan, Helsinki Civic Assembly in Vanadzor of Arthur Sakunts, For Equal Rights of Gayane Abrahamyan, Asparez of Levon Barseghyan, etc.
Many representatives of the so-called fifth column in Armenia today not only freely promote their political initiatives, but are also actively involved in the development of draft laws and other documents of national importance. The projects of these organizations are characterized as anti-Russians. Their focus is on finding negative consequences of Armenia’s membership in the EEU in the socio-economic and security spheres, as well as promoting the idea that Armenia’s military-political cooperation with Russia and the CSTO does not ensure the implementation of the country’s fundamental interests.
Source: USAID
At the same time, financial support from the United States for Armenia is one of the largest in the world. The US Agency for International Development, an independent agency of the United States federal government that is primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance, invested $106 million in the health sector of Armenia to combat COVID-19. In general, according to his data, Armenia has already received more than 27 million dollars from the US in 2020, while the majority of this amount, 12 million, was invested in the sector of governance.
Large investment from the US is due to various factors. The United States is home to a representative and influential Armenian Diaspora (more than 1.5 million people), which has high economic, financial, technological, institutional, informational, scientific and lobbying resources. Today, as the conflict on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border escalated, thousands of Armenians staged protests near the Azerbaijani Embassy in Los Angeles, which led to clashes with Azerbaijanis. This confirmed not only the large size of the Armenian Diaspora, which lives mainly in California, but also their political activity.
The American Diaspora is the most important potential of Armenian diplomacy for expanding ties with the United States, exerting a beneficial influence on painful issues, and is a key part of the global Armenian factor. The Armenian lobby in the United States actively works to protect the interests of the Armenian Diaspora, the Republic of Armenia, and the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Today, it is one of the most effective ethnic lobbies in America, and it has the following goals:
Recognition of the Armenian genocide;
Recognition of independence and assistance to the NKR;
The provision of U.S. assistance to Armenia;
Blocking arms deals with Turkey;
Fighting against the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan project;
Fighting against the Baku — Tbilisi — Kars project.
Today’s lobby is represented by the Armenian national Committee of America (ANCA), which has 45 branches in 25 States, as well as representative offices in Europe. The “Armenian Assembly of America” (AAA) operates separately from ANKA. The house of representatives has a bipartisan group of congressmen on Armenian issues, the Armenian Caucus, which initiates consideration of Armenian issues. There is also an Armenian Council in the Democratic Party (Armenian-American Democratic Leadership Council) and an Armenian Council in the Republican Party (Armenian-American Republican Council).
The Armenian lobby is making significant progress. In addition to significant financial support, in 1992, they managed to influence the adoption of the famous 907 amendment to the “freedom support Act”, which prohibited assistance to Azerbaijan. The amendment had a short-term effect, but in the end it brought America more losses than profits.
Memorial of the victims of the Ottoman Empire murders in 1915
In October 2019, the United States recognized the mass deportations and killings of Armenians on the territory of the Ottoman Empire in 1915 as an act of genocide. This issue, which was actively promoted by the Armenian lobby, was of great political significance. If earlier the US avoided calling these events genocide because of the position of Turkey, its key NATO ally, the resolution was adopted at a time when American Congress was dissatisfied with Turkey’s policy – in particular, the operation against the Kurds in Northern Syria. But this was not just because of the invasion of Syria. Turkey’s desire to improve its relations with Russia, the purchase of Russian weapons, in particular the S-400 air defense system, and the deal to build a nuclear power plant in Turkey, played a major role.
A narrow group of the elite that is currently in power in Armenia is closely affiliated with the neo-liberal democratic forces of the United States. Today, Pashinyan must be hoping for the coming to power of globalist Democrats after the elections in November this year, which will allow him to strengthen support from abroad for anti-Russian discourse, as well as attract significantly larger financial injections into civil society organizations and institutions that are aimed at undermining Armenian-Russian relations.
In addition to bilateral interaction with the Western countries, Armenia does not refuse to cooperate with the NATO bloc in the context of studies, exercises, trainings, and peacekeeping actions, and apparently hopes for the development of the military-technical component of relations.
Since 2002, Armenia has been involved in the planning and analysis of the NATO Partnership for peace program, which expands the opportunities for interaction with the Alliance. In 2003, Armenian military personnel participated in the NATO peacekeeping operation as part of a Greek battalion. From 2005 to 2008, a group of Armenian military personnel was in Iraq as part of the NATO mission’s humanitarian tasks. In 2010, Yerevan sent a group of 40 peacekeepers to Afghanistan. Later, the Armenian peacekeeping contingent was increased three times (to 130 people). Yerevan also signed the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, which is the basis for further cooperation with the Alliance.
Pashinyan also actively seeks to bring the country closer to the European Union. Armenia, being a member of the Eastern Partnership Program, signed in 2017 with the EU the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with the EU. If earlier cooperation with the European Union was complementary to Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, after Pashinyan came to power, discussions about leaving the Eurasian economic Union are increasingly promoted among the country’s leadership mainly at the behest of the pro-Western NGOs.
In the recent conflict on the border with Azerbaijan, Yerevan did not resort to the assistance of the CSTO, but stated that in order to achieve peace with Baku, “an international system of reliable monitoring of compliance with the ceasefire regime should be established”. In addition, he claimed that it was necessary to continue negotiations “within the framework of the OSCE Minsk group”, which in addition to Russia includes the United States and France, which are Turkey’s NATO allies.
In turn, the United States is certainly interested in maintaining its influence in South Caucasus. However, Azerbaijan is could be a more valuable partner in the region than Armenia.
Illustrative Image
Back in 1994, the “Contract of the century” was signed in Baku. It represented a series of agreements for a period of 30 years with a number of major multinational companies for the joint exploitation of oil deposits in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian sea. It was signed thanks to the trust placed in the independent state of Azerbaijan by the major world powers. In fact, this event laid the foundation for cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan, after which Baku became a profitable economic partner of influential Western States, primarily of the United States.
US interests in Azerbaijan are linked to the expansion of influence in the Caspian region, the creation of safe transit zones for transportation and the development of energy resources. For the United States, this task is beneficial from the point of view of energy security, trade, economic and strategic partnership. The potential of Caspian oil and gas could partly offset Europe’s dependence on Russia and directly affect Europe’s security and US obligations within NATO. At the same time, it is obvious that the Americans ‘ interest in the Caspian region is aimed at strengthening regional security, deterring potential rivals, Russia and Iran, and promoting its interests.
Armenia’s nationalist foreign policy is very similar to the developments in Ukraine in 2013. Despite the Armenian population’s claim of fraternity with the Russian people, the country’s leadership is leading it not only to lose its main partner in the international arena, but also to sacrifice its national interests to the dream of potential European integration.
The chosen course is not profitable for Armenia even in the short term, because western countries will not help Yerevan in today’s conflict and will certainly not oppose Azerbaijan, which is supported by Turkey. At the same time, given the involvement of the OSCE Minsk group in the conflict, where France has a special influence, it is possible that the tension on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border may continue for a long period. It is likely that the West, for example France, is interested in escalating the conflict, because it distracts Erdogan from military operations in Libya, where the Turkish-backed Government of National Unity is actively preparing for a battle with the Libyan National Army for control of the city of Sirte. At the same time, France tacitly supports Haftar, who heads the LNA. Thus, Nikol Pashinyan is ready to sacrifice the national interests of the country, its security, as well as the lives of its own citizens to realize the short-term interests of aliens.
*
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.
Any serious study of the relevant scholarly literature reveals at least four possible paths to “human extinction”: nuclear war, the climate catastrophe, the deployment of 5G and biodiversity collapse.
Moreover, as I have documented previously, under cover of a virus labeled COVID-19, the global elite is conducting a coup against humanity.
Unfortunately, it has also meant that, despite documented evidence of the threat to human survival, it is even more difficult than usual to get people to focus on this point.
This means that engaging people to consider the evidence for themselves is extremely difficult: it is easier to live in delusion, reassured by elite-driven narratives promulgated through education systems and the corporate media which effectively convey the message that there is either no serious cause for concern (yet) or, perhaps, that the timeframe allows for an adequate official response in due course.
In either case we, as individuals or groups, do not really need to do anything differently; going along with the elite-driven narrative, including timeframe, will ensure our survival.
Of course, as those paying attention to the evidence already know, being obedient to the elite-driven narrative is a recipe for extinction. We have already exceeded 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature, the ongoing and rapid deployment of 5G will be catastrophic, biodiversity is already collapsing (and will be seriously accelerated by the rising temperature and deployment of 5G) – for just the latest in the ongoing stream of disasters, see ‘Calls for swift action as hundreds of elephants die in Botswana’s Okavango Delta’– and, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, nuclear war is now a greater possibility that at any previous time in human history. For summaries of the evidence and further documentation in each case, see ‘The Elite’s COVID-19 Coup to Destroy Humanity that is also Fast-Tracking Four Paths to Human Extinction’.
In this article I would like to explain why people are so terrified of the truth and what we can do about it so that an effective response to each of these threats can be implemented (assuming, problematically, that there is enough time).
Why are Most Human Beings so Terrified?
Virtually all human beings are terrified and they are terrified for the same reason: the child-raising process that sociologists like to label ‘socialization’ should be more accurately labeled ‘terrorization’. Why? Because from the moment of a child’s birth, parents, teachers, religious leaders and adults generally regard themselves as responsible for terrorizing the child into obedience of the commands, rules, conventions and laws that define the nature of permissible behaviour in their society.
This means that provided the child responds obediently to parental (or other adult) commands, obeys any rules imposed (by the parents, teachers and religious figures in the child’s life), learns all relevant social conventions for their society and, ultimately, obeys the law, they are allowed to live, recognized as compliant citizens, in their society.
Unfortunately, from society’s viewpoint, evolutionary pressures over vast time scales have led to each human individual being given Self-will to seek out and fulfill their own unique destiny: evolutionary pressures do not predispose any individual to obey the will of another for the simple reason that obedience has no evolutionary functionality.
Consequently, it takes enormous terrorization during childhood to ensure that the child surrenders their Self-will at the alter of obedience. To achieve this outcome and largely unknowingly, parents use a large range of behaviours from the three categories of violence that I have labeled ‘visible’ violence, ‘invisible’ violence and ‘utterly invisible’ violence. See ‘Why Violence?’ and‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.
A common element of this terrorization is that the child is frequently threatened with, and/or actually suffers, violence for being ‘disobedient’. Of course, this violence, assuming it is even recognized as such (given that ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence are just that to virtually everyone), is invariably labeled ‘punishment’ so that we can delude ourselves that our violence is not harmful. See ‘Punishment is Violent and Counterproductive’.
This means that virtually every single individual has been successfully terrorized into being submissively obedient. And, fundamentally, this obedience includes accepting the elite-driven narrative delivered by education systems and the corporate media in relation to issues crucial to human survival.
So despite our preference for believing otherwise, those individuals in our societies who survive the education system capable of thinking for themselves, or even of ‘clear thinking’, are rare. And then they must also survive (preferably by refusing to access it) the propaganda (that is, lies) presented as ‘news’ by the corporate media. Given that another outcome of being terrorized throughout childhood means that most people are very gullible, perceiving lies is a huge challenge in itself. See ‘Why do People Lie? And Why do other People Believe them?’
Of course, this powerless imperative to believe the lies we are told and to behave obediently in response is always reinforced by the fear of violence (‘punishment’), including the fear of social ostracism for resisting elite narratives, but it is also reinforced by other fears: for example, the fear that makes people feel powerless to respond in any meaningful way, the fear of changing their behaviour, and the fear of feeling out of control of their own destiny. After all, if extinction is imminent and we are to avert it, we will need to do some fundamental things – including thinking and behaving – very differently. But we are not allowed to think or behave differently, are we? That would be disobedient.
This can be readily illustrated. When a young child does not get what they need, the child will have an emotional reaction. This will always include fear, it will probably include anger and it will probably include sadness, among other feelings. However, almost invariably, parents behave in a manner intended to prevent the child from having their emotional response (and using this information in formulating the appropriate behavioural response in the circumstance). They do not listen to the child while they express their feelings. Instead, they act to make the child suppress awareness of their feelings.
At its simplest and apparently most benign, the parent might comfort the child in the misguided belief that this is helpful. But it is not, unless you want a submissively obedient child. See ‘Comforting a Baby is Violent’.
Another simple and common way in which we suppress the emotional awareness and, hence, capacity for emotional expression of a child is by giving them food or a toy to distract them from how they feel. The fundamental outcome of this act is that we unconsciously ‘teach’ the child to seek food and/or material items as substitutes for feeling and acting on how they feel. But this is absolutely disastrous.
The net result of this behaviour is that virtually all people in industrialized societies have become addicted to material consumption, and the direct (including military), structural and ecological violence that makes excessive consumption in these societies possible. All so that we can suppress how we really feel. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.
And, therefore, the very notion of substantially reducing consumption – a central part of any strategy for human survival by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial production and transport, checking the collapse of biodiversity by halting the destruction of habitat such as rainforests, denying financial incentive to deploy technology for 5G, ending wars (and the threat of nuclear war) for resources – becomes ‘unthinkable’.
Because the fundamental imperative of materialist societies is ‘Consume!’ (so that corporations can profit). And we do not have the emotional power to disobey that imperative because deep in our unconscious remains the childhood terror of resisting the offered food or toy and insisting on expressing how we feel and behaving powerfully in accord with that. It is far simpler to just put something more in our mouth or use one of our ‘toys’. Who wants to feel scared, sad or angry instead?
In essence, the individual who has been terrorized into obedience is no longer capable of thinking for themself and then behaving in accord with their own Self-will. This means that imperatives of the global elite – mediated through its agents such as governments, education systems and the corporate media and enforced by legal systems, the police and prison cells (see ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’) – are readily obeyed by the vast bulk of the human population.
And because the global elite is insane – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’ – this obedience means that we are submitting to the elite coup and complying with its imperatives that are fast-tracking humanity to extinction on four separate paths, as noted above.
To reiterate: At this most critical moment in human history, when a coup is being conducted against us and four separate threats to human existence and all life on Earth require our engaged attention and powerful response, it is almost impossible to get people to even acknowledge these threats, let alone to consider the evidence and act strategically in response.
Which means that profoundly altering our approaches to parenting and education, so that we produce powerful individuals, is critical to any strategy to fight for human survival.
Conclusion
Given that submissive obedience is the primary behavioural characteristic of all ‘good citizens’, it is going to take a monumental effort to defeat the elite coup and reverse the tide. This is because most common human behaviours – from parenting to consumption habits – have been shaped to serve elite interests, and it is these behaviours that must change.
Of course, this is also why lobbying elite agents – such as governments and corporations – cannot work. Apart from the fact that they exist to serve elite interests and obey elite directives accordingly (rather than respond to grassroots pressure which they function superbly to dissipate), governments and corporations cannot meaningfully impact the crises that confront us.
That power is ours but we must use it, and deploy it strategically.
So what can we do?
Well, if you would like to fight for human survival, it would be useful to start by giving yourself time to focus on feeling your emotional responses – fear, anger, sadness, dread…. – to the elite coup and the four most imminent threats. See ‘Putting Feelings First’.
If you do not do this, you are unlikely to be able to engage meaningfully and strategically in the effort. You will, most likely and unconsciously, simply put your attention elsewhere and go back to what you were doing. See ‘The Disintegrated Mind: The Greatest Threat to Human Survival on Earth’.
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 who can resist violence. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’
If you wish to powerfully resist 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: 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’.
I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
I will not own or use a mobile (cell) phone
I will not buy rainforest timber
I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
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
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
I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
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.
As of a year ago Wal-Mart’s CEO pay was 1076 times that of their average worker worldwide (2.3 million employees). Those workers average $21,952 a year, with little or NO major benefits… sometimes NONE at all! The Nike CEO received 379 times the pay of his MEDIAN employees ($ 29,955 a year), not even the lowest worker. Those Air Jordan or Lebron sneakers ($ 150-$200 each pair) equals 3 to 4 days pay for their aforementioned US workers. Think about that. In 2017, before this pandemic, S&P 500 CEO pay was 361 times their average worker. Some of these folks earned in excess of 6000 times that of their average worker. If the economy crashes those FAT CATS can live off of their savings and bonuses for years… while YOU start selling apples on street corners!
Fact is that only 3% of our populace (11.8 million) are mega millionaire households, which does NOT take into account the worth of their primary property AKA residences, which factor into the mega $ millions in many instances. On the other end of the scale, by the first quarter of 2019, way before this pandemic hit, 5.2 million properties (AKA residences) had underwater mortgages. So, the pandemic arrived and Uncle Sam got the mortgage holders to defer those monthly payments owed, under a moratorium of what, one year. Duh, do you understand that when this thing finally lifts a bit, the homeowners will be expected to ante up and wipe away that indebted slate? OK, how is that going to occur when many working stiffs are nothing more than mere Serfs? That is why this writer always says ” It’s the Empire.. stupid!”
American corporate capitalism has always been unfair. My dad was a longshoreman during the 50s, 60s and into the 70s. When I was a kid, and we were living under a ‘One Paycheck’ household (until my mom was forced to get a job to keep us afloat) I recall the many strikes my dad’s ILA (International Longshoremen’s Union) was involved in. The right wing Congress, with help from many Democrats (sound familiar?) passed the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which cancelled out two FDR New Deal pro labor acts, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (AKA The Wagner Act) and the Federal Anti Injunction Act of 1932. Here are some of the terrible parts of Taft Hartley:
It allows the president to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate union disputes when he believes a strike would endanger national health or safety, and obtain an 80-day injunction to stop the continuation of a strike.
It permits union shops only after a majority of the employees vote for them.
It forbids jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts.
It ends the check-off system whereby the employer collects union dues.
So, each time his contract expired, my dad went on strike. The president then issued the Taft Hartley ’80 day cooling off period’ (nice way to use PR to make the public think the unions were the children who needed ‘Cooling off AKA Detention’). This was a great way for the ‘Captains of Corporate Capitalism’ to put a strain on the millions of striking working stiffs now out of work with no pay. My dad wound up driving a taxicab or limo for the interim, earning way LESS than his normal pay. We had to cut back on certain costly foods and other expenses like new clothes, going to the movies or bowling with friends, and of course NO vacation until….
Today we have less than 10% of private sector working stiffs in unions at all. Thanks to the public sector unions, who are also under assault, with only around 37% of their working stiffs belonging, there still may be a scant glimmer of hope. If our working stiffs do not finally realize that only strong unions can stand up to the FAT CAT empire, then feudalism will strangle us all!
Forget about the Democrats as our saviors. Look what the Democrats just did in the House, where they are the majority. They joined with the other right wing party, the FAR RIGHT Repugnantins, and voted down a ‘too small’ amendment to cut military spending by a mere 10%. Imagine that! This writer joined with many progressives, Socialists and Libertarians a few years ago demanding a 25% cut in military spending, sending the savings back to the states, cities and towns where those taxes were collected from. My small city of 60,000 would see a rebate of around 70+ million dollars each year. Yet, most of the serfs who live nearby me just don’t get it! They are too propagandized by this empire’s media spin machine to understand how we are all being played…. to our detriment.
In conclusion, the Great Depression of the 1930s, as terrible as it was, still saw more working stiffs waking up from their slumber. We had a myriad of newspapers, newsletters and radio shows trumpeting real progressive ideas and ideals. Today, we have only some websites that speak ‘Truth to Power’, and that is all. The Two Party/One Party current apparatus is owned by the Super Rich. Thus, we had a Trump vs. Hillary fiasco in ’16 and now a Trump vs. Biden joke as well. So, voting will once again be futile, except for the fact that Trump is SO LETHAL for us working stiffs, that even a Biden presidency, terrible as it may be, will be welcomed for the short term. If that isn’t an indication of the Futile Feudalism we are knee deep in….
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].
The sheer magnitude of what is supposed to be news from so-called “prestigious” outlets—whether the New York Times, Washington Post, or even Reuters—or the lack thereof falling short of nothing but pure apolitical blasphemy of Russian conspiracies menacing the United States public and the West should be of no surprise anymore, or any real concern whatsoever. What is a matter of fact however, is nothing less than turning the lies and obfuscations inside out to determine just what it is the West, Deep State quacks, and media machine pariahs are trying to cover-up, deflect, or outright create out of thin air concerning the Russian Federation; they are just outright obsessed with the dead carcass of “Russia did it!.”
In just two to three weeks of time, the media and Deep State prostitutes have shifted from a completely fake—and debunked up to and including the President, heads of US State in the government, military, and intelligentsia—story of “Russian bounties” of paid killings of US soldiers in Afghanistan promoted by the New York Times, to a sensationalized hacker conspiracy theory that Russia stole CoV-19 vaccine R&D secrets from the West. As we shall see, the truth of the matter behind this lying mega-machine in hyperdrive is quite the polar opposite, and as foreign and far away as planet Pluto from existing reality.
Sechenov University Center for Clinical Research and Medications was responsible for conducting the clinical trials of both variants of intramuscular SARS-CoV-2 vaccine—in powder form and liquid intramuscular solution—developed by Gamaleya National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology, with trials taking place at both Sechenov University and Burdenko Military Hospital. Head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev revealed in an interview with CNN stating clearly: “We have lots of infrastructure for vaccine development, and once again, we will be the first ones because of our scientists and because of the research we have done to date.”
Of course, CNN went straight for the geopolitical jugular blaspheming the question of the UK “Russian hacker” conspiracy theory of stealing CoV-19 vaccine research data only to find itself on the receiving end of instant karma. Dmitriev explosively blew the windows right out of the house of mirrors in the ideological race for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine—that US “Operation Warp Speed” is supposed to be winning—stating clearly with a blast of dynamite that, “First of all, we are very surprised by the timing of this, because basically, this happened the next day after we announced the approval of our vaccine in August.”
It was certainly no wonder then, that the cross-Atlantic West’s media machines mirrors had been smashed in exposing the burning red reasons behind the recent hyperdrive of anti-Russian propaganda and conspiracy theories like the NYT “Russian bounties in Afghanistan” as mere Red Herrings to smother out such developments from Russia in the newswires. Kirill Dmitriev’s revelations about Russia completing the world’s first successful SARS-CoV-2 vaccine program was, by no means, a small or irrelevant development in the face of a global debacle that has literally brought the world to a grinding halt, and left the cross-Atlantic West staring straight to the bottom of a vicious financial cliff of total economic collapse; it was—for Washington, Wall Street, and London—a geopolitical earthquake.
Two of China’s five vaccine candidates from CanSino and Fosun Pharma, however, uncover the very ugly reality—just as the US Moderna Inc. and French Sanofi SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have shown—of genetically engineered mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccines. Such a feat in biotechnology with gene-edited messenger RNA has never been attempted—much less on humans as it is purely experimental—in the history of modern medicine, ever.
CanSino—as a partial arm of the PLA through the Academy of Military Science Institute of Biotechnology—recently teamed up with Precision Nanosystems (PNI) of Canada to produce a “Covid-19 mRNA-LNP vaccine.” According to the news brief on May 21, 2020 from the BioSpace website, “CanSinoBIO will hold the commercialization rights in Asia except Japan,while PNI will hold the rights for the rest of the world,” exclusively maintaining the intellectual and R&D rights on what is known asNanoAssemblr Technology, which is the very patented nano-tech being employed by US-based Moderna Inc for a multitude of new mRNA vaccines as early as 2017, including H10N8 and H7N9 Avian Influenza.
Also in China, Fosun Pharma—Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical/Fosun Pharmaceutical Industrial—has entered the race as China’s second company promoting an mRNA-LNP vaccine candidate. Promoting “international collaboration with BioNTech to co-develop an mRNA vaccine against Covid-19,” Fosun Pharma is employing extensive R&D using Germany-based BioNTech mRNA gene-editing biotechnology techniques to develop an effective vaccine, a technology that BioNTech’s website conveys bizarrely—and shockingly—that mRNA represents a “disruptive new drug class”(emphasis added).
Last but not least—nearlydead last that is—well behind the pack of vaccine trial candidates is the United States and the cross-Atlantic West, whether it is US Moderna Inc, UK-Swiss AstraZeneca, Swiss Novartis, French Sanofi, UK GlaxoSmithKline, or a plethora of other major pharmaceutical companies that dominate the cross-Atlantic medical industrial complexes. The fracas of what is supposed to be an all-dominating, US government sponsored systematic vaccination candidate program dubbed “Operation Warp Speed” is merely nothing but a distorted and grossly lopsided version of “The Tortoise and the Hare” seemingly from Aesop’s Fables.
Moderna Inc. USA (based in Cambridge, Massachusetts) is quite literally, the “Head of the Hydra” of Operation Warp Speed—the raison de’tre—and currently the greatest purveyor of mRNA-LNP (NanoAssemblr) vaccine candidates in the world. The current US President Donald Trump himself introduced the former head of GlaxoSmithKline (retired 2017) Moncef Slaoui—whom was previously serving on Moderna’s Board of Directors—on May 15, 2020 as the newly-appointed US ‘vaccine czar’ in charge of Operation Warp Speed—a politically uncharted move that gave a fox nothing less than the de facto proverbial key to the hen house.
The mRNA-1273 Moderna gene-edited vaccine candidate—cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for approval of Phase II human trials on May 7, 2020, and on May 12, 2020, granted Fast Track Designation by the FDA, hence the name Operation Warp Speed—was allowed to utterly omit and skip mandated animal testing right into carte blanche human testing trials that began on April 27, 2020, in which results of seriously negative VAEs (Vaccine Adverse Event) on test subjects began to turn up immediately such as CNN’s Ian Haydon reportedly being “the sickest in his life.” However, Moderna Inc. as the so-called “frontrunner” in the ideological race for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has completely stalled behind all of the competition except for the Sanofi Pasteur-Translate Bio venture (another mRNA-LNP gene-edited vaccine candidate slated for Sept. 2020 human trials) merely completing its Phase II human trial enrollments on July 8, 2020, with only “interim” results from Phase I human trial studies being published, and as the old adage goes—if you are not first, you are last.
The advent of mRNA gene-edited vaccines amidst the revolution in biotechnology of advancing the techniques of genetic manipulation could, quite literally, become a Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences or serious damage to human DNA and the future of humanity, raising untold questions of efficacy and viability—especially when controlled at the top in the wrong hands (China, USA, cross-Atlantic West, whether it is governments, or especially powerful private corporations). The US Government of the current administration is throwing not only millions, but billions and billions of $US dollars to the biggest cross-Atlantic medical industrial complex giants—such as a $US 1.95 billion to Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-LNP gene-edited vaccine candidate project (BioNTech being the very same company jointly developing a mRNA-LNP vaccine candidate with China’s Fosun)—and going even further with the US President Trump bizarrely stating “We’re willing to work with anybody that is going to get us a good result,” meaning supporting BioNTech on both sides of the US (Pfizer) and Chinese (Fosun Pharma) coin when prompted with a question of working or collaborating with China on vaccine development—representing the very dangerous sounding “disruptive new drug class” found directly on BioNTech’s website, raking billions of US and Chinese money into their coffers when the world is on its financial knees.
Russia: Re-inventing…..Sanity?
The Russian Bear has shown a major resilience—and a reinventing a ‘renaissance’ of R&D in science, biology, and technologies—in its universities and technical institutes not only in advanced military technical developments of new generation hardware and cutting-edge weaponry, but directly into the scientific community especially that of epidemiology, virology, and biotechnology, such as Sechenov University in completing the success of the world’s first viable SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate. Programs and newly-built (or completely renovated existing infrastructure) research centers at select technical institutes or universities personally endorsed and attended by the Russian President Vladimir Putin—even some programs initiated by Putin himself—has proven to be effective in the very words of the Federation Council (Upper House) Chairperson Valentina Matviyenko when she stated on July 23, 2020 in a pivotal announcement, “Russians will have the opportunity to get vaccinated before the end of the year…..We definitely are the first country to announce clinically-tested vaccines, which is a very important thing.”
Considering even the most dystopian scenarios that have reared their ugly heads into lives of those in the cross-Atlantic West, the most sane comment on any development that has come over months in a world gone completely mad is that of Russia’s Minister of Health Mikhail Murashko speaking common sense when he clearly reiterated the position, “….that vaccination should be voluntary.” This statement should come with a much-welcomed, giant sigh of relief in the dense geopolitical fog of the cross-Atlantic West on its utter financial knees due to draconian lock-down measures coupled with the shocking assertions—or even the very idea of—alluding to “immunity passports,” contact tracing, or the shocking, legally insane rant of lawyer Alan Dershowitz (@1:49) that, “no one has the Constitutional right to endanger the public…no right to refuse to be vaccinated, no right to refuse to wear a mask…” in an interview with YouTube vlogger Jason Goodman, when the clear and present danger to endanger the public is the promotion of mRNA-LNP gene-edited vaccine candidates that have never been approved for human use previously—ever.
Is it any wonder then, that as the Russian Federation makes a giant leap for mankind with the biggest development of 2020 in the face of adversity of a Bretton Woods system dominated by a self-destructing, failing foreign policy empire—the cracking edifice of the American Century financially collapsing into the abyss—we will only get more and more reckless and apolitical hob-goblin Russian conspiracy theories menacing the public from media and the cross-Atlantic governments shoved down our throats to bury the real news? …. Hardly.
The problem with alliances is that they ultimately either become victims of their own success, or cannot figure out what to do with themselves once the original rationale disappears. The original Cold War-era NATO was a relatively cohesive entity led by one of the two superpowers, with most of its members being the industrialized democracies of Western Europe, with West Germany being its eastern-most European member, and alliance planning revolving around USSR. But even then there were cracks in the alliance. Italy, for example, had nearly no role to play as it did not border any Warsaw Pact country and did not practice deploying its forces to West Germany to practice its defense against the anticipated Warsaw Pact invasion. And while Greece and Turkey were ostensibly part of that alliance as well, in practice they spent more time clashing with one another than planning for joint action against the USSR.
The end of the Cold War made the problem of alliance cohesion far worse, for two reasons. One, it quickly added as many members as possible thus greatly expanding its geographical extent, and two, it lost that single unifying factor in the form of USSR. Today’s NATO is a patchwork of mini-alliances revolving around the United States which is determined to replace the alliance aspect of NATO which assumes that all members have interests that are to be taken into consideration, by patron-client relationships.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the goal of the United States is global domination. This goal is shared by the entire political elite and major portions of the population, though it is nearly never discussed openly or directly. Instead, it is framed in terms of “American Leadership”, “New American Century”, and of course “American Exceptionalism” which is used to justify any policy that violates international law, treaties, or agreements. Given that every country which has not recognized “American Leadership” is described as a “regime”, there is no indication the US elite is interested in anything resembling peaceful coexistence with other sovereign states.
NATO plays a double role in achieving that goal. First, it is a military alliance that projects military power against anyone refusing to accept “American Leadership”. Military contributions by European member states are certainly important, not least by giving America the veneer of international legitimacy, but the presence of US bases on the European continent is far more so.
US forces stationed in or staged out of European naval, air, and land bases are indispensable to its efforts to control the MENA region and to promote the US policy of driving a wedge between Europe on the one hand and Russia and China on the other. Secondly, a European country’s membership in NATO means a sacrifice of considerable portion of its sovereignty and independence to the United States. This is a wholly asymmetrical relationship, since US bases its forces in European countries and sells its weapons to them, not the other way around. The penetration of a European country thus achieved allows US intelligence service to develop agent networks and to employ the full range of lobbying techniques which have been particularly visible in the US efforts to press F-35 aircraft into the hands of NATO member states.
America’s self-appointed task is made not easier or harder by the fact that today’s NATO is therefore fragmented along both geographic and national power lines. The geographical divide is plainly easy to see: Norway and Denmark mainly care about the Arctic, Poland and Romania obsess about Russia, Mediterranean countries freak out about what’s happening in North Africa. The wrangling over sending more troops to Mali or to Estonia is the reflection of the differing security concerns of individual members of the far-flung pact. The power divide is less easy to see but more problematic for Washington. V_3 (A2) Of the European powers, only four—Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain—may be considered to be powerful and independent political actors with which the US has to contend on anything like an equal basis. The first three form the core of the European Union, whereas Great Britain opted for Brexit, likely in part because of the looming big power struggle between the US and the EU that has the potential of degenerating into a destructive trade war. It is doubtful that the skirmishes over Huawei and North Stream 2 are anything but the opening salvoes in the confrontation over whether the EU will emerge as a political actor independent of the US, or be reduced to a collection of client states. Unfortunately, America’s task is made easier by the fact of the intra-European divisions mentioned above.
United States is pursuing development of several hypersonic missile systems with the aim of ultimately fielding very large numbers of them in order to be able to launch disarming first strikes against Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals. Since the weapons themselves are relatively short-ranged (though that may change once the US allows New START to lapse), they require basing close to their intended targets. That means having to find countries willing to base them in Europe, where it is liable to provoke a political debate of the magnitude comparable to that of the original Euromissile controversy of the 1980s. Since Germany is not interested in being reduced to the status of a US client, it has resisted the US on a variety of fronts, including the North Stream 2, the refusal to buy F-35s, and now also the lack of desire to host the new US missiles. Even the German defense spending increases are intended at least as much to counter US influence in Eastern Europe as the supposed Russian threat to NATO. The United States has responded using the usual array of tools: economic sanctions on any and all European entities participating in the project and even using the gas, apparently launching a cyber-attack that US-friendly German intelligence promptly blamed on Russia, and also threatening to move US troops out of Germany and possibly to Poland. There is even discussion and rumors that US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany might be moved to Poland.
The outcome of this so far is a power struggle between two NATO allies, US and Germany, over the political alignment of a third—Poland. While Germany has the power of EU institutions on its side and massive economic gravitational pull, US has cultivated a cadre of friends, possibly intelligence assets, as a result of post-9/11 collaboration in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the realm of intelligence-sharing. This has produced a government more than willing to deploy US troops, missiles, and even nukes on Poland’s territory. The power of US influence is visible in Poland’s weapons procurement: Patriot, Javelin, HIMARS, F-35, and not a single comparable European system in recent years. The US weakness in this confrontation consists of the unwillingness to subsidize Poland economically which, combined with the ruling party’s fiscal irresponsibility, will make it difficult for the country to maintain its anti-German course in the longer term.
While in Eastern Europe US national security state is using Poland as a proxy against Germany, in the Mediterranean it has adopted Turkey as a proxy against France and Italy. After some hemming and hawing, the US hawks dropped the Kurds yet again, with Trump happily taking the blame, in order to piggy-back on Erdogan’s Libya ambitions to curtail French and Italian interests there. To be sure, Turkey retains far more autonomy in the relationship than Poland, which was unable or unwilling to play US and Russia and EU against one another in order to secure a measure of freedom of action. But the US Congress measures to allow the purchase of S-400 weapons from Turkey is an indicator that Turkey’s behavior is once again useful to the US. And even though Turkey was excluded from the F-35 program, its firms continue to make components for various assembly plants. The result has been a number of stand-offs between Turkish warships on one hand and French and Italian on the other off the coasts of Libya. And whereas France and Italy are backing the Marshal Haftar’s LNA, Turkey’s preferred proxy is the GNA, leading to a veritable “anti-Turkey” alliance being formed that includes Turkey’s old time NATO adversary Greece. While the US is officially aloof of the entire situation, in practice controlling Libya’s oil is part of the Washington strategy of “energy dominance” every bit as the North Stream 2 sanctions are.
The remarkable part of these two sets of conflicts among NATO powers is that in both cases Russia has sided with Germany and France against the US in both cases. It is Russia’s policies that are more beneficial to French and German interests than America’s, since Russia is not actually seeking to monopolize energy supplies to Europe in the way that the US clearly and openly is.
So far the US strategy consisted of steadily ratcheting up pressure through sanctions and proxies and occasional intelligence-generated anti-Russia provocations (sometimes helpfully delivered by British agencies), trying to find that happy middle of policies that actually force Germany, France, and Italy to change their policies and which do not force a permanent breach in the trans-Atlantic relationship. But the cracks in the relationship are clearly visible and they are not attributable to Trump’s erratic and brusque manner. It is the US Congress which passed the successive rounds of anti-North Stream 2 sanctions, with strong partisan majorities. It means the assertion of US control over European major powers is part of the US agenda. Since that agenda is motivated by a US political and economic crisis of a magnitude not seen since the 1930s, there is little likelihood Biden’s presidency would represent a radical departure from the current trend.
Of course, for Germany, France, and Italy to successfully resist US encroachment they would first need to transform the EU into something closer than a federation. The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated economic crisis already providing considerable impetus for such a transformation, America’s insatiable appetites might provide the rest.
*
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.
While the Covid-19 epidemic continues to drag on in the United States, it’s largely over in Sweden where fatalities have dropped to no more than 2 deaths per day for the last week. Sweden has been harshly criticized in the media for not imposing draconian lockdowns like the United States and the other European countries. Instead, Sweden implemented a policy that was both conventional and sensible. They recommended that people maintain a safe distance between each other and they banned gatherings of 50 people or more. They also asked their elderly citizens to isolate themselves and to avoid interacting with other people as much as possible. Other than that, Swedes were encouraged to work, exercise and get on with their lives as they would normally even though the world was still in the throes of a global pandemic.
The secret of Sweden’s success is that its experts settled on a strategy that was realistic, sustainable and science-based. The intention was never to “fight” the virus which is among the most contagious infections in the last century, but to protect the old and vulnerable while allowing the young, low-risk people to circulate, contract the virus, and develop the antibodies they’d need to fight similar pathogens in the future. It’s clear now that that was the best approach. And while Sweden could still experience sporadic outbreaks that might kill another 2 to 300 people, any recurrence of the infection in the Fall or Winter will not be a dreaded “Second Wave”, but a much weaker flu-like event that will not overwhelm the public health system or kill thousands of people.
As we’ve noted before, the media has been particularly vicious in their criticism of Sweden’s approach which they’ve characterized as overly “relaxed.” Check out this sampling of recent headlines:
Sweden becomes an example of how not to handle COVID-19, CBS News
Lack of Lockdown Increased COVID-19 Deaths in Sweden, U of V Newsroom
Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale, New York Times
Sweden Stayed Open And More People Died Of Covid-19, But The Real Reason May Be Something Darker, Forbes
Sweden hoped herd immunity would curb COVID-19. Don’t do what we did. It’s not working. USA Today
Sweden’s coronavirus death toll is now approaching zero, but experts are warning others not to hail it as a success, Business Insider
Lack of COVID-19 Lockdown Increased Deaths in Sweden, Analysis Conclude, Virginia edu
Sweden COVID-19 Deaths Linked to Failure to Lockdown as Country Prepares for Second Wave, Newsweek
Sweden Tries Out a New Status: Pariah State, New York Times
As you can see, the media has taken a very hardline with Sweden. But, why? What has Sweden done that has provoked such a hostile response?
Nothing, really, they’ve just shrugged off the repressive stay-at-home orders and pursued their own independent policy. The Swedish approach stands in stark contrast to the lockdowns which are costly, ineffective and socially damaging. Here’s an excerpt from an article at The Evening Standard that underscores these very points:
“Lockdowns made little difference to the number of people who have died from coronavirus, a study has claimed. Researchers from the University of Toronto and University of Texas found that whether a country was locked down or not was “not associated” with the Covid-19 death rate.
Experts compared mortality rates and cases in 50 badly-hit countries up until May 1 and calculated that only 33 out of every million people had died from the virus…The study found that imposing lockdown measures succeeded in stopping hospitals becoming overwhelmed, but it did not translate into a significant reduction in deaths.
“Government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of Covid-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality,” the study, published in the Lancet online journal EClinicalMedicine, said.”
(“Coronavirus lockdown ‘made no difference to number of deaths but stopped hospitals being overwhelmed”, Evening Standard)
Bottom line: Lockdowns don’t work, but the media continues to support them. Why?
Because the media is owned by elites who see lockdowns as an effective way to exert greater control over the population. The real issue is power, not efficacy or saving lives. The Swedish model undermines this effort by providing a viable alternative that challenges lockdowns and leads countries out of crisis. That’s why Sweden has been treated with such open hostility, because elites see crisis management as a useful tool for making the structural changes they want to impose on the political and economic systems. Billionaire oligarchs do not see crises as ‘periods of intense disorder or distress’, but golden opportunities that can be exploited to their advantage.
Sweden is also criticized for its fatality rate which is higher than some but lower than others. As of today, the number Coronavirus deaths in Sweden is 5,667 which is considerably higher than its neighbors in Norway and Denmark but lower than Belgium, Italy, France, the UK and Spain. In other words, Sweden is somewhere in the middle of the pack. Interestingly, Sweden compares quite well to poorly-governed states in the US with similar-sized populations. Take a look:
Sweden: No Lockdown
Population of 10.2 million
Coronavirus deaths –5,667
Lockdown State#1: New York City (Democrat Governor, Andrew Cuomo)
Population– 8.3 million
Coronavirus deaths– 32,133 (5 and a half time more than Sweden with 2 million less people)
Lockdown State#2: New Jersey (another Democrat governor, Phil Murphy)
Population– 9.2 million (1 million less than Sweden)
Coronavirus deaths– 15,684 (nearly 3 times as many as Sweden with a smaller population.)
Lockdown State#3: Massachusetts (another Democrat Governor, Charlie Baker)
Population– 6.9 million #.3 million less than Sweden)
Coronavirus deaths– 8,380 (1 and a half times Sweden’s total with 3 million less people.)
These are the real Coronavirus losers, the three states that are run by liberal governors who imposed counterproductive lockdowns that collapsed their economies, killed tens of thousands of people, and did nothing to staunch the spread of the infection. In contrast, Sweden has weathered the storm nicely, built up the public’s innate immunity and put the economy back on the road to recovery. Take a look:
“Unlike most European countries, Sweden didn’t impose strict lockdown measures. Now it’s reaping the rewards — economically speaking, at least. A report from Capital Economics published on Tuesday found that the Swedish economy was the least harmed in Europe, describing it as the “best of a bad bunch.”
Though Sweden was not immune to the pandemic’s economic impact, it was the only major economy to grow in the first quarter of the year, the report noted….
“The Swedish economy has weathered Covid well, thanks in part to the government’s light-touch lockdown, and our forecast of a 1.5% drop in GDP this year is well above consensus,” the economists Andrew Kenningham, David Oxley, and Melanie Debono wrote.” (“Sweden weathers 2020’s economic storm better than anywhere else”, Business Insider)
Readers might want to compare the facts about Sweden’s economy with the spurious claims made by New York Times. Here’s an excerpt from a piece titled “Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale”:
“Not only have thousands more people died (in Sweden) than in neighboring countries that imposed lockdowns, but Sweden’s economy has fared little better.
“They literally gained nothing,” said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains.”…
The elevated death toll resulting from Sweden’s approach has been clear for many weeks. What is only now emerging is how Sweden, despite letting its economy run unimpeded, has still suffered business-destroying, prosperity-diminishing damage, and at nearly the same magnitude of its neighbors.”…In short, Sweden suffered a vastly higher death rate while failing to collect on the expected economic gains.” (“Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale”, New York Times)
Huh? So, Sweden “gained nothing”, says the Times? Really??
As the report from Business Insider confirms, the Swedish economy “was the least harmed in Europe”, the “best of the bunch” (and) “the only major economy to grow in the first quarter of the year, the report.” Sweden is progressively ramping up its activity while the United States is still stuck in the mud. The Times is deliberately misleading its readers to continue its war on Sweden. That’s not journalism, it’s agenda-driven propaganda.
Did you know that the Swedish infectious disease expert Johan Giesecke warned leaders in the lockdown countries that cases and deaths would rise sharply when the lockdowns were lifted?
One would assume that our leaders would be smart enough to figure that out before hand and tweak the policy accordingly, but that didn’t happen. So, now, when Fall rolls around and the deaths begin to mount, then what??
Then the state governors will re-impose the same onerous restrictions that were in place before which will increase unemployment and intensify the deepening economic slump. Meanwhile, Sweden will be in the process of rebooting its economy, putting people back to work, and enjoying the benefits that accrue from independent thinking and strong leadership. This is from an article at Reuters:
“Sweden’s top epidemiologist said on Tuesday a rapid decline in new critical COVID-19 cases alongside slowing death rates indicated that Sweden’s strategy for slowing the epidemic… was working. Chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell of the public health agency said a rapid slowdown in the spread of the virus indicated very strongly that Sweden had reached relatively widespread immunity…
Of course “it’s working”. Why wouldn’t it work? Our species has survived thousands of years thanks to our complex and adaptive immunity system that develops protective antibodies and killer T-cells that fight off flues, viruses and all-manner of harmful infectious diseases with or without vaccines. This is the brilliance of Sweden’s strategy, to allow the infection to spread among the country’s healthier, low-risk members until the virus petered-out from lack of any new hosts.
And now the strategy has worked. Common sense has prevailed. This is from Bloomberg News:
“Sweden’s top health authority says people who have had the novel coronavirus are likely to be immune for at least six months after being infected, whether they’ve developed antibodies or not….A recent study from King’s College London showed that the level of antibodies may drop to a degree that makes them undetectable as soon as three months after infection. However, the body also mounts other forms of immunity responses, including from so-called T-cells, which appear to play an important role in protecting against reinfection with Covid-19.
Research from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute has indicated that about twice as many people infected by Covid-19 have developed a T-cell mediated immunity response as those who have a detectable level of antibodies.
“The risk of being reinfected and of transmitting the disease to other people is probably very close to zero,” Tegnell said. ..” Sweden “probably” has achieved a fairly high rate of immunity, which he predicts will protect his country from new outbreaks.
It means that probably only 1 in every 7 people will contract the virus regardless of their exposure. It means that a greater portion of the population have natural immunity than we thought. It means that antibody testing does not tell the whole story but that T-cells and cross-immunity also prevent transmission to otherwise healthy people. It means that Covid-19 is not the Black Plague that’s going to live up to the manipulative hype that has been used to precipitate the biggest social, economic and political crisis of the last century. It means that the idiot lockdowns did not prevent new cases and deaths but merely postponed them to a later date.
It means that Sweden was on the right track from the very beginning and is rapidly returning to normal while the US sinks deeper into a crisis of its own making.
Bravo, Sweden!
*
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.
Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
As of this writing, the United States is rocked with civil unrest due to racism and police violence, and the country continues to break records for the most cases of coronavirus [the data are skewed]. The unstable and unhinged president Donald Trump makes things far worse domestically and internationally with his inflammatory language and his disdain for science. As this occurs, a new, radical right-wing ‘movement’, one fueled at least in part by Trump’s racist rhetoric, has entered the U.S. This is known as the ‘Boogaloo’ movement, and while loosely organized, has as its goal civil war. Members tend to be gun enthusiasts, neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
The so-called ‘Boogaloo’ movement has attempted to capitalize on both the lockdown due to the coronavirus, and the unrest following the savage murder of George Floyd. In some areas of the country, protests against the police brutality that is endemic in the U.S. have become violent, and while Trump condemns the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement as a symbol of hate, and attributes any violence as indicative of the character of the movement, other U.S. officials are investigating whether extremist groups are responsible for the violence. It appears that right-wing extremist groups may be inciting violence in otherwise peaceful protests. “As demonstrations spread from Minneapolis to the White House, New York City and overseas, federal law enforcement officials insisted far-left groups were stoking violence. Meanwhile, experts who track extremist groups also reported seeing evidence of the far-right at work.”[1]
It is to be expected that government officials, adhering to the Trump/Republican Party line, would blame leftist groups for the violence. Trump calls himself the ‘law and order’ president, despite the high number of his close associates and appointees who have been indicted or convicted of crimes. He himself has violated international law by withdrawing from internationally-accepted treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He was not removed from office during his impeachment trial on the spurious grounds that whatever the president does, if he feels it’s the best for the country, is not a crime. He ordered the assassination of a high-ranking foreign military general, another violation of international law. And he proudly, and bizarrely, piled cans of beans on his desk to endorse the company that makes them, which violates U.S. ethics laws.
Members and potential recruits to the Boogaloo movement certainly have a friend in the president and his toady party members. Trump has praised white supremacists directly on several occasions, calling them ‘good people’ and retweeting a video of an elderly man calling out ‘white power’. He actively courts racist voters by criticizing Blacks and Mexicans and any other group that is non-white. His policy of caging immigrant children in horrendous conditions at the southern border continues, despite the lack of coverage the media gives this ongoing atrocity.
With all that support and encouragement, it should be no surprise that a group such as the ‘Boogaloo bois’, as they tend to call themselves, would form and grow. They have ambitious goals, including not only civil war in the U.S., but the fall of civilization itself!
Three self-proclaimed ‘Boogaloo bois’ were indicted in June of 2020 for “conspiracy to cause destruction during protests in Las Vegas”, taking advantage of massive crowds protesting racism and police brutality. While Trump and his cohorts would blame Blacks and white liberals for any damage to property, authorities in Nevada give the lie to that theory, at least in Las Vegas.
One must ask a question that apparently has never occurred to the president: what advantage would be gained for protestors in causing destruction? They are fed up with constant racism and police violence. The take to the streets seeking to change the policies and practices that allow the police to kill people, often unarmed Blacks, with nearly complete impunity. What would their motivation be in causing destruction? Certainly, some people may take advantage of the crowds gathering peacefully to commit some petty crimes, but that is a long way from the use of Molotov cocktails that the ‘bois’ in Nevada were said to possess.
Trump has specialized, since before his election, in dividing the nation into an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, with ‘us’ being people who want to maintain white supremacy and all that goes with it: tax breaks for the rich; medical attention for those who can afford it (following the peculiar theory that there is only so much medical care available, and if a poor or middle-class person gets it, some rich person may have less of it); extreme right-wing Christianity (a version so twisted that Jesus Christ himself would shun every aspect of it), as the guiding principle in all things, and contempt and disdain for everyone who falls outside of the narrow confines of white and Christian (again, Christian as defined by the religious right).
The rise of the Boogaloo movement cannot be surprising considering the fertile ground that Trump has prepared for it. He seeks a return to the United States wherein Blacks ‘knew their place’, and it certainly wasn’t on his golf courses, except possibly as caddies. He wants to enshrine a bizarre, Jerry- Falwell-style religion as the guiding light for all policies, since he can somehow squeeze his own wants and needs into it. He strives to ensure that his wealthy cohorts remain that way, in the apparent desire to obtain the acceptance that so long eluded him when he was shunned by New York society.
To think that the Boogaloo movement will be short-lived is naïve. Trump has certainly enabled it, but he is not alone, since most Republican members of Congress have followed his lead in the statements and attitudes that have allowed it to grow. And Trump has made racism and violence against minorities acceptable; for generations, people with such attitudes were shunned to the point that, while they may have held such beliefs, they hesitated to voice them, let alone act on them. Trump has emboldened them, making courting the racist vote a real consideration for many politicians; it is another voting block to be appeased, like single mothers, young adults or older, educated white males.
Current signs indicate that Trump will not win a second term as president, but his likely successor, the elderly, Israeli ally Joe Biden is only liberal when compared to Trump. He will maintain the foreign-policy status quo (hostility towards Venezuela; unreserved support for apartheid Israel, etc.), do little to expand medical coverage, and despite the fact that he was vice-president under the country’s first Black president, he will do little to prevent the racism and policy brutality in the nation.
The coming election will change little in the United States; groups like the ‘Boogaloo bois’ will continue to grow under a second Trump Administration because he invites them to do so with his racist rhetoric. Should Biden become president, potential members of the Boogaloo movement will see their desired way of life threatened by a president who pays lip service to principles that oppose their goals, and thus their numbers will increase.
The U.S. and much of the world will pay a high and painful price for a long time due to the unparalleled folly of ever having elected Donald Trump as president.
*
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 Peace Data.
Robert Fantina is an activist and journalist, working for peace and social justice. A U.S. citizen, he moved to Canada shortly after the 2004 presidential election, and now holds dual citizenship. He serves on the boards of Canadians for Palestinian Rights, and Canadians for Justice in Kashmir, and is the former Canadian Coordinator of World Beyond War. He has written the books Empire, Racism and Genocide: A History of U.S. Foreign Policy and Essays on Palestine.
Note
[1] “Who’s Behind the Destructive Tactics?” Telegraph – Herald (Dubuque), June 1, 2020
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests are not scientifically suited for “COVID-19” diagnostic purposes. (1)
Governments and media, however, are using results from these tests, and manipulating results from these tests, to create fear and to drive hidden agendas.
We have seen this before, though on a smaller scale. A 2007 New York Times article, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t”, recounts that epidemiologists and infectious disease experts admitted that they “placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test” that contributed to unfounded fears that a “whooping cough epidemic was afflicting the Children’s Hospital in Boston.” (2)
The same unfounded, fabricated fears are essential to the Globalist Covid Operation, for which censorship and the amplification of false data are integral parts.
In April 2020, Dr. Annie Bukacek was among the first to publicly shine a light on the real virus currently plaguing humanity, which is the Global Reaction to COVID-19, and not the alleged virus itself.
The real disease, argues Bukacek in the following interview with kla.tv, is that “we have allowed elected and unelected bureaucrats to take our freedoms.” They have abrogated our rights to work (as the economy implodes), to worship, to peacefully assemble, and to visit our loved ones in Long Term Care facilities. In fact, most people are embracing the losses of freedom that they once cherished.
Manipulated test data are not the only culprits. CDC guidelines and administrative pressures have resulted in a “skewing” towards COVID on Death Certificates, wherein presumptions of COVID or an assessment that COVID may be a contributing cause of death, are marked as COVID deaths.
Car accident deaths and gunshot deaths have been marked as COVID, she says.
She notes too, that cash-starved hospitals, that have been cancelling scheduled surgeries for months, receive an extra $13,000.00 for a “COVID” patient, and an extra $39,000.00 if the patient has the misfortune of being placed on a ventilator.
The Global Reaction to COVID-19 is creating untold misery, and untold excess deaths. Dr. Bukacek and others have been painting an accurate, evidence-based assessment for months now, but the world refuses to listen.
*
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.
Annie Bucacek is an award winning family doctor and physician based in Montana
Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
The myth of recovery ignores the US economy’s dismal state.
Numbers calculated as they were pre-1990 before rigging them occurred tell all.
According to economist John Williams, real US unemployment is 32.1% — not the phony Bureau of Labor Statistics phony 11.1%.
Around one-third of working-age Americans are jobless — the number far exceeding peek 25% unemployment during the 1930s Great Depression.
Rising gold and silver prices reflect inflation fears because of money printing madness by the Fed and countless trillions of dollars spent for militarism and endless wars.
According to Williams, real year-over-year inflation is 8.3%, not the phony 0.6% figure for the 12 months through June.
Q II GDP contraction will likely be -50% when reported, an unprecedented economic plunge in US history.
On Thursday, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported that US unemployment “remains at historic levels” — things likely to worsen before improving that’s unlikely any time soon.
Last week, another 2.3 million Americans applied for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.
It was the 18th straight week that new claims exceeded a million. They never once approached this level before in US history.
On Thursday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) underreported the true number, saying there were 1.4 million new claims.
EPI stressed that it’s reporting the wrong number, ignoring Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) — “the federal program for workers who are not eligible for regular UI, like the self-employed,” adding:
“It also uses seasonally adjusted data for regular state UI, which is distorted right now because of the way the Department of Labor (DOL) does seasonal adjustments.”
Long ago US economic numbers were more accurately reported. That changed in the neoliberal 90s.
The formula for calculating unemployment, inflation, and other data were and remain rigged to aid markets.
Understated inflation harms Social Security recipients, receiving much less annually in cost of living adjustments that are now means tested to reduce the amount received by higher income households.
Social Security is an insurance plan — paid for by company and worker payroll tax deductions.
When individuals buy private insurance, it pays holders according to what policies stipulate, no back-ended means testing applied to reduce them.
That was how Social Security was originally established. Bipartisan supported neoliberal harshness changed the rules of the game, harming countless millions of Americans — workers, the working-age unemployed and retirees.
Congress is debating by how much to extend vitally needed benefits to the nation’s unemployed and others without a source of income or enough to get by.
Current federal benefits of $600 weekly to eligible households expire this weekend.
Failure to fully extend them for as long as economic crisis conditions continue will amount to “cruel and unusual punishments” that’s prohibited by the 8th Amendment.
These vital “benefits are supporting a huge amount of spending by people who would otherwise have to cut back dramatically,” EPI explained, adding:
“That spending is supporting more than 5 million jobs. If Congress kills the $600, they kill those jobs.”
If the amount is reduced to a much lower figure, what Republicans want, numbers of eliminated jobs will be “kill(ed)” proportionately.
EPI slammed the notion that unemployment benefits disincentive job-seeking, calling the claim by congressional hardliners “massively overblown,” adding:
“Concerns about the work disincentive simply ignore the realities of the labor market for working people, who will be very unlikely to turn down a job for a temporary boost in benefits—particularly when it is now clear that jobs are going to be scarce for a very long time.”
With millions fewer jobs than workers wanting them, millions of working-age Americans will remain jobless whatever Congress and the White House do or don’t do.
Depriving them of enough income for essentials to life and welfare will amount to a crime against humanity.
It’ll also be a racist action, people of color in the US most affected by economic collapse, most in need of aid only government can provide.
EPI stressed that Congress and the White House need to act “immediately.”
If current benefits expire and are later reinstated in part or in whole, it’ll create an unacceptable “administrative nightmare for state agencies, and recipients.”
They’ll be “a lapse in benefits (of) several weeks in most states” — millions of needly Americans with little or no savings without income to get by.
As of July 18, over 34 million unemployed US workers have either been receiving UI benefits or applied to receive what hasn’t been approved so far.
According to financial services company Jefferies, nearly 25% of small businesses closed — either filing for bankruptcy or unable to operate in the current environment.
Most disturbing is that many closed down permanently, millions of jobs irreversibly lost.
Hard times are likely to be longterm for tens of millions of ordinary Americans, especially people of color — the nation’s permanent underclass increasing exponentially.
Dems and Republicans are far apart on extending benefits to the unemployed and otherwise needy.
Whatever is agreed on is likely to be much less than recipients are now getting.
Less income means less spending and greater economic harm at a time when Congress and the White House should be focused on stimulating economic recovery by jobs creation programs, along with aid to needy Americans for as long as dire conditions continue.
Instead they prioritize handouts to Wall Street and other corporate favorites while dickering over how much less to do for the nation’s most disadvantaged.
Current economic conditions are the most dire in US history for the vast majority of Americans.
Nothing is being done to turn things around economically — notably no jobs creation programs, what’s vitally needed.
The hardest of hard times in US history are likely to be protracted — Depression conditions for countless millions that far exceed any other time in the nation’s history.
America today is a let ‘em eat cake society, serving wealth and power interests exclusively at the expense of most others.
Hard times keep getting harder, the new normal in the United States of I Don’t Care, its ruling class indifferent toward human health and welfare.
PORTLAND, Ore. — Multiple volunteer street medics are suing the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service, and the City of Portland for targeting and attacking them at Portland protests against police brutality. The lawsuit was filed in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon and Perkins Coie LLP.
In well-documented incidents, police and federal agents brutally attacked volunteer medics with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, batons, and flash-bangs.
“It was terrifying,” said Savannah Guest, a volunteer medic and plaintiff in the case who was seen in a viral video being attacked by federal agents while providing aid to an incapacitated bystander. “Every human being deserves help, but the federal agents showed no humanity or concern.”
The lawsuit argues that the law enforcement attacks on medics violates the First and Fourth Amendments. The ACLU of Oregon will also seek a court order prohibiting law enforcement from targeting and attacking medics again.
“Volunteer medics should be celebrated, not attacked or arrested,” said Jann Carson, interim executive director of the ACLU of Oregon. “Our clients are volunteering day and night to provide aid to the injured and to create a safer environment for protesters and bystanders. These attacks are unconscionable as well as unconstitutional. This lawlessness must end.”
This is the second lawsuit the ACLU of Oregon has filed against the City of Portland and the Trump administration for abuses at the nightly protests against police brutality. A court order secured through the previous lawsuit blocks local law enforcement attacks on journalists and legal observers. A motion to add federal agents to that order is currently pending before the court, with arguments scheduled for Thursday, July 23.
“The Trump Administration and Portland Police Bureau wax poetic about their concerns about lawlessness — but they are responsible for it,” said Shane Grannum, attorney at Perkins Coie. “They have violated the constitutional rights of our clients to protest and lend medical services, supplies, and treatment to protesters. Our clients have been tear gassed, pepper sprayed, beaten, and shot with rubber bullets, even while administering care to injured protesters. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that the Trump Administration and Portland Police will be held accountable for their violent, lawless, and unconstitutional actions.”
Militarized federal agents deployed by the Trump administration have been terrorizing the city, threatening lives, and relentlessly attacking people exercising their First Amendment right to protest police brutality. Federal and local law enforcement have fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and more indiscriminately into crowds, and have been brutally attacking journalists, legal observers, and medics.
“When protest medics are rendering aid to protest attendees and innocent bystanders, they are exercising their right to free speech,” said Rian Peck, attorney at Perkins Coie. “At the core of their message: Police violence and brutality will not deter protesters from using their voice to demand change in policing practices. For as long as the protests continue, our clients intend to continue exercising their right to deliver that message.”
Below are additional comments from plaintiffs:
Christopher Wise, a volunteer medic who, while wearing clothes prominently displaying red crosses, was targeted by police and federal agents with rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, pepper bullets, riot batons, and tear gas: “The first night I went to a protest I saw someone severely injured by police. As someone with EMT training, I knew how to help. Since then, I’ve volunteered as a medic almost every night to show my support for the protests. Black lives matter; my life matters. We have to keep saying it until people understand it. I act as a protest medic because I believe what people have to say is important, and no one should be forced to stop saying it with these protests.”
Christopher “Kit” Durkee, a volunteer medic who was seen being attacked alongside plaintiff Savannah Guest by federal agents in a viral video: “Who do you call to report this? Who can hold these agents accountable for misconduct?”
Michael Martinez, a graduate student at Oregon Health & Science University who was arrested while packing up the OHSU medic tent after protesters were gassed and beaten on the night of June 13: “I filed this lawsuit because many people in this country, such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, will never have their day in court. I feel it’s all the more important to use whatever resources and power I have to confront this abhorrent system, which allows people in America, primarily Black people, to be beaten and killed by police without consequence.”
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division. The lawsuit also seeks damages for injuries sustained.
The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon on Wednesday sued the Trump administration for assaulting, tear-gassing, and arresting volunteer medics in Portland during its crackdown on the city’s ongoing protests against police brutality.
The lawsuit (pdf), which also names the city of Portland, was filed on behalf of Savannah Guest, Christopher Wise, Christopher Durkee, and Michael Martinez, four volunteer medics who say they were assaulted by the Trump administration’s federal agents and Portland police during Black Lives Matter demonstrations this month.
“It was terrifying,” said Guest, who on July 12 was thrown to the ground by federal agents dressed in combat fatigues as she attempted to assist an incapacitated bystander. “Every human being deserves help, but the federal agents showed no humanity or concern.”
Guest’s assault was captured on video:
Martinez, a graduate student at Oregon Health and Science University who was arrested in Portland on June 13 while packing up a medical tent, said he agreed to join the legal action “because many people in this country, such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, will never have their day in court.”
“I feel it’s all the more important to use whatever resources and power I have to confront this abhorrent system, which allows people in America, primarily Black people, to be beaten and killed by police without consequence,” said Martinez.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon as massive protests continued in Portland, seeks a court order barring federal agents and city police from targeting and attacking medics in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments.
Jann Carson, interim executive director of the ACLU of Oregon, said in a statement that “volunteer medics should be celebrated, not attacked or arrested.”
“Our clients are volunteering day and night to provide aid to the injured and to create a safer environment for protesters and bystanders. These attacks are unconscionable as well as unconstitutional. This lawlessness must end.”
The long-awaited UK ‘Russia Report’, whose publication was delayed by 10 months by Boris Johnson, was finally released this week by the Westminster Intelligence and Security Committee, much to the excitement of those keen to demonstrate alleged ‘Russian interference’ in the 2016 EU referendum. However Britain’s ‘Russiagate’ has been something of a damp squib compared to the detailed, long-drawn Muller report across the Atlantic. In fact, anyone who was expecting any detail regarding the allegations of Russian interference would be sorely disappointed.
The reality is that the report contains nothing in addition to what has long been printed in the mainstream press about so-called Russian ‘support’ of the Brexit campaign. No evidence is provided in the report, other than references to ‘open source’ material – in other words, what we ourselves have read online and in print. For example, ‘40. Open source studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EU stories on RT and Sputnik, and the use of ‘bots’ or ‘trolls’, as evidence of Russian attempts to influence the process.’
So we have an allegation that a media organisation may have a particular editorial line? Shocking! Yes, a glance at the RT and Sputnik websites would confirm that they seem to adopt a position close to that of British newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail, and that would be correct. RT and Sputnik have a broadly right-wing, conservative editorial line, more in keeping with Russia’s conservative values. Hardly surprising – it’s Russian media after all. Every media outlet has its editorial line. Every. Single. One.
But having worked at Sputnik over the time of the EU referendum, I cannot in any way support the allegation that it was promoting a pro-Brexit position. One of the shows I produced – ‘Brexit or Fixit’ – invited each week a guest from opposite sides of the debate – both Leave and Remain – in order to ensure balance. In no way was I – or anyone else for that matter – encouraged to promote an anti-EU stance. The same cannot be said for the mainstream media unfortunately. It was apparent in the run-up to the election, that the media was firmly in the Remain camp. The balance on the BBC, Sky News and Channel Four, for instance was weighted towards remaining in the EU, in my opinion, and I can say that as a supporter of Remain, not Brexit. Even after the result, Sky News openly ran a campaign for a second referendum to be held – the ‘People’s Vote’ as it would be called. Opponents of the Leave campaign and the Brexit result which followed have been desperate ever since to prove some kind of anomaly took place. It just couldn’t be that the British people voted to leave the EU. And this is where the idea of Russian interference came along, and conveniently fitted the narrative.
Just as in the US, the establishment and liberal elite is completely out of touch with the general population, and has been for years – hence the election of Trump and the bid by Democrats to oust him. Populist governments and their messages have resounded with people, and the media, politicians and expert class have yet to catch up. Russia, in this way has become a useful scapegoat for those who aren’t willing to accept the social evolution which is taking place. It’s Democracy in action, but the establishment can’t hack it. After all, look at the Mueller report – what evidence did that provide of Trump’s supposed links to Putin? Nothing. Zilch. Nichevo. Evidence isn’t really important here. Because the accused has already been found guilty, long ago. Russia hasn’t had a fair trial, and isn’t going to get one – it has been painted as evil incarnate for years now to the extent that even the word ‘Russia’ or ‘Russian’ seems to have taken on negative connotations in the public domain.
It’s sad because it stinks of injustice.
The idea that Russia is out to subvert the West really is a hypothesis which has yet to bear fruit. Indeed, a recent fascinating paper by renowned Russia expert and historian Richard Sakwa debunks the idea that Russia seeks to undermine the West. He does admit that it would like to influence it, however. The US and Britain should know something about this, given the desire both countries have had over the generations to spread ‘democracy and human rights’ across the globe, from the Christian missionaries of the 19th century to the modern day Voice of America news agency.
Fundamentally, the Russia report highlights two rather pessimistic facts about British society today:
i) our intelligence services are inadequate and need an overhaul but more importantly
ii) the British public is so used to being spoon-fed information that it cannot be relied upon by politicians to think for itself when it comes to deciding on how to vote in an election. What on earth does it say about the general public if it is the case that it could be completely manipulated by a particular media campaign, paid for or not by a foreign power? Do our politicians really think we are that stupid? Or do they think we require all our information to be censored, as if we are children? Unfortunately I fear by the time we will have this conversation, it will be too late.
July 28 will mark almost the 90th anniversary of one of most controversial protests in U.S. history and yet it remains virtually unknown to most Americans. On that day, in 1932, 500 U.S. army infantrymen with loaded rifles, fixed bayonets and gas grenades containing a vomit inducing ingredient, 200 calvary, a machine gun squadron, 800 police and 6 M1917 army tanks, prepared to attack 17,000 unarmed men, plus thousands of their wives and children. Moments before the assault, Gen.Douglas MacArthur, in charge of the operation, turned to a police official standing next to him and said, “I will break the back of the enemy.
Photo credit: Historynet.com
The attack was ordered by President Herbert Hoover and commanded by Gen. MacArthur. Dwight D. Eisenhower was MacArthur’s aide and Major George S. Patton led the tank unit. After donning gas masks, the army tossed hundreds of tear-gas grenades into the encampment which started raging fires and the assault drove all the bedraggled occupants from the area. The encampment was then burned to the ground.
This wasn’t Cuba, the Philippines or the Mexican border — but in Washington, D.C. The camp, nicknamed “Hooverville,” occupied by WWI veterans who were living in tents and shanties others living in crumbling government buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue near the capital. If your education was anything like mine, there wasn’t any mention of this event in any history class.
Some 4 million vets had returned from the war and found that others had taken their jobs at a considerably higher wage than the $1 per day soldier’s pay and expected more help from their government. Presidents Wilson, Harding and Coolidge each firmly opposed making any payments to the mostly unemployed vets, with Coolidge stating that “Patriotism, bought and paid for, is not patriotism.” In 1924, Congress kicked the can down the road by promising a bonus payment of $1.25 for each day of overseas service and $1.00 for every day of home service. There would be a limit of $625 for overseas service and $500 for home service. But Catch-22 was that it could not be redeemed until 1945. The vets quickly dubbed it the “Tombstone Bonus” because many of them would be dead before collecting.
With the Great Depression deepening, demands for making an immediate payment were escalating. Finally, a bill was passed but President Hoover vetoed it. In response, some 300 veterans, led by ex-sergeant Walter Waters boarded a freight train in Portland, Oregon in early May, 1932, and headed for Washington, DC. Soon, others began their pilgrimage to the Capital from across the country in dilapidated buses, overcrowded pick-up trucks, walking and hitchhiking. The vets and their families were in desperate financial shape with overdue bills to pay, hungry and with evictions hanging over their heads. They demanded immediate payment of the bonus.
Calling themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Forces (BEF) and soon known as the “Bonus Army,” between 17,000 and 25,000 trekkers began arriving on May 23, 1932 . Assuming their demands wouldn’t be met any time soon, they proceeded to set up a long term presence. In orderly fashion, they mapped out streets named for states, set up a library, the “B.E.F. Post Office, barbershop, military-style sanitation, appointed M.P.s to keep order, published their own camp newspaper and even organized evening vaudeville shows. Some ten thousand other vets occupied partially-demolished government buildings on a stretch between the Capitol and the White House. Extremely patriotic, the vets insisted that an American flag fly over every tent and shanty.
Further, as Roy Wilkins, then a young reporter with a press pass, wrote, “There was only one absentee in the camp: James Crow.”1 The entire, massive undertaking was one in which Blacks and whites shared everything together. During WWI, the military was still segregated as was Anacostia Park when the marchers arrived. The vets who had fought a war together deliberately decided to live side-by-side and set up in the “black” section of the park. This fact alone may have led some people to fear the movement. General MacArthur’s “most trusted subordinate” Brig. Gen. George Van Horn Moseley portrayed black and white veterans living together as “proof that Negros and Jewish Communists were planning a revolution.” In truth, radicals and communists were dismissed by the BEF and were never a serious element in the movement.2
As noted American historian Howard Zinn wrote, “In the 1930s, America was in a state of near-revolution, something that very much worried the people in Washington.”3 The vets were labeled “Red Agitators” and Gen. MacArthur declared that the marchers were “… traitors bent on overthrowing the government — pacifists and its bedfellow communism are all around us.” The Army’s Military Intelligence Division thought that Communists were deeply involved in the efforts and J. Edgar Hoover, the new FBI director, was intent on proving that the Bonus Army was inspired by reds. Fitting then, that in instructing his troops on the possible use of force during the assault, Maj. Patton advised that “Large numbers of casualties will become an object lesson.”
Historians agree that 1932 was “cruelest year” of the Great Depression and on June 25, 1932 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a compensation bill but it was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 62-18. By July, General MacArther and Secretary of War, Patrick Hurley were anticipating violence, not just in the Capital but especially in the slums of dozens of major cities. Over the preceding two months, MacArthur had been secretly training special army units in “riot control.” Interestingly, the Marine Corps was not involved in these activities and in an Army intelligence report, not declassified until 1991, we learned that it was feared the Marines were unreliable because they might side with the Bonus marchers. Apropos to this concern, Marine Corps Gen. Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in the history of the Marine Corps, had visited the encampment and told the vets:
I never saw such Americana as is exhibited by you people. You have just as much right to have a lobby here as any steel corporation. Makes me so damn mad, a whole lot of people speak of you as tramps. By God, they didn’t speak of you as tramps in 1917 and ‘18.4
In November, Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president. Although he also opposed the bonus, after the assault he said, “This will elect me.”
It’s interesting to speculate what might have occurred had the Bonus Army still been there after FDR’s inauguration. Wouldn’t any president have acted in similar fashion to Hoover?
In 1933, FDR sliced $480 million from veterans’ benefits including reducing disability payments by 25 percent (20 percent of the marchers were disabled) “to balance the budget.” In 1936, the legislature passed another bonus bill but again FDR vetoed it, arguing it wouldn’t be “fiscally prudent.” Convinced that his New Deal efforts had saved capitalism from socialism, Roosevelt returned to being a conventional politician advocating for balanced budgets.5 This time, both the Senate (76-19) and the House (324-61) overrode his veto and the vets received $583 on average. Some jobs went their way under the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps and 700 worked in so-called “Veterans’ Rehabilitation Camps” in Florida. In the end, some 45,000 BEF members had passed through Washington before scattering across the country to join millions of others during the depths of the Great Depression.
I’m not an historian but one lesson that occurs to me is that this episode, which has been relegated to the dustbin of U.S. history, is the critical role of mass protest in achieving even a modicum of justice. For example, the Bonus Army’s march and its aftermath was a major factor contributing to the passage of the G.I. Bill — something else omitted from my history textbooks. With millions of vets returning from WWII, politicians could not be unmindful of what occurred in 1932. Paul Dickson and Thomas B. Allen, two eminent scholars on the era, remind us of the primary motive behind the eventual passage of the bill:
Beneath all of this was the very real fear the nation would pay for lack of a comprehensive plan to help veterans by facing a much larger and more hostile version of the Bonus Army. Representative Hamilton Fish Jr., now a political foe of Roosevelt, agreed that veterans could not come home and sell apples as they did after the last war, because if that is all they are offered, I believe we would have chaotic and revolutionary conditions in America.6
Experts working for the American Legion, not the Congress, drafted a rough version of what eventually became law. Opponents included leaders of elite colleges who feared that working class men and women would lower the educational standards of their institutions. Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, predicted that American colleges and universities “will find themselves converted into educational hobo jungles.” Southern politicians were dismayed that millions of Black vets would be given $20 per week, thus undermining the wage system in the Deep South.
The Senate passed the bill 50-0 and it passed the House, 387-0 because the $20 per week provision was stripped from the original version. After more intense wrangling which cast doubt on the bill being passed at all, the powerful American Legion Lobby brought intense pressure on opponents. Finally, FDR set aside his opposition to “special privileges” for vets and signed the G.I. Bill on June 22, 1944 — with the $20 per week wage intact. Some 12 million vets took advantage of it. (Note: My father was one of them).
It’s no wonder that Dr. Martin Luther King and his advisers studied the Bonus Army’s tactics for inspiration in preparing their own multiracial Poor People’s Campaign events in Washington, D.C. during the Spring of 1968, just weeks after King’s assassination. Another important lesson from the Bonus Army marchers was: “if you have a grievance, take it to Washington, and if you want to be heard, take a lot of people with you.”7
Finally, today we have a confluence of factors, including the capitalist state’s failure to protect its citizens from the Covid pandemic, looming fiscal austerity in the face of another Great Depression and newly transparent institutional racism, has provided an unparalleled opportunity to replicate the Bonus Army’s action in the nation’s capital, this time on a hitherto unprecedented scale, depth, and breath of demands.
• (Thanks to Kathleen Kelly, my in-house editor, for her helpful comments)
Alan Spears, quoted in Nicolas Brulliant, The Forgotten March, The National Parks Conservation Association (Fall, 2018), p.7. []
Paul Dickson and Thomas B. Allen, The Bonus Army: An American Epic (New York: Walker and Company, 2004), p. 7. For those interested in further reading, Dickson and Allen’s meticulously researched account is the best source. []
Howard Zinn, “Howard Zinn: How FDR Forestalled a Second American Revolution,” Interviews with Ray Suarez in 2007, first published as, Howard Zinn with Ray Suarez, Truth Has a Power of Its Own: Conversations About a People’s History (New York: The New Press, 2019). Mickey Z, “The Bonus Army,” 50 American Revolutions You’re Not Supposed to Know (New York: Disinformation Books, 2005). []
The Bonus Army: How a Protest Led to the G.I. Bill, “All Things Considered,” NPR, November 11, 2011. The following year, Gen. Butler gave a speech about his military service, saying “I spent most of my time being a high class muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.” []
“He died in a motorcycle accident,” Dr. Raul Pino clarified. “You could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash. I don’t know the conclusion of that one.”
The anecdote is a ridiculous example of a real controversy that has inspired some colorful memes: what should define a COVID-19 death?
While the question is important, such incidents may be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg regarding the unreliability of COVID-19 data.
In May, a public radio station in Miami broke what soon became a national story. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had been conflating antibody and viral testing, obscuring key metrics lawmakers use to determine if they should reopen their respective economies.
The story was soon picked up by NPR, who spoke to an epidemiologist who condemned the practice.
“Reporting both serology and viral tests under the same category is not appropriate, as these two types of tests are very different and tell us different things,” Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security told NPR.
The Atlantic soon followed with an article that explained the agency was painting an inaccurate picture of the state of the pandemic. The practice, the writers said, was making it difficult to tell if more people were actually sick or had merely acquired antibodies from fighting off the virus.
“How could the CDC make that mistake? This is a mess,” said Ashish Jha, the K. T. Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard and director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.
In some ways the “mess” was no surprise. Two weeks earlier, Dr. Deborah Leah Birx, the White House’s coronavirus task force response coordinator, reportedly ripped the agency in a meeting, saying “there is nothing from the CDC that I can trust.”
Birx’s concerns about the CDC’s data did not alleviate concerns of data manipulation. The New York Timesspeculated that perhaps the agency had sought to “bolster the testing numbers for political purposes.” TheTexas Observerwondered if the state was “inflating its COVID testing numbers by including antibody tests.”
Considering President Trump’s sometimes comically inaccurate boastsabout America’s testing prowess, perhaps such questions were not unjustified. The many people who spoke to the Times said the answer was simpler, attributing the flawed system to “confusion and fatigue in overworked state and local health departments.”
If data manipulation had been the motive, the architects of the ploy were in for a rude awakening. Testing numbers did soar, but so did case numbers; the surge in late June and throughout July spawned new fears of a second wave and more lockdowns and more charges that America was botching the pandemic. (The surge was the result of both increased testing, including antibody testing, as well as a resurgence of the virus.)
Tensions between the White House and its own agency boiled over last week when the Trump Administration stripped the CDC of its role in collecting data on COVID-19 hospitalizations.
A Data Fiasco of Historical Proportions?
It’s hard to read the drama, incompetence, and confusion without thinking about Dr. John Ioannidis, the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention at Stanford University.
In a March 17 STAT article, Ioannidis warned the world was looking at what could turn out to be a “once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.” He worried central planners were making sweeping and reflexive changes without sufficient data.
Locking people up without knowing the fatality risk of COVID-19 could have severe social and financial consequences that could be totally irrational, Ioannidis warned.
“It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies,” said Ioannidis, one of the most-cited scientists in the world.
In one sense, Ioannidis has already been proven right. The models on which lockdowns were initiated have already proven astronomically wrong. But that was hardly the only example.
Every day it seems there’s another story about reporting flaws or mixups.
Tuesday it was a lab in Connecticut where researchers said they discovered a flaw in a testing system for the virus. The flaw resulted in 90 people receiving false positives. That may not sound like many, but researchers said the test is used by labs across America.
A few days earlier, it was announced that Texas had removed 3,484 cases from its positive Covid-19 case count because the San Antonio Health Department was reporting “probable” cases. None of the people had actually tested positive for COVID-19.
We don’t know how many new cases are probable cases and not positive cases, but we know it’s a lot. That’s because in April, the CDC changed its reporting to include people who had not tested positive for the virus but might have it. (The CDC’s criteria for what qualifies as a probable case are more than a little confusing.)
As the Associated Press noted, the change was made with the understanding that “deaths could soon jump because federal health officials will now count illnesses that are not confirmed by lab testing.”
The One Thing Everyone Agrees On
COVID-19 has been far from the deadliest virus in modern history, but it has been the most divisive. The public, politicians, policy experts, and public health officials have disagreed on how deadly it is and how best to contain it.
But the one thing everyone seems to agree on is the numbers we have—fatalities and cases—are way wrong. A new CDC report estimates COVID-19 rates about 10 times higher than reported. Ioannidis put the figure even higher, estimating weeks ago that as many 300 million people had already been infected globally.
Deaths are more complicated.
The New York Times says COVID-19 deaths have been massively undercounted. Dr. Ashish Jha, speaking to Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC, agreed, saying most experts agreed there is a “substantial undercount.”
Others, including nearly one-third of Americans according to a recent survey, believe that the COVID-19 death toll is inflated. This includes physicians who say medical professionals are being pressured by hospital administrators to add coronavirus to death sheets.
Writing at the American Mind, Angelo Codevilla recently argued if the CDC had used the same criterion for the SARS virus as COVID-19—primarily “severe acute respiratory distress syndrome”—total COVID fatalities in the US would have been 16,000 through June.
Nobody knows the true count, of course. But the one thing left and right seem to agree on is the data we have are junk. And yet the lesson we keep hearing is “trust the experts.”
“Follow the science. Listen to the experts. Do what they tell you,” Joe Biden said in April.
But thinkers as diverse as Matthew Yglesias at Vox to author Matt Ridley have pointed out the dangers of blindly following “the experts,” especially when they’ve shown themselves to be spectacularly wrong from the very beginning on the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It’s dangerous to rely too much on models (which lead politicians to) lock down society and destroy people’s livelihood,” Ridley recently told John Stossel. “Danger lies both ways.”
Ridley has a point. The experts can’t agree on their own numbers or even clearly answer if a man who died in a motorcycle accident while infected should be labeled as a COVID-19 death.
In light of this, perhaps it’s time for the experts to exercise some humility and begin offering guidance to individuals instead of advocating collective blunt force.
After 23 years of unremitting media warfare against Venezuela, the United States announces that it will start a media war against Venezuela. It’s cynical, it’s tragic, it’s even comical. Since 1997, when Commander Hugo Chávez Frías began to emerge in the polls as a presidential option, and until today, the United States has led the most violent media initiatives to influence Venezuelan politics and change the course that through elections the (Venezuelan) people have taken. A brief account of the main episodes of this communications war would clarify how old and stubborn this strategy is.
The serial genocide perpetretor Elliott Abrams (mastermind of massacres and attacks in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, let it be known) was in charge of delivering this “news” more than two decades later.
Journalistic reports say that “the United States is preparing a new strategy against Venezuela in which it will use the media as part of its pressure campaign against Maduro.”
Abrams, also instigator of United States’ wars and invasions in this century, explained that Washington plans the launch of media actions on radio, television and internet, in order to penetrate Venezuelan territory.
Abrams spoke at an online conference sponsored by the Hudson Institute, one of Washington’s most influential think tanks, entities that, as Canadian professor Rodrigue Tremblay says, “provide political reports on various topics to government officials, usually from a very conservative viewpoint.”
23 years of war
The first movements of the US media war in Venezuela were against the powerful political movement that took the electoral course in 1997. When the then political establishment realized that its lifeboat, the candidacy of the former Miss Universe Irene Sáez, began to deflate, and that Chávez’s popularity grew rapidly, almost the entire media industry in Venezuela lined up behind desperate moves by the right to avoid a debacle.
Washington was a leading part of those alignments, through frequent diplomatic interference and through the unified action of the American media of the time, which was key for news networks such as CNN and Fox News. Then, when Chávez was in power, almost all of the media apparatus tried in vain to prevent the convocation of a National Constituent Assembly and, since it was not possible to stop that process either, it directed its efforts to try to get the people to reject the new Magna Carta (constitution).
All against Chávez
By 2000, the few media that had given support to Chávez turned around when they realized that the new president would not be their puppet. The war then turned into all-against-the-government and in that vein, the April 2002 coup d’état arrived, which according to all the evidence, including confessions and confidences of the protagonists, was mainly a media coup, closely coordinated by the State Department. At that moment, the perverse figure of Abrams appeared behind the scenes.
Rabidly mediatic were also the following chapters of the saga, including the “military rebellion” in Plaza Altamira and the oil sabotage and lock-down (Dec, 2002). The poisoned communications of those months led vast sectors of the Venezuelan population into mental breakdowns, from which at this point, 18 years later, many still have not recovered.
Maybe it’s something like that Abrams and his minions are considering now. Only, many of the media that were then stellar no longer exist, have modified their editorial lines or are limited to small audiences. To a large extent, the fact of being turned into scrap metal is the consequence of their incursion into a media war in which they emerged as losers.
2004 to 2013: From plot to plot
The use of the media as a weapon of primary importance in the attack against Bolivarian Venezuela continued in 2004 with the backing of the first attempt by the extreme right to overthrow the government through outbreaks of urban disturbances, the wrongly named “guarimbas”.
Also that year, the media, acting in unison in a scenario that they widely dominated, did everything possible to relativize and ridicule the government’s complaint about the paramilitary operation of the Daktari estate, dismantled by intelligence agencies. Also in 2004, all the national and foreign media aligned against Chávez in the recall referendum.
The media were the deciding factor in 2005 in the opposition coalition’s decision to boycott the parliamentary elections, one of the main party leaders, Henry Ramos Allup, later revealed.
In 2007, the scoundrel media suffered a major loss with the non-renewal of a broadcasting television channel concession of RCTV, one of the most bitter enemies of the revolutionary process since 1997. In that year, without the stubborn support of the media, it would not have been possible to create the climate of turmoil that led to the defeat of the Constitutional Reform project and the promotion of a group of young people with far-right ideas, in the style of the fascist movements that carried out the so-called color revolutions in Eastern Europe.
During the following years, until 2011, the media machinery did not rest in its conspiracies, but there was little that it could achieve. The same thing happened to its counterpart, the political opposition, that was in the dark before a Chavez in all his splendor. But that year they found a streak in which they showed their most perverse imprint, by feeding on President Chávez’s illness. They went with that until March 2013, when the president died and even later, because they have continued to work systematically against the memory that a good part of the Venezuelan people and many other countries keep about Hugo Chavez.
2013: Casualties on the battlefront
That year, the media battalion also suffered considerable losses, when the owners of several of the most radically anti-Chavista media decided to sell them to business groups that assumed different editorial and news lines. It was a defeat inflicted on the rightwing media with the dented weapons of capitalism, as “Che” Guevara would have said, because the voice of money spoke. Be that as it may, in short, it was a defeat.
It is possible that the media that Abrams intends to create are the one that played the role that the media sold (by their owners) stopped playing at that time.
In that same 2013, while these plays were being completed, the rest of the media machinery, especially the one based in other countries, remained at war, encouraging adventures such as the “calentera” (new guarimbas) after the defeated Henrique Capriles in the Presidential race after Chavez’s death, which caused more than a dozen of deaths, and developed intense and daily smear campaigns against President Nicolás Maduro.
That same year the economic war intensified and the media component was essential for it to take shape.
2014-2017: More and worse violence with media support
In 2014, allied to the most undemocratic sectors of the Venezuelan right, the media encouraged a new attempted insurrection through a focussed tactic using the guarimba model. These were highly localized violent events in enclaves of the middle and upper classes, so the role of the media was crucial to create, on a global scale, the impression that a great anti-government popular rebellion was underway.
Between that year 2015 and 2017, the media were strategic props in the intensification of the war against the people through shortages, hoarding and speculation of essential goods. At this time, a newspaper network in the US, Latin America and Europe dedicated several pages a day to denouncing topics such as long lines to buy bread or toilet paper. Its purpose was to portray Venezuela as hell and blame the government for the evils intentionally caused by the business community and the reactionary political class.
In 2016, after the opposition victory in the legislative elections (in December 2015), the rightwing media went as crazy as the partisans. They launched together from all directions different attempts to put an early end to the Maduro government. The media (local and international) breathed life into suggestions as far-fetched as the removal of the President in six months, the abandonment of office, doubts about his nationality and forced early elections.
In 2017, another episode occurred in which the media is deeply involved. It was the third and bloodiest yet, wave of terrorist violence (guarimbas), which this time lasted four months and included lynchings and barbaric acts as few had been seen in many years in Venezuela. The anti-Chavez communication machinery (now reinforced by new digital native media, many of them openly funded by the US and the European Union) glorified violent protesters; it made martyrs of young people who were put to death by the extreme right-wing political leadership, and it hid or relativized the hate crimes and acts against humanity perpetrated in the opposition coven, including the vile murder of people who were burned alive (just because they “looked” Chavista).
The media manipulation regarding these days reached worldwide levels. On July 30, the date of the elections (for governors), the terrorist opposition tried to impede the elections and the communication apparatus presented the violence to the world as promoted by the government.
2017-2019: Diaspora, assassination and commissioning
Throughout all these years and until 2019, the power of the media was paramount in consolidating the narrative of Venezuela as a nation in humanitarian crisis and on the brink of famine as a result of erroneous policies. It was also key to encouraging hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, especially young people, to leave the country. The “reports” about the so-called “diaspora” were part of a gigantic psychological operation that has had dire consequences for its victims, due to outbreaks of xenophobia, human trafficking, exploitation of workers and, this year, terrible human dramas.
In 2018, the same media were complicit in the political right that, after negotiating and reaching agreements, kicked over the table in the Dominican Republic on orders from the State Department. They also did their best to delegitimize the May presidential election and sought to discredit and ridicule the frustrated August assassination attempt [on Maduro] using drones. Only months after the events, one of those media decided to make the truth known, with testimonies from the material authors of the terrorist plot. Others have never deigned to admit that they misled their audiences.
Since 2019, the entire media machinery has been essential in sustaining the arbitrary “government in charge” of Juan Guaidó, on express instructions from Washington. The deployment that this character was given as a supposed national leader, has nothing to do with journalism, but is further proof of its role as a weapon in the conspiracy.
Among the highlights of 2019 in which the communication apparatus was – or claimed to be – of great weight in the insurrectional strategy, are Guaidó’s self-proclamation; Cúcuta’s concert and the failed invasion attempt under the guise of humanitarian aid; the blackouts in March, April and July, and the attempted coup d’état on April 30.
In the humanitarian aid episode, all the right-wing media conspired to support the false version that the Venezuelan government had ordered the burning of the trucks with food and medicine (allegedly coming from Cucuta), despite evidence that the fire had been caused by anti-Chavistas from the Colombian side of the border, as verified and recognized, weeks later, by The New York Times.
The same media that had demanded that Maduro be tried for crimes against humanity due to that destruction, did not ask for any sanction, not even a reprimand, against the true authors of the crime.
In 2020, the alleged informative bodies were, once again, a cog in the strategy of “regime change” by endeavoring to keep the Guaidó operation alive, hiding or downplaying the enormous cases of corruption that have been perpetrated under cover by his alleged commissioners.
Meanwhile, new media, which for the most part operate from outside the country, try to use the “fight against corruption” argument to destroy the social program of the Local Supply and Production Committees (CLAP), which have been a response to the economic war. In this way they serve the US strategy of suffocating the Venezuelan population until it rises up against the government.
What else might they try?
After this quick walk through of more than two decades of the media turned into cannons and bombs from the right, one has to wonder what the serial genocide Abrams is thinking now when he talks about “starting” a media offensive.
What are they going to do now, those who follow the instructions of this murderer of towns and recipient of “fees” from USAID, the more or less decent face of the CIA? What can they try that they have not already tried? We will see soon enough.
Featured image: Elliott Abrams, US virtual envoy for Venezuela. File photo.
We are being confronted in city after city with a nationwide paramilitary force, its troops unidentifiable and its vehicles unmarked, directed in deliberately vague terms to protect property and preserve domestic order.
It began in Portland, Oregon where chilling video shows men in combat gear seizing unarmed protestors, packing them into rented minivans and driving off. Some victims of these kidnappings remain in the dark about their abductors even after being freed. In one dystopian scene, a Portland man was seized, blindfolded, transported, imprisoned and finally released — without once being told who had abducted him and why.
Widespreadcriticism of these secretive police has not cowed the president. Instead, egged on by his lackeys, Trump plans to expand this paramilitary force. He has mobilized 2,000 agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Coast Guard, placing them on standby to quickly deploy domestically. If Trump’s words are to be believed, these troops are staring down the barrel at Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and more.
This astonishing federal takeover of public streets and spaces previously devoted to peaceful protest has targeted jurisdictions and individuals selected specifically (and at times admittedly) for their dissent from the policies of the incumbent national regime. Portland has seen 54 consecutive days of protests — the vast majority peaceful — in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. Chicago, Trump’s next target, has seen similar dissatisfaction. Boston, a city with Democratic leadership that proudly proclaims “Black Lives Matter,” could be next on the list. If the militia descends on Boston, our city’s leaders can and should arrest and prosecute anyone who unlawfully assaults and kidnaps civilians. The district attorney of Philadelphia has already promised as much.
This is not mere disregard for the rule of law — this is outright disdain.
The administration has also trained its cyberweapons on American citizens. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently directed its analysts to collect the information — including scrubbing the social media accounts — of anyone who they believe might deface a statue or monument. If you have (or would) protest alongside someone holding a can of spray paint, analysts trained to identify terrorists might be combing through your Facebook.
Deployment of this clandestine force, answerable only to the president, is manifestly unconstitutional. Our Constitution protects the rights of the accused. Trump’s forces are arresting peaceful protestors without warrants or probable cause, in some instances spiriting them away to places unknown. Our First Amendment guarantees the rights of free speech, petition and assembly. Trump’s forces are arresting and beating his political critics. Our federalist system prohibits the federal government from policing the streets where, as here, state and local authorities are equipped to preserve domestic tranquility and have not been demonstrably overwhelmed. Trump’s forces are usurping state prerogatives.
Protesters use shields and umbrellas against the Federal forces in Portland, Oregon on July 21, 2020. Over a thousand people, including a large march of mothers, demonstrated for racial justice and against Donald Trumpâs insertion of Federal officers in Portland, Oregon. (John Rudoff/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Such a presidential police force would surely have been unthinkable to those who fought a bloody revolution and founded a republic to preserve the “blessings of liberty” under a federal system of separated and divided powers. It would have been utterly unimaginable to those who gave “their last full measure of devotion” to preserve the Union. And it would have been the worst nightmare of those who sacrificed their lives in World War II to keep authoritarian regimes from our shores.
This is not mere disregard for the rule of law — this is outright disdain. And the naked cynicism of those disguising these dictatorial moves in the facially anodyne garb of essential peacekeeping — a move that, sadly, might well succeed for a time in holding sufficiently wide-ranging judicial relief at bay — is especially disgusting.
Judges worthy of the independence and life tenure entrusted to them will hopefully enjoin the worst excesses of this profoundly un-American attack on civil society. Politicians worthy of leading a republic will hopefully denounce and dismantle this anti-democratic militia. But the long shadow of fear cast by the Trump administration’s programmatic assault on our freedoms will remain until — “from sea to shining sea” — that entire administration is ripped root and branch from our native land.
One man reacted to emergency and the other one didn’t. The two men are Richard Feynman (1918 – 1988), the highly revered Nobel Prize laureate nuclear physicist, and 22-year old David Livingston, Senior Airman and missile repairman who was killed in the Titan II nuclear missile accident in Damascus, Arkansas, in 1980. The purpose of focusing on these two men is not to describe “human nature” or masculinity or to diagnose psycho-pathology. It is to look at a case of nuclearism, at what went wrong, what could have been different, and what in these men’s characters interfaced with society. To draw this distinction, the sources for this article are Feynman’s talk and transcript about his work on the atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project, and Eric Schlosser’s book Command and Control: Nuclear weapons, the Damascus accident, and the illusions of safety.1
We face today at least four emergencies (each intertwined with the logics of capitalism but also having distinct dynamics and features): nuclear, climate, pandemic, and racism. Handling extreme threat means recognizing that there is an emergency in people’s lives, directing all attention on how to prevent, mitigate or prepare for it, and urgently prioritizing the saving of lives. An adult reaction to emergency would include realistic fear, concern for oneself and others, a rational sense of time, and single-minded focus.
Making the A-Bomb
Feynman’s talk is humorously peppered with many anecdotes. He depicts two versions of himself: as unassumingly boyish, like Mad comic’s “What me worry?,” or as a godlike science genius. His innocent appearance often exposes others’ gullibility or incompetence. He introduces himself: “… although in my field at the present time I’m a slightly famous man [Nobel Prize laureate!], at that time I was not anybody famous at all. I didn’t even have a degree when I started to work with the Manhattan Project. Many of the other people who tell you about Los Alamos – people in higher echelons – worried about some big decisions. I worried about no big decisions. I was always flittering about underneath.” Fearing that Hitler “would develop it before we” led him to participate in the project.
“All science stopped during the war except the little bit that was done at Los Alamos.” “It was like those moving pictures where you see a piece of equipment go bruuuuup bruuuuup, bruuuuup.” Feynman then admits that he did get his Ph.D. from Princeton before he left for Los Alamos “so I wasn’t quite as far down the scale as I led you to believe.” He says that one of the first interesting experiences at Los Alamos was meeting great men. These men could listen to complex information and agree to a decision without endless repetition: “So that was a shock. These were very great men indeed.”
“My conscience bothered me a little bit because they would all work so hard to explain things to me, and I’d go away without helping them. But I was very lucky. When one of the guys was explaining a problem, I said, ‘Why don’t you do it that way?’ In half an hour he had it solved, and they’d been working on it for three months. So, I did something!”
“Every day I would study and read, study and read… All the big shots were away except for Hans Bethe… Well, he comes in to this little squirt in an office and starts to argue, explaining his idea. I say ‘No, no, you’re crazy. It’ll go like this.’ You see, when I hear about physics, I just think about physics, and I don’t know who I’m talking to, so I say dopey things… But it turned out that’s exactly what he needed. I got a notch up on account of that, and I ended up as a group leader under Bethe with four guys under me.”
“One of my diseases, one of my things in life, is that anything that is secret I try to undo.” Feynman became obsessed with picking locks, especially combination locks. “So I used to practice it like a card shark practices cards, you know – all the time.” “I went back to Los Alamos after the war was over to finish some papers, and there I did some safe opening that – well, I could write a safecracker book better than any previous safecracker book… I opened the safe that contained the secret of the atomic bomb – … the WHOLE DAMN THING!”
He tells how J. Robert Oppenheimer, “Father of the atomic bomb,” asked him, “little Richard,” to go to Oak Ridge, the uranium enrichment plant. “[T]he big shots in the company and the technical people … the generals and everyone was interested in this very serious problem.” The plant could have blown up. “I have a very bad memory, but when I work intensively, I have a good short-term memory, and so I could remember all kinds of crazy things …” He explained that the solution was easy:
“You put cadmium in solutions to absorb the neutrons in the water, and you separate the boxes so they are not too dense, according to certain rules… I was a god coming down from the sky!… So, from being rather primitive back there at Los Alamos, I became a super-genius at the other end.”
Feynman professed ignorance about reading blueprints. He described a “looooong table cover, a stack of large, long blueprints [of] pipes coming up from the second floor… going through the stack of blueprints, down-up-down-up” and how the engineers were talking very fast. “I’m completely dazed.” Feynman took a guess about what the symbols meant and was right. “So the engineers look up and down, the other guy up and down, back and forth, back and forth, and they both look at each other and they tchk, tchk, tchk, and they turn around to me and they open their mouths like astonished fish and say, ‘You’re absolutely right sir. You’re a genius… what you have just done is so fantastic. I want to know how, how do you do that?’”
In a now famous anecdote, Feynman described meeting with the world-renowned physicists Niels and Aage Bohr. Niels Bohr was “a great god” who said to his son, “Remember the name of that little fellow in the back over there? He’s the only guy who’s not afraid of me, and will say when I’ve got a crazy idea. So next time when we want to discuss ideas, we’re not going to be able to do it with these guys who say everything is yes, yes … we’ll talk with him first.”
Feynman’s wife died in Albuquerque and he was there on a short vacation, at the same time when he got the message saying “the baby [the test] is expected on such and such a day.” He flew back and arrived when buses were leaving. He went straight out to the test site. “They gave out dark glasses… [I] knew then that they wouldn’t see a damn thing.” He knew that the only thing that could really damage eyes was the ultraviolet light and his eyes would be safe behind the truck’s windshield. He said that his were the only human eyes that witnessed this first atomic explosion.
“I was an underling at the beginning. I met some very great men.” One of them, the great mathematician John von Neumann, taught Feynman a great lesson: “that you don’t have to be responsible for the world that you’re in. So I have developed a very powerful sense of social irresponsibility as a result of Von Neumann’s advice. It’s made me a very happy man ever since.”
Some years later he sat in a restaurant in New York and looked out at the buildings.
“… and I began to think, you know, about how much the radius of the Hiroshima bomb damage was and so forth … How far from here was 34th St? … All those buildings, all smashed – and so on. And I would go along and I would see people building a bridge, or they’d be making a new road, and I thought, they’re crazy, they just don’t understand, they don’t understand. Why are they making new things? It’s so useless. But, fortunately, it’s been useless for about 30 years now, isn’t it? So I’ve been wrong for 30 years about it being useless making bridges and I’m glad that those other people had the sense to go ahead.”
Feynman still did not talk of human lives lost – just bridges and buildings. His bare eyes were the only ones to see the first atomic blast, but even after thirty years, he still did not see human beings.
The Titan II ICBM
Twenty-two-year-old David Livingston was one casualty of nuclearism. In my recent review of Michael Klare’s uncritical paean to the American military, I point out the military’s [psychotic] grandiose aspiration of total command and control. Schlosser’s detailed history of the accident contrasts the improvised, desperate measures used by men on the ground with the delusions of precision, procedural proficiency, and state-of-the-art technology used by the hierarchical chain of command who play with mass destruction.
By 1980, the Titan II missile was the largest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), roughly 9-storeys high, carrying a W-53 thermonuclear warhead with a yield of about 9 megatons, about three times the explosive force of all the bombs dropped during WWII, including the atomic bombs. The missile was primed, cocked, ready to be launched within minutes. There were eighteen Titan II launch complexes in Arkansas. They each had identical safety guidelines, meticulous maintenance procedures, and detailed weather reports, which was a crucial factor in any maintenance work that involved fuel, oxidizer, and re-entry vehicles.
Livingston was one of the two workers who went into the missile silo to obtain vapor readings after a 9-pound socket was accidentally dropped into the 9-storey silo, hitting and puncturing the rocket. Seconds later, fuel started to escape. It was dangerous because so much material involved was flammable. All the warning lights on the oxidizer vapor launch duct, the fuel vapor launch duct, and the fuel launch duct were lit. Schlosser reports Livingston saying, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this. Somebody’s going to die out there tonight.” “He was not a fearful or high-strung type.”
After the fuel started to escape from the punctured missile, a decision had to be made whether the silo was safe to enter. At 20,000 ppm the fuel vapor could spontaneously combust, but the portable vapor detector shut off when the vapor level reached only 250 ppm. It was decided that if the vapor level was below 200 ppm, they could enter the silo and hopefully vent the stage 1 fuel tank. If the vapor level was higher than 200 ppm at any point, the men would get out of the launch complex as quickly as possible, leaving the doors open behind them. Some officers opposed this plan due to concern that rising heat in the silo could cause the oxidizer tank to rupture from the heat and explode and because of concern about tank pressures inside the missile. Colonel Scallorn stated that the mission was not worth the risk to these young men and that some people at Strategic Air Command headquarters treated maintenance crews and Propellant Transfer System guys like they were expendable.
Jeff Kennedy, partnered with Livingston to measure the vapor levels, also disagreed with the plan. “It was insane. It made absolutely no sense to send men into the launch complex … down the longest, most dangerous, most likely to be contaminated route” (Schlosser, p 239). It was a tragicomic series of errors and breakdowns. To even enter the site, a hole had to be cut in the chain link fence, as the access gate was locked and nobody had the key, and climbing over the fence in protective gear could tear the Rocket Fuel Handler’s Clothing Outfit (RFHCO) that weighed 22 lbs with a backpack that weighed an additional 35 lbs and carried about an hour’s worth of air that was really usable for only a half hour. Livingston was told to put his hand over the metal grate to estimate the temperature. The vapor probe detector pegged out, so it was impossible to measure the exact level of vapor. The entrapment area doors were locked and would have to be broken into with crowbars to reach the control center. The decontamination-area door was locked, and the combination they were given did not work.
Kennedy and Livingston had to communicate with hand signals instead of radios. Incredibly, the radio systems were incompatible. Only one person at a time could speak on the launch complex radio system, and they wanted to keep the line open as much as possible. One of them would speak to an officer on the launch complex radio who would relay the information to a colonel in a pickup truck near the gate who would speak to a colonel at the command post in Little Rock who would talk to Strategic Air Command in Omaha.
To skip ahead: the fuel vapor exceeded 21,000 ppm. When the silo finally exploded, there was a blast, panic, chaos. The Air Force still denied there was a serious problem after the radio went dead. The nearest hospital in Conway at first refused to admit the injured men, claiming it lacked the authority to treat Air Force personnel, but finally admitted them. Kennedy’s leg was broken, and he heard Livingston’s voice crying out “Oh, my God, help me. Please, somebody help me. Please, God help me.” He kept repeating “Please, somebody help me.” Suffering severe pain, Kennedy was able to reach the parked truck. There was a rule that everyone on the site needed a backup, but searching for Livingston meant searching alone, and the communications system did not work. When Livingston was finally found, he kept saying over and over “Please don’t leave me” and “Please don’t tell my mother” (Schlosser, pp. 412-13). The wound in his abdomen was deep with pieces of concrete lodged in there and his intestines clearly visible.
The rescue helicopter was delayed because of instructions to bring a vapor detector that could not be found. The helicopter pilot and ambulance driver at first could not locate each other. The Little Rock hospital did not have a decontamination unit, so they sprayed the naked injured men in the parking lot.
Doctors in the ICU at the Baptist medical center were not able to save Livingston. According to the official report, the emergency procedures worked properly, and human error was to blame. The official cause of Livingston’s death was pulmonary edema. The Air Force balked at Kennedy’s application for a medical discharge and instead placed him and another survivor in a psychiatric ward. He received a formal letter of reprimand for violating the two-man rule when he was separated from Livingston. There was no mention of his bravery. Livingston had just turned 22, planning to marry his girlfriend in the spring. She was at the hospital when he died.
Here is some additional important information. We know that when it was found that Hitler was not interested in developing nuclear weapons, only one scientist dropped out of the Manhattan Project.2 After the atom bomb test at Alamogordo, “the overjoyed inhabitants of Los Alamos gathered in groups all over town to celebrate. ‘There were tears and laughter… We beat each other on the back, our elation knew no bounds … the gadget worked!’ Feynman got his bongo drums out and led a snake dance through the whole Tech Area.”3
Startling indifference to the loss of individual human life is frequently left out of discourse on racism, pandemic, climate change, and nuclear weapons. From psychoanalytic understanding, the capacity to know the reality of other people’s existence starts at an early age – it is not just a cognitive achievement. It is emotional and reflects an ability to feel and tolerate ambivalence and is reflected in feeling concern about others. It is not simplistically a result of the human “genome” but comes with much work – on the part of individuals themselves, families, and communities. Nor is it tied to a particular ideology, religion, political organization, class, or moral code.
In Holocaust testimonies, people talked about the “righteous” helpers as having this crucial sense of other people’s realness. There are signs that Livingston had this – his emotional sense of life being at risk yet his willingness to help, his concern about his mother’s suffering. In contrast, there are signs that Feynman could not really think of other people in a real, emotional way. American literary critic Leslie Fiedler found that in American literature the hero of the most popular works was the “good bad boy” who lived on the frontier, not an adult living within the constraints and responsibilities of society but boys believing that everything was possible.4 •
Daniel Ellsberg (2017). The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a nuclear war planner. New York: Bloomsbury.
Jennet Conant (2005). 109 East Palace: Robert Oppenheimer and the secret city of Los Alamos. New York: Simon and Schuster, pp. 314-16.
Leslie Fiedler (1966). Love and Death in the American Novel. New York: Stein and Day.
Judith Deutsch is a member of Independent Jewish Voices, and president of Science for Peace. She is a psychoanalyst in Toronto. She can be reached at [email protected].
Why were those US jet fighters in Syrian airspace?
US and Israeli jet fighters are routinely violating Syrian airspace.
And why were they threatening a civilian passenger plane?
The unspoken truth is that US and (M.Ch. Global Research Editor)
**
Two US fighter jets came close to an Iranian passenger plane in Syrian airspace, causing the pilot to quickly change altitude to avoid collision, Iranian media reported on Thursday.
A video posted by Iran’s IRIB news agency showed a jet from the window of a plane and blood on the face of a passenger – reportedly as a result from an injury sustained during the sudden altitude change.
IRIB initially reported a single Israeli jet had come near the plane but later quoted the pilot as saying there were two jets which identified themselves as American.
The pilot of the passenger plane contacted the jet pilots to warn them about keeping a safe distance and the jet pilots identified themselves as American, IRIB reported.
Reuters reported that Mahan Air Flight 1152 – en route from Tehran to Beirut – landed safely in Lebanon’s capital and all passengers had disembarked.
The news agency said there were only minor injuries, according to the head of the Beirut airport.
Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency later reported that the plane had landed back in Tehran.
There was no immediate comment from the US or Israeli militaries.
A spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry said Tehran would take all necessary legal and political action after investigating the incident.
O Ministro da Defesa, Lorenzo Guerini (Partido Democrático) manifestou grande satisfação pelo voto “coeso” do Parlamento, sobre as missões internacionais. Excepto alguma divergência no apoio à Guarda Costeira de Trípoli, a maioria e a oposição aprovaram, de maneira compacta, sem voto contra e foram prorrogadas as principais “missões de manutenção da paz” em curso, há décadas, na peugada das guerras USA/NATO(nas quais a Itália participou) nos Balcãs, no Afeganistão e na Líbia, e na de Israel no Líbano, que fazem parte da mesma estratégia.
A estas foram acrescentadas algumas novas: a operação militar da União Europeia no Mediterrâneo, formalmente para “impedir o tráfico de armas na Líbia”; a missão da União Europeia de “apoio ao aparelho de segurança no Iraque”; a Missão da NATO para o fortalecimento do apoio aos países localizados no Lado Sul da Aliança.
Aumentou fortemente o compromisso militar italiano na África Subsaariana. As forças especiais italianas participam na Task Force Takuba, enviada ao Mali sob comando francês. Também opera no Níger, no Chade e em Burkina Faso, no âmbito da operação de Barkhane, ma qual estão envolvidos 4.500 soldados franceses, com veículos blindados e bombardeiros, oficialmente apenas contra as milícias jihadistas.
No Mali, a Itália também participa na Missão da União Europeia, EUTM, que fornece treino militar e “aconselhamento” às forças armadas deste e de outros países limítrofes. No Níger, a Itália tem a sua própria missão bilateral de apoio às forças armadas e, ao mesmo tempo, participa da missão da União Europeia EuCAP Sahel Níger, numa área geográfica que também inclui a Nigéria, o Mali, a Mauritânia, o Chade, Burkina Faso e o Benin.
O Parlamento italiano também aprovou o uso de “um dispositivo aéreo e naval nacional para actividades de presença, de vigilância e de segurança no Golfo da Guiné”. O objectivo declarado é “proteger os interesses estratégicos nacionais nesta área (leia os interesses da ENI – “Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi”), apoiando o navio mercante nacional em trânsito”.
Não é por acaso que as áreas africanas, nas quais se concentram as “missões de manutenção da paz”, são as mais ricas em matérias-primas estratégicas – petróleo, gás natural, urânio, coltan, ouro, diamantes, manganês, fosfatos e outros – exploradas por multinacionais americanas e europeias. No entanto, o seu oligopólio está agora ameaçado pela crescente presença económica da China.Não conseguindo combatê-la só através de meios económicos e vendo, ao mesmo tempo, diminuir a sua influência no interior dos países africanos, os Estados Unidos e as potências europeias recorrem à antiga, mas ainda eficaz, estratégia colonial: garantir os seus interesses económicos através de meios militares, incluindo o apoio às elites locais que baseiam o seu poder nas forças armadas.
A oposição às milícias jihadistas, a motivação oficial para operações como a da Task Force Takuba, é a cortina de fumo atrás da qual se escondem os verdadeiros objectivos estratégicos.
O governo italiano declara que as missões internacionais servem para “garantir a paz e a segurança destas zonas, para a protecção e para a tutela das populações”. Na realidade, as intervenções militares expõem as populações a riscos posteriores e, ao reforçar os mecanismos de exploração, agravam o seu empobrecimento, com o consequente aumento de fluxos migratórios para a Europa.
Para manter milhares de homens e veículos envolvidos em missões militares, a Itália utiliza mais de um bilião de euros, directamente, num ano, fornecidos (com dinheiro público) não só pelo Ministério da Defesa, mas também pelos Ministérios do Interior, da Economia das Finanças e pela Presidência do Conselho.
No entanto, esta soma é apenas a ponta do iceberg da crescente despesa militar (mais de 25 biliões por ano), devido ao ajuste de todas as forças armadas a essa estratégia. Aprovada pelo Parlamento com consentimento bipartidário unânime.
July 15, 2020. It was a day that will be remembered in the history of social media giant, Twitter.
In what is becoming an increasingly quotidian occurrence with such companies, Twitter faced a hack described as “catastrophic”. The company’s own language was milder: that day, “we detected a security incident at Twitter and took immediate action.” As of July 18, the company believed that the “attackers targeted certain Twitter employees through a social engineering scheme.” For the untainted, an explanation is offered. “In this context, social engineering is the intentional manipulation of people into performing certain actions and divulging confidential information.” Sounds awfully like Twitter itself.
This internal “social engineering” endeavour enabled the attackers in question to manipulate “a small number of employees and used their credentials to access Twitter’s internal systems, including getting through our two-factor protections.” As of that time, 130 Twitter accounts had been accessed and, of them, 45 had their passwords reset. Of these quarried accounts, eight involved the “additional step of downloading the account’s information through our ‘Twitter Data’ tool.” (On July 17, the social media giant noted “a lot of speculation about the identity of these 8 accounts” explaining that it would only “disclose this to the impacted accounts”. None were verified.)
In responding to the incident, Twitter admitted to being less than forthcoming, “deliberately limiting the detail we share on our remediation steps at this time to protect their effectiveness”. Some of these included disabling the means for verified accounts to send new tweets and locking down both affected and unaffected accounts.
“Most accounts should be able to Tweet again. As we continue working on a fix, this functionality may come and go,” Twitter Support announced.
The seized accounts were duly used to spread some fun in what transpired to be cryptocurrency scam centred on a Bitcoin account, though the amount amassed by the scam, being at most $120,000, was modest. The account of Bill Gates, for example, tweeted that, “Everyone is asking me to give back, and now is the time. I am doubling all payments sent to my BTC address for the next 30 minutes.” The accounts of former President Barack Obama, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Bien, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk also figured in the twitter spray.
Those behind the attack do not add up to the customarily sinister portrait of a non-state actor, even if they have sent a chill of tingling discomfort down the spine of the political establishment. The picture, rather, is that of a rabble bound by a petty and rather human objective. A hacker, with the handle “Kirk”, secured access to an administrative panel granting him privileged access to the accounts. Along with other individuals with such uninspired handles as “ever so anxious” and “lol”, compromised Twitter accounts were sold.
This soil, it has to be said, is heavily tilled. Such endeavours were already finding form in the efforts of scammers to impersonate Musk, not merely of Tesla and SpaceX fame but a noted follower of cryptocurrency. Faux accounts of Musk would make offers via Twitter, resulting in the transfer of cryptocurrency. The plausibility of the measure was assisted by bot networks and the occasional reply to a verified account. One such handle was @elomtusk, which, at a pinch, looks rather than @elonmusk. As Marina Coren noted in The Atlantic, “This fake account is just one of many in a growing ecosystem of scammers lurking in Musk’s mentions.”
Within Twitter itself, too many fingers, it seemed, were in the security pie. Those fingers, in turn, were unpoliced. This was the opinion of cybersecurity specialist at Saviynt, Melody Kaufmann, who suggested that an unwarranted number within the company had access to verified accounts. Protocols limiting the discretion of any single individual to alter trusted accounts also seemed lacking. “By integrating some measure of cross-checking, it ups the challenge in executing such an attack as it now requires multiple accounts or individuals with privileged access to be compromised at the same time.”
The implications are now being squeezed out of the attack. The fear that verified user accounts risk being hijacked, becoming zombie fronts for the spread of misinformation is gaining some undeserved momentum. The threat is being shaped for the occasion. Timewondered whether there was anything to be said about the fact that most of the figures targeted were of the “left”, a rather carefree use of the label. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo preferred to avoid the specifics of the Twitter hack, going straight to the external, interfering bogeyman in announcing a probe. “Foreign interference remains a grave threat to our democracy and New York will continue to lead the fight to protect our democracy and the integrity of our elections in any way we can.” With its 300 million users or so, “Twitter is a primary source of news for many, making it a target for bad actors.”
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri took it upon himself to send a chastening letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
“I am concerned that this event may represent not merely a coordinated set of separate hacking incidents but rather a successful attack on the security of Twitter itself.” He insisted that Dorsey “reach out immediately to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and take any necessary measures to secure the site before this breach expands.”
The FBI duly opened up an investigation into the incident. “At this time, the accounts appear to have been compromised in order to perpetuate cryptocurrency fraud.” Not wishing to miss the investigative boat into the social media behemoth, New York Attorney General Letitia Jameshas also begun an investigation in the name of transparency.
“Countless Americans rely on Twitter to read and watch the news, to engage in public debate, and to hear directly from political leaders, activists, business executives and other thought leaders.”
The misinformation Cassandras are only accurate to a point. If you believe everything you see on Twitter, you have embraced the silliest of superstitions. What is factual, let alone truthful, is rarely possible within the intellectually abridged space of a tweet, let alone a vituperative thread. This is a victory for the fearfully shallow.
*
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]
A speech made by David Lammy in parliament in January 2019 has gone viral on social media after every word was proved to be true by events which have unfolded over the past couple of days.
The Labour MP for Tottenham highlighted the “fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the Brexit debate” in an impassioned address.
He said that most MPs now recognise it in private, but do not say it in public that “Brexit is a con. A trick. A swindle. A fraud. A deception that will hurt most those people it promised to help. A dangerous fantasy which will make every problem it claims to solve worse.
“A campaign won on false promises and lies.
“Vote Leave and Leave.EU both broke the law. Russian interference is beyond reasonable doubt. And by now every single campaign promise made in 2016 has come unstuck.”
The damning 50-page document from the Commons intelligence and security committee said that ministers “had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes or any activity that has had a material impact on an election”.
In today’s newspapers the Independent said the report found no evidence of Russian interference over Brexit “because, despite four years of warnings, the Government hasn’t even looked for any yet”.
The Metro, on the other hand, featured an image of Big Ben amid Moscow’s Saint Basil’s Cathedral below the greeting “Welcome to Londongrad”.
US trade deal
Lammy also touched on the potential of a US trade deal “dismantling the NHS”, saying “Brexit will not enrich our NHS – it will impoverish it”.
On Monday an amendment designed to protect the NHS from being subject to any form of control from outside the UK in a future post-Brexit Trade Deal was voted down by 340 votes to 251 in parliament.
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas put forward the amendment with the support of Labour leader Keir Starmer and a number of other senior MPs.
She said:
“We do not want yet more warm words and nice rhetoric, what we want are some red lines in the negotiations, and the way to get them is to write them onto the face of this Bill”.
Immigration
Debates around immigration were also raised by the Tottenham MP in 2019, when he said:
“And even those promises on immigration – which has so greatly enriched our country – are a lie. After Brexit immigration will go up, not down.
“When we enter negotiations with countries like India and China, they will ask for three things. Visas. Visas. And more visas. And they will get them because we will be weak.”
Last week it was revealed that a post-Brexit FTA could give Turks special status when UK implements new migration rules.
That is despite Turkish immigration being used as a focal part of the campaign to Vote Leave.
Parliamentary sovereignty
On the issue of parliamentary sovereignty Lammy has once been proved to be bang on the money.
He said the “myth” of restoring parliamentary sovereignty has been shows to be a “joke”, with the Prime Minister “hoarding power like a deluded 21st century Henry the Eighth”.
“Impact assessments have been hidden. Votes resisted and blocked. Simple opponents of a government policy bullied and threatened to get into line.”
Yesterday Emily Thornberry warned parliament has been denied a “voice and a vote” over future trade deals after ministers resisted a Tory backbench attempt to give Parliament a definitive say.
She said:
“We have constantly warned that this Bill drives a cart and horse through the principles of parliamentary democracy, and nothing demonstrates that more than the story of its passage.
“Time and again last year, the flaws in this Bill were exposed and amendments were agreed in this House and in other places to correct them. But here we are tonight, with almost the exact same Bill. re-submitted and bulldozed through, with all its glaring flaws still intact.
“That is how little this government cares about democracy. That is how little they have cared about getting this Bill right, as opposed to just getting it through”.
Lammy’s speech
Read the rest of Lammy’s devastating speech here:
Mr Speaker, we are suffering from a crisis of leadership in our hour of need.
This country’s greatest moments came when we showed courage, not when we appeased. The courage of Wilberforce to emancipate the slaves, against the anger of the British ruling class. The courage of Winston Churchill to declare war on Hitler, against the appeasers in his cabinet and the country. The courage of Atlee and Bevan to nationalise the health service – against the doctors who protested it was not right.
Today we must be bold, because the challenges we face are just as extreme. We must not be afraid to tell the truth to those who do not agree.
Friends on this side of the house tell me to appease Labour voters in industrial towns. The former miners, the factory workers, those who feel they have been left behind.
I say we must not patronise them with cowardice. Let’s tell them the truth.
“You were sold a lie. Parts of the media used your fears to sell papers and boost viewing figures.”
Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson exploited the same prejudice to win votes. Shame on them.
Immigrants have not taken your jobs. Our schools and colleges failed to give you skills. Hospitals are not crumbling because of health tourists, but because a decade of austerity ground them down to the bone.
You cannot afford a house because both parties failed to build – not because Mohammed down the road who moved in.
And wealth was hoarded in London – when it should have been shared across the country.
Blame us, blame Westminster. Do not blame Brussels for our own country’s mistakes. And do not be angry at us for telling you the truth.
Be angry at the chancers who sold you a lie. As Martin Luther King said long ago. “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.”
So just as I speak plainly to the government this time around, let me also speak to the opposition about some home truths. There is no left-wing justification for Brexit. Ditching workers’ rights, social protections, and ending environmental cooperation is not progressive.
This is a project about neoliberal deregulation. It is Thatcherism on steroids, pushed by her modern day disciples. Leaving the EU will not free us from the injustices of global capitalism: it will make us subordinate to Trump’s US.
Socialism confined to one country will not work.
Whether you like it or not, the world we live in is global. We can only fix the rigged system if we cooperate across border-lines. The party of Keir Hardie has always been International.
We must not let down our young supporters by failing to stand with them on the biggest issue of our lives.
If we remain in the EU, we can reform it from the top table.
Share the load of mass migration, address excesses of the bureaucracy, and fix the inequalities between creditor and debtors. We can recharge the economy. We can re-fuel the NHS. We can build the houses we need, after years of hurt.
Hope is what we need.
*
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 mythology of Canada’s National Policy is a multi-layered fallacy of composition which must be addressed from the standpoint of locating Canada’s struggle for nationhood as locked in the midst of a battle between two conceptions of man and law expressed in the British vs. American systems of political economy. Before entering into any proper analysis of this problem, it must be stated at the outset that the primary fallacy of the Canadian National Policy of 1878-1885 is simply that the policy neither had a national origin, nor was Canada ever permitted by the British Empire to become a truly sovereign nation.
Understanding the true agenda behind Canada’s origins are necessary to understand why it has been the curse of Canada to be endowed with the most bountiful resources and landmass on the one side and the most underdeveloped population with only thirty three million inhabitants, strung across a 8900 kilometer border on the other, while its cousin to the south has a population of over 320 million. The average density per square mile is a mere 3.75 people per sq. km for Canada compared with 34 people per sq. km for the United States. This low density of the Canadian population is in keeping with the deliberate policy of the financial oligarchy to reduce the population of the globe from the current 7.6 billion to 1 billion people.
Today, as the world is threatened by the two-pronged threat of a collapse of world population by the destruction of food and water availability on the one side and thermonuclear war on the other, it is of dire necessity that such large scale development projects as the Bering Strait tunnel rail corridor be commenced post haste in the context of the new multipolar system being led by Russia and China.
The Bering Strait tunnel involves a U.S.-Canada-Russia-China alliance for Arctic development that would extend China’s Polar Silk Road into the Americas and touches on a policy fight which stretches back over 150 years and which I’ve written on extensively here and here and here. For this project to move forward however, it is imperative that Canada let go of its British imperial traditions.
These traditions which must be abandoned have historically defined Canada’s interests around either its “right to be left alone”, or “right to export raw materials as a hewer of wood and drawer of water”[1] and instead apply the superior form of sovereignty defined in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia as “the Benefit of the other”[2].
Before this can be done, certain ghosts which now haunt the Canadian identity must be identified and then, promptly exorcised. These ghosts shape the cultural/political reflexes which prevent Canada from joining with its neighbours to the south and north in a common mission centering around large scale scientific and technological endeavours. This exorcism must begin with the true story of Canada’s origins and “National Policy” of 1878.
What is the Canadian National Policy?
Over the years, the Canadian “National Policy” has taken on various forms. At its origins, it received its name from the general policy applied by the Conservative Party platform beginning in 1878 under the administration of Sir John A. Macdonald. The policy again arose under significantly diluted forms with successive Conservative governments beginning with the 1911-1919 administration of Sir Robert Borden, followed by the 1930-1935 R.B. Bennett government. The policy ended once and for all after the fall of the 1957-1963 Diefenbaker government.
The National Policy was the protectionist counter-program to the typically free trade policy represented by Canada’s other major party, the Liberals.
From the time of Wilfrid Laurier, to the rise of the “Laurier Liberals” (led by C.D. Howe, O.D. Skelton, Ernest Lapointe, the confused Prime Minister King and St. Laurent), the liberals tended to move towards an economic union of the Americas.
“Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as “The Round Table”, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”
The great confusion caused by the dishonest application of the National Policy’s protectionist policies by the Imperial Privy Council and Foreign Office, is to be found in the fact that rather than being applied by a sovereign nation striving for defense against imperial looting as the American republic had adopted similar measures after the 1787 framing of its Constitution, the Canadian example witnessed an empire’s use of the powerful tariff and associated investment program in order to keep its valuable colony under its iron grip. By maintaining control of the vast territory above the United States, Britain could both subvert America’s institutions more easily, while ensuring that the unification of America with their historical allies in Russia could not occur.
Then, as today, the true value of a protectionist policy of America lay in the fact that, when combined with sovereign control over public credit and a commitment to internal improvements and the general welfare, it provided the best line of defence from rapacious imperial intentions on the one side, while providing a powerful instrument for nation building on the other.
The dishonest application of the protective system during Canada’s history have achieved none of these ends.
Diefenbaker’s Misunderstanding
This Conservative National Policy was entirely scrapped after Prime Minister John Diefenbaker attempted to apply it to develop the productive powers of the nation under an honest, but naive vision for the first time in history. Diefenbaker’s policy, which threatened the Empire’s control of Canada was named the “Northern Vision”, or “New National Policy”, and was based on not merely a stroke of genius that called for the opening up of the great Arctic territories to scientific and industrial development but a new system of funding through the Bank of Canada. Diefenbaker’s failure to achieve his objective not only arose from the active nests of Rhodes Scholars within and without his own cabinet who strove to sabotage it, but from his own inability to reconcile his love of progress and creative pioneering change, with his love for his British traditions, which were derived from an intrinsic antagonism to progress and creative change. This has come to be known as the “Diefenbaker Paradox”.
Diefenbaker’s ‘New National Policy” announced in 1957 took its inspiration from a popular misunderstanding of the first “National Policy” of his idol, Sir John A. Macdonald. Although Macdonald’s policy involved the adoption of a protective tariff to favour local Canadian manufacturing and agriculture, and internal improvements vectored on the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, this policy lacked substance as it was not applied against an Imperial intention, but was rather itself an Imperial policy which desired to preserve a strategic North American colony by a dying British Empire.
Although similar in outward form to the Hamiltonian American System adopted a century earlier by the founding fathers of the United States in order to achieve economic independence from the British Empire, the Canadian version lacked all of the substance. It was rather the case that Macdonald’s “progressive” policy was nothing more than an illusion designed to break Canada off from any unification of mission with an America then being shaped by Abraham Lincoln’s nation building dynamic.
The Shadows of a Fraud
The period of 1865-1871 remains one of the densest in terms of potential for the establishment of an evolutionary phase shift in human history that had begun with the success of the American Revolution and the Renaissance view of man over the bestial dark age view embodied in British imperial traditions.
A quick overview of a timeline of the sweeping events following 1865 will provide the historian a valuable reference point in which to expose the principled drama shaping those dates and events.
April-May 1865: Lincoln’s victory over British sponsored Confederacy. Lincoln is assassinated by John Wilkes Booth via an operation run out of British Canada [3].
March 30, 1867: Alaska is purchased from the Russians by Secretary of State William Seward, a firm believer in Manifest Destiny. The Russians had earlier saved America in 1863 by Czar Alexander II’s deployment of the Russian fleet to the coasts of America in San Franciso and New York. Major allies from both nations recognized the vital extension of rail between the continents even during the Civil War.
March 1867: The first British Columbia annexation movement petition for leaving the British Empire and joining America is presented to Queen Victoria.
July 1, 1867: The British North America Act is established creating a federation of four Canadian provinces under a British-modeled constitution. B.C. resists joining due in large measure to the vast expanse of land separating it from the eastern confederated colonies.
July 18, 1868: Rupert’s Land (the vast private territory separating B.C from the eastern colonies) is purchased from the Hudson’s Bay Company by an Act of Parliament in British Canada establishing this territory as “crown land”.
May 10, 1869: The U.S. Trans-Continental Rail line is completed (begun by Lincoln in 1863) establishing the world’s first rail line crossing a continent and opening up both the middle of America to Manifest Destiny and providing a link to California from the Atlantic. The Colony of British Columbia benefits enormously from the increased access to trade.
June 10, 1869: B.C.’s anti-Confederation Governor Frederick Seymour dies under mysterious circumstances.
December 10, 1869:a 2nd Annexation petition from B.C. merchants and politicians is delivered to President Ulysses S. Grant. Grant and his colleagues make their interest known to the public.
July 20, 1871: Arrangements for B.C’s entry into Confederation are streamlined.
Penetrating Deeper into the Cause of Shadows
By the time of Lincoln’s 1865 victory over the British-financed Confederate South, events were moving at great speed. The continued application of Lincoln’s American System practices of protectionism, public credit and internal improvements was resulting in the greatest potential for growth in world history. British Canada’s failure to break free of the mother country almost 100 years earlier had resulted in a stagnant and underdeveloped economy which was both divided internally, and rift with annexation movements exploding from British Columbia to Nova Scotia in eastern Canada. Former leaders of the Rebellion of Lower Canada of 1837 such as Louis-Joseph Papineau became ardent leaders in the Annexation movement of Quebec that peaked with the Annexation manifesto of 1849 and whose currents were still strongly felt across Quebec… especially among the Eastern Townships largely settled by Americans.
In the United States America, awareness of British-Canada’s pro-Confederacy policy of terrorist operations, hosting the Confederacy Secret Service and even the assassination of Lincoln from Montreal were much better understood than they are today.
The Annexation Bill of 1866 introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives stated:“from the date thereof, the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, with limits and rights as by the act defined, are constituted and admitted as States and Territories of the United States of America.”[4] The Bill also authorized $10 million dollars to be used to purchase the vast private territory of the Hudson’s Bay Company, known as Rupert’s Land and the North West Territories. Vast public improvement programs were also authorized in the bill centering around canal building, and rail through the Maritimes from New York.
The Hudson’s Bay Territory was a strange phenomenon in North America. From 1670 until 1869, the vast largely unexplored and undeveloped wilderness was the private property of the Hudson’s Bay Company, who, having received a Royal Charter under King Charles II, had the duty as a subsidiary of the British East India Company’s global operation, to maintain an operation of a vast corrupt fur trade on the one side while blocking American ventures into continental development on the other [see figure 1]. The Colonies still in the possession of Britain, north of the United States, had very little opportunity to develop into anything more than “hewers of wood and drawers of water” because of this fact.
The second important post-Civil War development took place on March 30, 1867 with the Alaska Purchase.
Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward and his close ally Senator Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, advanced a bill for the annexation of the Russian territory in North America for the fire sale price of $7 million dollars. It was after all, the Russian Navy under Czar Alexander II that had worked with Sumner and Seward to tip the balance of the Civil War in Lincoln’s favour, by extending their entire fleet to the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of America as a warning to European powers not to aid the Confederacy in the conflict [5]. This purchase (popularly called by modern fools as “Seward’s Folly”), suddenly made British Columbia very hot real estate. During this 1867 purchase, Lincoln’s Trans Continental Railway, begun in 1863 at the height of the Civil War was a mere two years from completion, linking the Pacific to Atlantic for the first time in history and thus destroying the British monopoly over maritime shipping routes.
With students of Lincoln’s program to be found among the intelligentsia of Russia, led by Count Sergei Witte and Dimitri Mendeleev, the American modeled (and largely American-built) Trans-Siberian Railway’s construction was not far away, and the linking of rail across the two continents was discussed as a real possibility by republican visionaries the world over.
Although the annexation bill of 1866 had the support of men such as William Seward and his ally Senator Charles Sumner, it never entered the Senate and was not voted upon. This Bill’s appearance, combined with the Alaskan purchase, and the growing independence and annexation movements across Canada, did however give Britain the sense of existential urgency to consolidate its territories under some form of imperial federation beholden to the British Crown at all costs. The Colonies of Canada, so close to Britain’s mortal enemy were far too geopolitically important for the Empire to lose at this moment in history.
The Fraud of the BNA Act
The first vital maneuver conducted by the British as a response to these developments, merely three months after the Alaska purchase, was the speedy completion of the confederation of the four easternmost colonies under the British North America Act of July 1, 1867 [6], renaming Upper and Lower Canada as “the provinces of Ontario and Quebec”. The BNA Act was the consolidation of 72 resolutions hammered out in two 1864 conferences which were designed to thwart the dynamic of American Annexationists on the one side and honest Canadian Nationalists such as the President of the Executive Council Isaac Buchanan (under the Macdonald-Cartier government) who worked valiantly not only to unite Canada with Lincoln’s America, but also fought to keep Canada out of any further wars with Great Britain [7]. Buchanan had lost this powerful position by a coup inside of his party run by his nemesis George Brown and John A. Macdonald. While Brown and Macdonald appeared to public view as enemies, the reality was that they were both beholden to the City of London’s interests for the entirety of their lives, and chose to adapt themselves to a rigged game of free market “Grits” on the left (Brown) and “protectionist” Tories on the right (Macdonald). This is the root of the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada.
The fraud of the BNA Act merits a greater analysis, but for the present purposes, it suffices to demonstrate that it did not establish a “sovereign nation of Canada” as is popularly held. Rather, the architecture merely maintained a framework of pure British Privy Council control of Canadian affairs, permitting only an illusory degree of democracy. By establishing its foundations not upon a Principle of the General Welfare, nor acknowledging the existence of unalienable rights as embodied in Canada’s southern cousin, the Canadian Constitution is a very different beast. Its preamble literally states:
“Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom: And Whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire”[8]
According to this preamble, the “raison d’être” of Canada is not the defense of the general welfare of its people, but rather the promotion of interests of the British Empire!
The BNA Act used the old British trick of the “fur blanket” bribe used first in 1774 to keep Quebec from joining the rebellious 13 colonies under the “Quebec Act”[9]. The Act gave the Dominion of Canada increased legislative control over its local affairs by forming for the first time, a federal structure around a Parliament, Judiciary and Senate which would have the appearance of power only, while the true power always remained in the powerful office of the Crown and its agents in the Privy Council Office and Governor General. This fact is laid out in several sections within the act:
“The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.”
Since the Monarch herself could not be in every Dominion at the same time, provisions were made to ensure that her absolute authority would be actively arranging the affairs of state modeled on the British Privy Council system:
“There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada; and the Persons who are to be Members of that Council shall be from Time to Time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and Members thereof may be from Time to Time removed by the Governor General.”
Peppered throughout the Act are ongoing references to the importance of the Queen’s Privy Council of Canada to “advise” the government under the absolute authority of the Governor General, who is still legally recognized as the only head of state and legal representative of the Crown. Responsibility to keep the individual provinces under coordinated control was left to the power of the Lieutenant Governors assigned to each province. The real seat of power ensuring optimal control of Canadian federal policy by its London masters, especially in the field of economic warfare has been from this time on, the Privy Council, of which every single Prime Minister of Canada has been a member [10]. And just in case one might think that the Canadian military would be exempt from this control, the Act goes on to read:
The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen [11]
In order to ensure that Canada was to remain as fragmented as possible and no strong federal structure of checks and balances modeled on the American System could occur, the Act also laid out in Section 92, a framework which gave the largest possible power to the provinces to control their own resources, taxation and internal policy outside of any federal structure.
Sir John A. Macdonald, the Aryan Anglophile
Sir John A. Macdonald, the primary father of Confederation, was appointed Canada’s 1st Prime Minister by the Governor General and knighted on the day of its passage for services rendered to the British Empire. In his last election campaign speech before his death in 1891, Macdonald, now celebrated as the great nationalist, stated
“A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die”… strange words for the “founding father” of a supposedly “sovereign” nation.
On closer examination, it may come as no surprise to some that this Anglophobe “father of Confederation” was little more than a racist bigot who also advocated for an ‘Aryan Canada’, cleansed of the Asiatic races, then being used as slave labour to build the Canadian Pacific Rail into the west [12].
A paradox is here presented. If Britain has traditionally kept its Colonies consciously underdeveloped in order to maintain fixed, and thus easy-to-control systems of equilibrium, then under what intention did the British Crown and Privy Council mandate the construction of a rail system from the east coast of Canada all the way to the coastal limit of British Columbia in the west unleashing vast rates of increase in prosperity of the nation? The opening up of the Prairies to development had been something which the Empire, using its Hudson’s Bay Company had been working for over 200 years to prevent… so why did this policy change during the period of Macdonald?
A clue to this question can be found in Macdonald’s famous 1867 quote: “I would be quite willing, personally to leave the whole country a wilderness for the next half century, but I fear if Englishmen do not go there the Yankees will.”
The Historical Dynamic leading up to B.C. Bribe of 1870
Up until 1870, the fate of the new BNA Act was still highly questionable. The Nova Scotian annexation movement had risen to new levels of influence with the post 1867 collapse of their fisheries dominated economy. This collapse was shaped by 1) new binding free trade treaties with Britain which the new Confederacy was subject to and 2) the 1865 cancelling of the U.S.-Canada “Reciprocity Treaty of 1854” by the Americans in response to the British support for the southern rebels during the Civil War. No other path to survival could be seen by the republican Nova Scotians but changing its alliances and breaking out of the 1867 BNA Act. If they would do so, then it was all but guaranteed that New Brunswick would do the same. Meanwhile turmoil in the Red River Settlement (located in today’s Manitoba) had also imbued deep concerns in the British Empire.
Of far more strategic significance to the continuation of the British Empire’s interests than the Red River Settlement or east coast annexation movements, was the troubling developments occurring in the colony of British Columbia. After the 1867 American purchase of Alaska, British Columbia had become very hot real estate. Lincoln republicans in America led by William Seward and Senator Sumner, made their intention of annexation of B.C. well known.
Frustrating matters for the British was the reality that the deep economic depression in B.C. [13], combined with the colony’s vast geographical separation from of its confederated sister colonies on the east coast had resulted in a massive yearning in its inhabitants for annexation into the United States, some on principle and some simply for survival.
Out of sheer desperation, leading merchants and politicians of the colony sent the first Annexation Petition to Queen Victoria on July 2, 1867 which laid out a politely worded ultimatum:
“Either, that Your Majesty’s Government may be pleased to relieve us immediately of the expense of our excessive staff of officials, assist the establishment of a British steam-line with the Panamas, so that immigration from England may more easily reach us, and also assume the debts of the colonies, Or that your Majesty will graciously permit the colony to become a portion of the United States” [14]
In response to this petition, no formal response was given beyond an appeal for the colony to join the confederation. Knowing this was impossible, Governor of the Colony of B.C., Frederick Seymour, who was also a powerful opponent of Confederation, wrote to the Duke of Buckingham later that month describing the situation:
“There is a systemic agitation going on in this town in favour of annexation to the United States. It is believed that money for its maintenance is provided from San Francisco. As yet, however, nothing else has reached me officially on the subject, and should any petition on the subject, I will know how to answer it before I transmit it to your Grace. On the mainland, the question of annexation is not moot.” [15]
As the subsequent year passed, with still no traction on either side, the tension grew more feverish with greater quantities of British loyalists defecting to the annexation camp out of sheer despair. An April 20, 1869 Letter to the Editor of the British Columbian expresses this sentiment well:
“With a depleted treasury, revenue falling off, and the Colony suffering from a depression beyond all precedent, with no prospect, either present, or remote, of immigration, what are we to do? … Were the inhabitants of British Columbia a thriving community, the question of annexation would not be popular; for the people are loyal and patriotic. The force of circumstances alone compels them to advocate a change in nationality… I am a loyal Briton, and would prefer living under institutions of my own country, were it practicable. But I, like the rest of the world of which we are each an atom, would prefer the flag and institutions of the United States with prosperity, to remaining as we are, with no prospect of succeeding as a British Colony”. [16]
Such sentiment, resulted in a second, more powerfully worded petition signed by 100 influential leading citizens, now directed both to the Queen as well as the President of the United States. It read:
“We are constrained by the duty we owe to ourselves and families, in view of the contemplated severance of the political ties which unite this Colony to the “Mother country”, to seek for such political and commercial affinity and connection, as will insure the immediate and continued prosperity and wellbeing of this our adopted home…
That we view with feelings of alarm the avowed intention of Her Majesty’s Government to confederate this Colony with the Dominion of Canada, as we believe such a measure can only tend to still further depression and ultimate injury for the following reasons, viz:
That Confederation cannot give us protection against internal enemies or foreign foes, owing to the distance of this Colony from Ottawa,
That it cannot open to us a market for the produce of our lands, our forests, our mines or our waters.
That it cannot bring us population, (our greatest need) as the Dominion itself is suffering from a lack of it.
That our connection with the Dominion can satisfy no sentiment of loyalty or devotion.
That her commercial and industrial interests are opposed to ours.
That the tariff of the Dominion will be the ruin of our farmers and the commerce of our chief cities.
… The only remedy for the evils which beset us, we believe to be in a close union with the adjoining States and Territories, we are already bound to them by a unity of object and interest; nearly all our commercial relations are with them; They furnish the Chief Markets we have for the products of our mines, lands and waters; They supply the Colony with most of the necessities of life; They furnish us the only means of communication with the outer world;…
For these reasons we earnestly desire the ACQUISITION of this Colony by the United States.”[17]
A copy of the petition was given to Vincent Collyer, the great American painter and Indian Commissioner of Alaska which he personally delivered to President Ulysses S. Grant. The press dispatch from the office of the President printed in the British Colonist of January 11, 1870 read:
“Washington D.C. December 30, Vincent Collyer yesterday handed to the President [Grant] a memorial signed by a number of property holders and businessmen in Victoria to be followed by another which will contain the names of all the British merchants and others at Victoria, Nanaimo and other places, in favor of the transfer of British Columbia to the United States. The President today returned Collyer a verbal reply that he had received it with great interest and sent it to the Secretary of State. Collyer also showed a memorial to Senator Sumner, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, who, after reading it, said the movement was important and could have but one termination. Meanwhile, the government waits to movement of England which is fast seeing the uselessness and impracticability of European Empire on this hemisphere. Both the President and Sumner desired their replies to be made known to the memorialists” [18]
By now, it was a race against time. The colonists knew that Britain was preparing vigorously to regain control of their colony. In July of 1868, the Crown mandated that an Act of British Canada’s parliament allocate funds to purchase Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territories from the Hudson’s Bay Company, which occurred that same month erasing one major obstacle to British negotiations. On the other hand, by May 10, 1869, the American Transcontinental Railway was completed, linking for the first time an entire continent by rail from coast. A ferry system already existed from B.C. to California, bringing a boom of prosperity to the poor colony and making the feasibility of a rail extension from America into the colony that much more realistic.
The deadly mistake made by the author of the press dispatch, including President Grant was their assumption that England’s intention could be accessed by the loud voices of some of its members of parliament calling for a release of British Columbia. It was and still is the case that the true seat of power of Britain is located far above the parliament in the form of the Queen’s Privy Council and Foreign Office which then had no intention whatsoever of losing this vital possession. Although Sumner and Seward were far less naïve on this matter, the majority of leading Americans, the President included, didn’t fully “get it”. The British Minister in Washington writing to his London associates is useful in providing insight into the British oligarchy’s perception of events:
“The circumstance, the existing disturbance in the Hudson’s Bay Settlement [Red River Colony –ed], and the asserted disaffection in Nova Scotia, are much commented upon by the newspapers of this country, and are looked upon as the beginning of a separation of the British provinces from the mother country, and of their early annexation to the United States. This view of the matter is put in connection with the settlement of the differences with us arising out of the “Alabama Affair”, and senators are evidently indulging in the illusive hope that England has it in her power, and might not be unwilling to come to an amicable settlement of those differences on the basis of the cessation of our territory on this continent to the United States” [19].
The greatest tragedy of patriots everywhere in dealing with the British have been their tendency not to look upon the true nature of its evil soul. This letter demonstrates clearly the disdain that British imperialists have felt towards the naïve idealism of the victims whom they intend to destroy. An evil intention animated by a passionate desire to destroy the good will go to any ends of deceit in order to turn any obstacle against their power into a weapon against their naïve enemies. A case in point can be found in the reference made by the British ambassador to the “Alabama Affair”.
The Alabama Affair
By the end of the Civil War, Sumner and Seward led American patriots to go on the offensive against the true instigator of the war… not the southern confederacy, but the British Empire. The powerful flank which they chose to use as their weapon was the open fact that Confederate Warships used against Lincoln’s forces were built and supplied by the British under direct orders of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell. The most famous and destructive of the British-made war ships was the “C.S.S. Alabama”.
These American patriots began an international fight over Britain’s obligation to pay reparations for damages incurred during the war known as the “Alabama Claims”. Upon Seward’s purchase of Alaska, Senator Sumner began mobilizing for the demand of $2 billion from Britain or the annexation of its North American territories. Although Seward was highly favorable to the plan, British stalling tactics kept the Alabama Claims fight on hold for years. During these important years, America had lost much of its powerful bargaining chips and British control of its territories had advanced too far. By March of 1871, Grant’s appointed Secretary of State Hamilton Fish worked out an agreement with Britain on the Alabama Claims resulting in a mere $15.5 million dollars and an end to all similar disputes regarding Britain’s role in sponsoring the Southern Confederacy during the Civil War. This became known as “the Washington Treaty”. Much of the potential that was alive two years earlier had by then been sabotaged. It is of interest that one of the key arbitrators of the Alabama Claims was also Canada’s very active Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald.
The Elimination of Governor Seymour
During the months preceding the 2nd B.C. Annexation petition, a major tragedy befell the republican cause with the untimely death of Governor Frederick Seymour, who had been a long-time enemy of Confederation. In the short months before Seymour’s death on June 10, 1869, he had enraged the highest echelons of the Empire’s civil servants such as Sir Frederick Rogers, Undersecretary of State for the Colonies who, upon discovering that Seymour had suppressed information for months from the Colonial Office that a vote in favour of Confederation had occurred in the B.C. Legislature wrote “it appears that on March 28 last, the Council passed a Resolution in favour of admission which however Governor Seymour only now [November 4] sends through in his March telegram he said he would write.” [20]
What Sir Rogers is also revealing is that the British had two confederacy plans for the Continent of North America: one in the South of the United States and one in the North of the United States.
When the next opportunity to vote on Confederation occurred in February 17, 1869, Governor Seymour again sabotaged the pro-confederacy supporters and the British Crown, as he now convinced the legislature to postpone as no details were worked out on the settling of the Hudson’s Bay Company land purchase.
John A. Macdonald wrote in anger on May 15 to the Governor General of Canada saying “the first thing to be done will be to recall Governor Seymour if his time is not run out” [21], and on the same day he wrote to the pro-confederation Premier of New Brunswick, Sir Anthony Musgrave informing him that Seymour would be recalled: “as being perfectly unfit for his present position, under present circumstances. From all I hear, he was never fit for it” [22].
Within two weeks of Macdonald’s writing these two telegrams, Governor Seymour was dead. The official story holds that Seymour was sent to the harsh northern tip of B.C. to mediate a conflict between two warring native tribes. Upon his success, Seymour was struck with dysentery and died within days. Seymour was immediately replaced with Macdonald’s ally, Sir Anthony Musgrave, and the annexation movement lost its secret defender. Musgrave immediately set to work preparing for B.C.’s entry into Confederation with the March 1870 “Great Confederation Debates” begun in the legislature and culminated on April 6 with 16 clauses and Resolutions voted upon. Delegates were sent to Ottawa to negotiate these Resolutions while the republican movement in B.C. could only watch helplessly. Final appeals were made during this dark hour by leading citizens to the American Government, evidenced by the following letter of August 17, 1870 written by H.F. Heisterman [23] a leading merchant of the annexation movement:
“Understanding that you are likely to have his Excellency President Grant among you some time this month and that you will likely have an opportunity, I herewith hand you a further list of names to the memorial presented in December 1869 by Vincent Collyer. It would have been sent then, but owing to the hostility shown to it by the Canadian newspaper here it was not sent. I therefore transmit it to you, to make whatever use of it you see fit in the premises. It is exasperating to me and my fellow citizens, to see a country aggregating 405 000 square miles, of which 11 000 square miles comes upon Vancouver Island and 6000 upon Queen Charlotte Island and the balance 388 000 sq. miles upon the mainland of British Columbia, shut out as it were from the prosperity around it. The people of the colony are too few to make an armed resistance to confederation which seems on all accounts intended to be forced on us unless some countenance were given to parties who desire annexation to the United States by the government of President Grant, in a proposal to settle the Alabama Claim by the transfer of this colony, I don’t see how we can move in the matter.” [24]
The B.C. Bribe is Finalized
Musgrave’s agents advanced negotiations at breakneck speed. Ottawa negotiations began on June 7, 1870 and within weeks nearly all resolutions and clauses were agreed upon. The two biggest impediments to B.C.’s entry into the Confederacy were dealt with by the payment of all of the colony’s debts by Ottawa and the promise made by Macdonald to construct a rail line linking the new province with Montreal and Quebec “within ten years”. This promised rail line was necessary in order to sabotage the intention of the American Manifest Destiny policy.
Sir Alexander Galt, a fellow father of Confederation and proponent of Canadian expansion, speaking to a crowd on May 22, 1867 in Lennoxville Quebec described his views on the need to extend confederation and rail to the Pacific:
“We cannot close our eyes to what is happening in the West… I for one look upon the acquisition of Russian America by the United States as their answer to the arrangements we have been making to unite among ourselves… If the United States desire to outflank us on the west, we must accept the situation and lay our hand on British Columbia and the Pacific Ocean. This country cannot be surrounded by the Unites States- We are gone if we allow it… “From the Atlantic to the Pacific” must be the cry in British America as much as it has ever been in the United States”
Another Father of Confederation George Brown, who ran the influential Toronto Globe and heavily promoted Canada’s trans-continental railway, wrote on July 10, 1867 that
“Seward’s attempt to coerce Canada by the purchase of Walrussia has brought down upon him the laughter of mankind and has not altered one white the determination of the people of British America from Prince Edward Island to Cancouver to stand by the old flag to the last man and the last cartridge”
Sir George Etienne Cartier stated in 1865 dreaded the immanent annexation of Canada by saying “We must either have a Confederation of British North America or else be absorbed by the American Confederation.”
With these arrangements agreed upon (paralleling similar arrangements in the former Red River Settlement), British Columbia was admitted into Confederation as the 6th Canadian Province [25]. Within the coming decades, as Canada was increasingly turned into a wedge blocking US-Russian collaboration and arctic development. Saskatchewan and Alberta were formed as provinces where there had formerly been Hudson’s Bay land.
After eight years, still no progress had been made on the construction of the promised rail linking the Dominion and again, British Columbia continued to feel the painful grip and despair of isolation and economic depression. This pain was made that much worse, as the republican neighbour to the south was witnessing unheard of prosperity under the effects of Lincoln’s Trans continental Railroad and vigorous pioneering of the west. The American System’s continuation of John Quincy Adams’ Manifest Destiny policy, led by Lincoln’s economic advisor Henry C. Carey had resulted in the greatest explosion of wealth in the United States, and become a model for the whole civilized world with the 1876 Centennial Celebration in Philadelphia.
The superiority of the American System to the failure of the wicked British System of Free Trade resulted in America becoming the world’s leading productive power.
Converts to the American System were made by all lovers of progress from around the world who came to the Convention. Germany under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck vigorously applied American System practices of high protective tariffs and vast internal improvements. Czar Alexander II and his close circle of Russian advisors applied the American model for the vast modernization of Russia vectored around the Trans-Siberian Rail with the great scientist Dimitri Mendeleev chairing the Committee on Protectionism [26]. Even Japan under the Meiji Restoration applied the American model to escape feudalism and enter the modern age.
In light of this dynamic, leading voices for progress in Canada again began to clamour for real independence from the trap of the British System that they had fallen into. Even some among the greatest enemies of the late Governor Seymour were gripped by this frustration of progress, exemplified by Amor De Cosmos, then a Liberal MP for Victory, who in May 1878 arose in parliament and warned that if rail development did not begin immediately, then British Columbia would annex into the United States!
A Clone is Born without a Soul
The threat of losing Canada to the United States having once again resurfaced, Sir John A. Macdonald was brought back into power after a five year role in opposition under a dysfunctional Liberal Government. The new platform which the Privy Council used to steamroll him back into office was called “The National Policy”. This program was based on a perverse copy of the American Policy of high tariffs, the speedy construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the creation of new agricultural zones, open immigration and other internal improvements, yet with one caveat… it’s governing intention was aimed not at building a sovereign nation of Canada, but rather the ultimate destruction of America and a reconstruction of global British imperial hegemony.
The National Policy featured a sweet deal with the Canadian Pacific Railway which was incorporated in 1881 and was granted a generous $25 million subsidy from Ottawa along with 10 million hectares of rich land. The CPR was also exempted from paying taxes for the next 20 years. Five years later, on June 28, 1886, the first CPR train left Montreal and, like a slap on the face to all republicans in Canada, and at the same time demonstrating its true anti-American intention, was timed to arrive on July 4, 1886 at Port Moody in British Columbia.
Due to the inability of American System patriots to continue the trajectory of progress unleashed by Lincoln’s victory, the unification of intention of Russia and America was never finalized, the material division which fed a spiritual disease later capitalized upon by the British Foreign Office architects of the wars of the 20thcentury (including the Cold War which was only unleashed over the dead body of FDR).
Similarly, Berlin to Baghdad rail developments as well as similar rail programs planned between Germany and France and both to Russia had resulted in a dynamic of division which the British capitalized upon to instigate the irrational meat grinders known as World Wars I and II. Due to similar frauds, the birth of a sovereign Canada was derailed, and a population, occupying one of the richest and largest territories in the world, was subject to a dynamic which has left it vastly underdeveloped, with the lowest population density in the world of 34 million for a land area of almost 10 million square kilometers. A single state of California alone sustains over 38 million inhabitants while most of that is desert!
The Conclusion of a Fallacy. Let the Truth Begin Again.
The paradox of “Canadian Nationalism” can only be efficiently addressed by first recognizing the power of progress as a universal phenomenon, expressed both in biological evolution of species, and human evolution of civilization which Lincoln’s advisor Henry Carey referred to as the “increasing powers of association of labor, producer, and consumer”. This power towards increasing self-conscious creative thought actively with an intention to perfect the universe, is so powerful that even those regressive policies expressed by the oligarchical principle must submit and adapt to it.
The power of this anti-entropic capacity of human creativity to leap outside of closed systems of material/intellectual limits in order to discover a higher organizing principle and willfully act in conformity with it, is expressed most clearly in recent history by the American Constitutional System and its affiliated view of man as a creature made in the image of its Creator.
The adoption of momentary progress in order to annihilate a greater good was considered a necessary evil on the part of the leading strategists of the British Empire’s Privy Council, then centered around Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston of the powerful British Foreign Office. The influential pro-American System faction of Canadian patriots operating under the leadership of Isaac Buchanan was removed from power with the full adoption of the “National Policy” which followed the British North America Act of 1867. These policies stymied the birth of a true sovereign nation.
To the horror of the British Empire in 1958, John Diefenbaker and his collaborators were inspired by the progress achieved during this period of rapid Canadian development, and attempted to reproduce this process once again except with an important ingredient lacking in Sir John A. Macdonald… a devout love of unbounded progress without ulterior motive for destroying America. This approach of an active “nationalism” whose aim was to effect an increase of national power, was about to clash directly with the passive “New Nationalism” then being artificially crafted by the nest of Rhodes scholars working for the British Foreign Office’s Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) under the likes of Vincent Massey, Georges Henri Levesque, and Walter Gordon.
This perverted “Nationalism” was merely a conduit selected to promote cultural irrationalism, and the acceptance of fascism masquerading as “zero-technological growth”, otherwise known as the “New Cult of Eugenics” or “environmentalism” aimed at destroying the whole continent of North America.
*
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.
[1] This historic economic identity has been re-embodied in recent years with the nation-killing North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
[2] The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 not only ended the 30 Years War that ravaged Europe, but also established the basis for the modern form of sovereign nation state defining international law for the subsequent 350+ years. The pre-amble of the Treaty read in part: “That this Peace and Amity be observ’d and cultivated with such a Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they may see this Peace and Friendship in the Roman Empire, and the Kingdom of France flourish, by entertaining a good and faithful Neighbourhood.” And can be read as a whole here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp
[5] Known as “the Great Liberator”, Czar Alexander II was so inspired by Lincoln’s vision that he followed the American program of emancipation when he liberated the serfs in 1861. His life was cut short by an assassins’ bomb in 1881.
[6] The belief that the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms replaced the 1867 BNA Act is nothing more than a mythology. As section 60 of the Charter clearly lays out: “This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982”… meaning the 1867 Act is still in full force to this day.
[7] Buchanan’s famous December 1863 speech provides a clear insight into his principles: “The adoption by England for herself of this transcendental principle [Free Trade] has all but lost the Colonies, and her madly attempting to make it the principle of the British Empire would entirely alienate the Colonies. Though pretending to unusual intelligence, the Manchester Schools are, as a class, as void of knowledge of the world as of patriotic principle… As a necessary con-sequence of the legislation of England, Canada will require England to assent to the establishment of two things: 1st, an American Zollverein [aka: Customs Union]. 2nd: Canada to be made neutral territory in time of any war between Eng-land and the United States”. Cited in Isaac Buchanan’s Relations of the Industry of Canada with the Mother Country and the United States, 1864, p. 9-22
[9] Pierre Beaudry, The Tragic Consequences of the Quebec Act of 1774, The Canadian Patriot Special Edition, 2012, www.committeerepubliccanada.ca
[10]Today the oath of office which every single Prime Minister has taken upon entering office reads: “ I, __________, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty. So help me God.” http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=316
[11] This 1867 mandate was re-affirmed in Section 14 of the National Defence Act of 1985 with the words: “The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.”
[12] During the 1885 Commons debates on the Electoral Fran-chise Act, Sir John is quoted with the following racist state-ment: “The Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics… the cross of those races, like the cross of the dog and the fox, is not successful. It cannot be and never will be.” He also went on to say that “if the Chinese were given voting rights then “the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed”. [citation from Tim Stanley’s Ottawa Citizen article: “John A. Macdonald wanted an ‘Aryan’ Canada”, August 2012]
[13] The depression then being suffered by B.C. was caused by the collapse of the speculative bubble of the 1857-58 gold rush wherein over 30 000 settlers stormed into town alongside 20 000 prospectors. Entire towns sprung up over night, and land speculation soared. The bubble popped in the mid 1860s leading to the deepest recession in the colony’s history.
[14] Annexation Petition, July 1867, enclosed in Allen Francis to F.H. Seward, July 2, 1867, Consular letters from Victoria to Vancouver Island, Dept. of State, archives, Washington D.C., vol. 1
[15] Letter of Seymour to Buckingham, July 26, 1867 cited in William Ireland, The Annexation Petition of 1869”, British History Quarterly, vol. 4 1940, p. 268
[16] Letter cited in William Ireland, Annexation Petition of 1869.
[17] Ibid. p.270
[18] The British Colonist, Jan. 11, 1870. Cited in William Ireland, Annexation Petition of 1869, p.271
[19] Minister Thornton to Clarendon, January 3, 1870, cited in Ireland’s Annexation Petition of 1869, p.285
[20] Sir John A. Macdonald to Sir John Young, May 25, 1869, PAC., Macdonald Papers, Letterbrook 12 972, cited in Frederick Seymour: The Forgotten Governor, Margaret Ormsby, B.C. Studies no. 22, Summer 1974, p. 20
[21] Ibid p. 21
[22] Heistermann was also the Grand Secretary of the Provincial Grand Lodge of British Columbia
[23] F.H. Heisterman to W.H. Oliver, Aug. 17, 1870, cited in William Ireland, The Annexation Petition of 1869, p. 274
[24] The Red River Colony became the Province of Manitoba on May 12, 1870 with the Manitoba Act.
[25] Both Saskatchewan and Alberta joined confederation as provinces in 1905
[26] This is the same Mendeleev who had recently discovered the ordering principle, now called the “Periodic Table of Ele-ments”. While Chairing the Commission on Protectionism, Mendeleyev astutely annihilated the argument for free trade ending with the following remarks in an 1891 Tariff paper: “Belonging to the small circle of Russians who have given their entire lives to science, who own neither factories nor plants, and knowing that contemporary science has uncovered crude untruths and omissions in the “classical” and “orthodox” teachings of the free trade school, and, finally, seeing that the historical and experimental–that is the real–path of study of political economy leads to different conclusions than those of the free traders, which are taken on faith as “the last word in science”–I consider it my duty, partly in defense of truly con-temporary, progressing science, to say openly and loudly that I stand for rational protectionism. Free trad-ism as a doctrine is very shaky; the free trade form of activity suits only countries that have already consolidated their manufacturing industry; protectionism as an absolute doctrine is the same sort of non-sense as free trade absolutism; and the protectionist mode of activity is perfectly appropriate now for Russia, as it was for England in its time….” cited in Barbara Frazier, Scientist-Statesman Fought British Free Trade in Russia, Executive Intelligence Review, Jan. 1992 http://members.tripod.com/american_almanac/mendel1.htm
All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated
The virus misconception is at the heart of Operation Coronavirus, because without the concept of germ theory and without the horror story of the killer virus, most people would not buy the NWO-directed official narrative of COVID propaganda. In a previous article on the nature of the virus, I have discussed the heroic efforts of German virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, who won a landmark case in 2017 which went all the way to the German Supreme Court. Lanka proved in the highest court of the land that measles was not caused by a virus, and that there was in fact no such thing as a measles virus. Lanka is still busy working, and he wrote this article earlier this year (translated into English here) entitled ““The Misconception called Virus”” in which he explains the history of how mainstream science went horribly wrong with its conclusions (really assumptions) to demonize the humble virus and to falsely ascribe pathogenicity to it when there is none.
The Virus Misconception: The Killer Virus Story vs. Deficiency and Toxicity
Lanka’s main point throughout the article is this: when modern scientists are working with diseased tissue, they think the presence of a virus is causing the disease, instead of realizing that the tissue in question has been cut off and isolated from its host, then doused with antibiotics, and that this separation and poison make it diseased and kill it, rather than any virus. Lanka writes:
“All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognizable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations … All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells which were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus. In reality, the infected cells and tissues were dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.”
” … the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to … scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation” … scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances … to the cell culture.”
“These control experiment have never been carried out by the official “science” to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with alleged “infected” material.”
In other words, the studied cells and tissues die with or without the presence of a virus in exactly the same way; therefore, the virus cannot be the cause of the morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, this is exactly what many health experts have stated, namely that there are only 2 causes of disease: deficiency and toxicity. For instance, Charlotte Gerson (who took over running the Gerson Clinic from her brilliant father Max) said this about disease and cancer. Removing cells or tissue from the body and thus cutting them off from their energy/nutrient supply will quickly lead to deficiency; injecting antibiotics into the mixture is toxicity; thus there is no solid proof a virus is causing disease when there is already deficiency and toxicity present. This is the key point of the virus misconception.
How the Virus Misconception Has Roots in 1858 and Became Entrenched in 1954
Lanka traces back the development of the virus misconception to 1858 and to the ‘cell theory’ of Rudolf Virchow, who proposed a theory that all disease and all life originates from a single cell, which is somehow hijacked by a virus that weakens it and propagates itself. Lanka points out 2 problems with this:
“The cell theory was only originated because Rudolf Virchow suppressed crucial discoveries about tissues. The findings and insights with respect to the structure, function and central importance of tissues in the creation of life, which were already known in 1858, comprehensively refute the cell theory and the subsequently derived genetic, immune and cancer therapies.
“The infection theories were only established as a global dogma through the concrete policies and eugenics of the Third Reich. Before 1933, scientists dared to contradict this theory; after 1933, these critical scientists were silenced.”
By “infection theories” Lanka means germ theory, the prevailing theory of modern Western Medicine. Lanka then describes how a paradigm shift in the perception of the virus occurred during 1952-1954:
“Until 1952, a virus was defined as a pathogenic poison in the form of a protein, which as an enzyme caused damage in an unknown manner, which could cause disease and be transmissible. After 1953, the year in which the alleged DNA in the form [of] an alleged alpha helix was publicly announced, the idea of a virus became a malignant genotype wrapped in proteins. Thus, a paradigm shift took place between 1952 and 1954 regarding the image of a virus.”
He talks about how theory become dogma in the Church of Mainstream Science (aka Scientism):
“This completely unscientific approach originated in June 1954, when an unscientific and refutable speculative article was published, according to which the death of tissue in a test tube was considered … possible evidence for the presence of a virus. Six months later, on 10 December 1954, the main author of this opinion was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for another equally speculative theory. The speculation from June 1954 was then raised to a scientific fact and became a dogma which has never been challenged to this date. Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus.”
Returning to Koch’s Postulates: No Isolation, No Purification
As I covered in COVID-19 Umbrella Term to Operate a Fake Pandemic: Not 1 Disease, Not 1 Cause, today’s mainstream scientists are skipping the all important 2nd step of Koch’s postulates: the isolation and purification of the virus. This isn’t something you can just gloss over or forget to do, like accidentally forgetting your umbrella on a rainy day and getting a bit wet. This is the absolutely quintessential part of determining if there is a new virus and if it causing causing disease. It’s the sine qua non. If you can’t isolate it, you have FAILED to prove anything, because the budding offshoot you think is an invading virus could easily be a exosome or particle being produced by the body itself. This is why all the COVID propaganda has conveniently glossed over the fact that there are no electron microscope images of SARS-CoV-2, since the electron microscope is an extremely important tool in the 1st step of Koch’s postulates, the identification. Lanka continues:
“… a virus has never been isolated according to the meaning of the word isolation, and it has never been photographed and biochemically characterised as a whole unique structure. The electron micrographs of the alleged viruses show in reality quite normal cellular particles from dying tissues and cells, and most photos show only a computer model (CGI – computer generated images).”
So What Does All This Have to Do with COVID?
So to bring this back to the current plandemic, all of the same assumptions and lack of evidence are in play when it comes to COVID:
“Individual molecules are extracted from the particles of dead tissue and cells, they are misinterpreted to be parts of a virus and are theoretically put together into a virus model … The consensus-finding process for the measles “virus”, in which the participants debated in order to determine what belonged to the virus and what didn’t, lasted for decades. With the apparently new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, meanwhile renamed), this consensus-finding process lasts only a few mouse clicks.
With only a few mouse clicks as well, a program can create any virus by putting together molecules of short parts of nucleic acids from dead tissue and cells with a determined biochemical composition, thus arranging them as desired into a longer genotype which is then declared to be the complete genome of the new virus … in this process of theoretical construction of the “viral DNA”, those sequences that don’t fit are “smoothed out” and missing ones are added. Thus, a DNA sequence is invented which doesn’t exist in reality and which was never discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole.”
So basically, mainstream Chinese scientists who work under the same theory as mainstream Western scientists invented a new theoretical model for SARS-CoV-2, and proclaimed a novel coronavirus, but all without the electron micrographs to actually back it up.
This entire process has extremely interesting parallels with the theme of space fakery, whether it’s propagated by NASA or the space agencies of other nations. We don’t have verifiable images of viruses; we don’t have verifiable whole (non-composite) images of the Earth, or many other space bodies such as moons, planets, etc. Instead we are fed CGIs and told not to question authority. Is this science or is this faith-based Scientism? To what extent are we being manipulated when we are denied real and true photographs of the world around us, both on a micro and macro level? I would argue to a massive extent.
Lanka on the Danger of Vaccines
Our lack of understanding about viruses, disease, the immune system, terrain theory and much more is exploited by Big Pharma to push dangerous medical interventions such as vaccines. Here’s what Lanka has to say about the danger and ineffectiveness of vaccines:
“[A] concoction consisting of dying tissue and cells from monkeys, bovine foetuses and toxic antibiotics … is being used as a “live” vaccine, because it is supposed to consist of so-called “attenuated” viruses … [this] toxic mixture full of foreign proteins, foreign nucleic acids (DNA/RNA), cytotoxic antibiotics, microbes and spores of all types is being labelled a “live vaccine.” It is implanted in children through vaccination mainly into the muscles, in a quantity which if it were injected into the veins would immediately lead to certain death … 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, on the contrary: upon precise scientific analysis, one finds that vaccines are useless and the respective literature admits to the lack of any evidence in their favour.”
Final Thoughts
The virus misconception has been with us a long time. As insane as the current fear-based, mask-wearing, social-distancing submission is, there are those people who are using Operation Coronavirus as a chance to wake up. While some go deeper into unconsciousness and look to new protective products (“upgrade your mask for our patent-pending powered air-filtration protective shield (N95)”), others have seen the coronavirus coup for what it truly is: a chance to roll out all kinds of control architecture while people sleepwalk in fear. It is always a good idea to question the base assumptions of any governmental pronouncement, because almost always, it can open up a portal that leads to the truth.
*
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.
By the time Alfred Marshall became prominent, the theory of capitalism formulated in Marx’s Capital had become a theoretical pillar of organised working class politics in Europe. Remarkably the so-called “marginalist revolution”, of which Marshall became a leading figure, coincides roughly with the abolition of slavery in Brazil (1886) and a major economic depression.1 Thus the shift from economics, for the allocation of surplus to that of managing scarcity is not a purely theoretical development. Following later scholars like Eric Williams, who argued that the “surplus” for industrialisation in Europe — that which had to be allocated through struggle or Adam Smith’s “invisible (whip) hand”– was derived from slavery and would now under the terms of marginalism become a “scarcity” of resources that theoretically had to be shared with liberated slaves and organising industrial labour.2
One of the objectives of political struggle in the 19th century was to appropriate the wealth held by the Church and the State and subject it to community/popular control. This meant also a struggle to find forms of governance adequate to this task. The opposition of marginalism, closely linked to progressivism and the emergence of “science” as religion (Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer), was a denial that the economic relationships between classes could be defined in any way, which would permit popular/communal control.3
Marginalism not only rejected the existence of a surplus to be allocated but also the idea that social benefit could be measured and therefore allocated through communal/popular governance. Since every economic relationship was reduced to implicit contracts between individuals there was no way to create scientifically reliable economic knowledge of classes, only tentatively for individuals, so-called methodological individualism.
What came to be social policy at the outbreak of WWI was, in fact, a denial that there was anything social at all. The entire history of the State’s promotion of adventurers, who in turn bought or leased the instruments of the State for the creation of monopoly wealth, was reduced to a footnote at best. Marginalism was conceived to explain — apologetics — what, in fact, had led to its creation as an ideology to counter democratic economic forces.
This is important in order to understand how the US religious doctrine of “free enterprise” was concocted and how the marketing strategy of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) became the dominant ideology of the end of the 20th century and the formal unquestioned dogma of the 21st. What is often alternatively called “neo-liberal” and “neo-conservative” is better understood if one looks at the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The 18th and 19th centuries were something like the Reformation, culminating in Marxism — itself a spectrum as broad as that between Lutheranism and Calvinism. The 20th century began the “Counter-Reformation”. Despite the successes of the October Revolution (1917), the Chinese Revolution (1949) and the Cuban Revolution (1953-1958), the effect of this counter-revolution was to isolate these revolutions from the rest of the Church. In 1989, the Russian Revolution was no longer merely isolated but largely defeated — not surprisingly with a Polish pope in the van. The bullet in the neck was the NATO war against Yugoslavia.
The Counter-Reformation had two principal effects in Christendom. One was that it defeated the Reformation in the core Catholic dominions. In the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, for example, there was no Reformation. In the rest of the realms, the political content of the Reformation was purged. Luther and Calvin sided with the State and preserved their own versions of clericalism, inheriting, but not abandoning, the economic wealth and privilege established by centuries of Church theft.
The three great revolutions of the 20th century and to a far lesser extent the failed Mexican Revolution were the first to successfully transfer the socially generated wealth that had been appropriated by the Church and the corporate class (whether aristocratic or plutocratic) to a political structure based on popular/communal ownership and forced, for a brief period, the “Capitalist Church” to share at least symbolically some of its hoarded loot to provide facilities called “public” (as opposed to popular) and create a veneer of reform. The Church did the same thing in the Counter-Reformation — terrorising with the Inquisition and extending educational access through schools for the working class and poor and allowing local languages and some minor concessions to national preference in the clergy. From 1949 until 1989 the strategy was fierce repression and selective gradual openings: social democracy in Western Europe (except Spain and Portugal, of course) on the “front” and death squads everywhere else.
1989 put an end to the biggest competitive alternative system and restored Russia to Orthodoxy if not to Catholicism. Since then the entire veneer of social democracy has been scraped away in the Western front-line states. Seventy-odd years of pacification reduced the forces of class struggle — meaning those who supported popular/communal control of social wealth rather than corporate monopoly of the State — to less than a shadow of their former selves.
Nowhere, and at no time, has this become more evident than in 2020 when not a single political party of the “class struggle” tradition was able or willing to respond to the coup de grace against public space, social wealth and humanism that was administered in March past. The conspicuous silence at the massive theft that was orchestrated — untold trillions — while the bulk of the Western population was under house arrest — is beyond shameful.4 This was not an act to restrain a viral pandemic but an act culminating in the final expropriation, not only of the last scraps of social democracy but of the entire public space in which such struggles took place but also could take place. In Portugal, the quality might be called “Salazar light”, not the “new normal” but the “Estado Novissimo“.5
What we hear, for example, from the curia in Brussels, with its quasi-dual pontificate comprising the German Chancellor and her former rival now the president of the European Commission or the World Economic Forum, is something comparable — but, of course, on a global scale — a homily like that delivered by Martin Luther in support of the violent suppression of the Peasants’ Revolt. (Here I am only talking about those who are members of the “Left”.)
The Counter-Revolution/Counter-Reformation, whose spokespersons convene in the conclaves at Davos, has clear objectives. The euphemism is the great “reset”.6 What is described euphemistically as “growth” has always meant growth in power and control. By declaring an end to public space — anywhere — they are returning us to the closed world whose creation and maintenance was the objective of the Roman papacy. (I republished the bull Unaam Sanctam earlier this year for a reason!7 I do not want to repeat here everything I have tried to describe elsewhere. 8 At this writing the conclave in Brussels is deciding what to do with the residue of Christendom in the Western Empire.
Habemus Reset!
Somewhere I read in a history of China that at least the Confucians were amazed at the Roman Catholic Church’s organizational power and wondered that there was nothing equivalent to it in China. The Rockefeller Foundation was so concerned about China that it started very early (ca. 1914) to fund and train Chinese physicians in the Rockefeller model of industrial medicine and social engineering.9
The West compensates for its relatively small population with an extraordinary level of violence and organization. It was that “catholic” organisational capacity that shut down the West and its dependencies in March — and including the Shrine in Fatima, defies the strength of the Holy Virgin.
(What we have been told is the 18 months in the race to a “vaccine” should probably be seen as a planning parameter — adopted at least as early as 2015 — in the pacification program for which the vaccine is both a decoy and a weapon, by no means a toy.)
*
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.
For a discussion of the so-called “marginalist revolution” see, for example, Nuno Martins, “Interpreting the capitalist order before and after the marginalist revolution”, Cambridge Journal of Economics 2015, 39, 1109-1127.
What most people understand as “Darwinism” is actually “social Darwinism” as taught by Herbert Spencer et al. Charles Darwin did not consistently argue for the “survival of the fittest”. Rather he suggested that species’ variations could explain why some members of a species proliferated in an environment or survived changes in the environment. Unlike Spencer and vulgar Darwinists, Darwin claimed no teleology or interest in nature that could predict or promote any species or variation thereof. For a brief discussion of the difference between Darwin and vulgar Darwinism, see Morse Peckham, “Darwinism and Darwinisticism” in The Triumph of Romanticism (1970) pp. 176-201.
While it is a matter of record that the US Federal Reserve gave away some USD 4 trillion on a single day at the beginning of the so-called pandemic, with no questions asked, both the US regime and its vassals in Brussels feel that any assistance to Europe’s SME sector must be endlessly debated and so structured that only the administering banks profit from it.
For example, under Salazar’s Estado Novo that ended by revolution in 1974, three persons meeting in public spaces; e.g., on the street, constituted a “demonstration” requiring police authorisation. For those old enough to remember, the similarity to masks and social distancing is hard to overlook.
E. Richard Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men, Medicine and Capitalism in America. It is just a coincidence that it was also a man named Gates, Frederick T, a Baptist preacher and not a physician, who initiated the tradition of plutocrats using medical institutions to design society in their particular interests. Rockefeller money turned the Peking Union Medical College from a missionary endeavour into a scientific medical school. Rockefeller money also seeded the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, now under the patronage of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, where it hosts such exciting séances like Event 201.
The UK is trying to position itself as the “balancing” partner of choice for countries that are indoctrinated into believing the US’ information warfare narrative of Eurasian-wide Chinese and Russian threats to their sovereignty, but this strategy is bunk because it’s basically just a rebranding of Britain’s new position as America’s “junior partner” across the supercontinent.
The UK vs. China & Russia
The overarching theme of the UK’s post-Brexit foreign policy has been its antagonism against China and Russia, the two main drivers of Eurasian integration processes in the emerging Multipolar World Order. The author wrote about this in the following four analyses:
The global attention given to the UK’s hostile policies against these two Great Powers and their responses to these actions has allowed London to craft the perception that it’s not as internationally irrelevant as some speculated it would become after Brexit. It hopes to leverage this across Eurasia to advance its strategic agenda.
“Balancing” Basics
That said agenda is to portray itself as the “balancing” partner of choice for the countries that are indoctrinated into believing the US’ information warfare narrative of Eurasian-wide Chinese and Russian threats to their sovereignty. The UK is signaling to those comparatively smaller- and medium-sized states that it’ll actively help them thwart such “threats” so long as they strengthen relations with it. What it’s really aiming to do, however, is to take advantage of them in order to secure more preferential trade deals after Brexit. By doing so, however, it’s also going along with the US’ “Lead From Behind” strategy of outsourcing shared geopolitical goals.
The Synergy Strategy
The UK recognizes the very real limitations to its international reach, hence why it submitted to the US as its “junior partner” across the supercontinent since it thinks that their synergy in this respect will work out to Britain’s ultimate benefit. It could very well just as easily have decided to play a neutral “balancing” role between global Atlantic and Eurasian forces and would probably stand to gain even more in the long term by doing so, but various levers of American influence were pulled to ensure that this scenario would never come to fruition, hence London’s antagonistic policies as of late.
Pros & Cons
This strategy has the most realistic chances of success vis-a-vis Russia because the relevant states that have fallen for the US’ information warfare narrative are more inclined to cooperate with an internationally Russophobic UK than the Asian ones that believe in the existence of the same such threats vis-a-vis China. This is because they believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that China can impose more meaningful costs to their economies if they change their geopolitical course than Russia can. Even so, the risk that the UK runs by pursuing such a policy is that it fails to reap the expected dividends because they’re all taken by the US.
“Big Brother’s” Bidding
To explain, the US is basically the UK’s “big brother” at this point after the former colony coerced its one-time colonizer into doing its geopolitical bidding. It only wants to share the costs of this interconnected infowar-“containment” campaign but doesn’t want to share the promised benefits. The UK is attracting a lot of attention to the US’ hostile narratives against Russia and China through its latest “Russian spy report” and suspension of its extradition treaty with Hong Kong. In other words, the UK reinforces the US’ fearmongering claims but only receives a pat on the back and ephemeral Great Power “prestige” for doing so, not trade deals.
The Domestic Distraction
While these “rewards” are worthless in any tangible sense, they nevertheless satisfy the British elites’ desire to distract their domestic audiences from post-Brexit uncertainty. They’ve established a high-profile role for their country in the new international reality which they hope will scratch their people’s nostalgic itch for their long-lost imperial-era “glory”. Although the UK is an objectively irrelevant Great Power in Eurasia, it can still shape the perception that it’s much more important than it really is in order to make its population think that it’s returning back to the “good ‘ole days”. In reality, however, it’s just one of many US proxies in Eurasia nowadays.
Concluding Thoughts
Despite the UK portraying itself as a “balancing” force in Eurasia after Brexit by “challenging/containing” China and Russia through a series of provocative moves as of late, the island nation is more isolated from the supercontinent than it’s ever been. The only thing that it has going for it at this point is the influence that it still commands over the Western Mainstream Media through the BBC, which it leverages to present itself as more geopolitical relevant than it actually is. The only purpose that the UK has served since Brexit is becoming yet another of America’s many proxies, all in pursuit of distant trade deals and illusory “prestige”.
*
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 OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
“…This is the most dangerous time in the history of man. The seriousness of this plot cannot be underestimated. It is not due to any threat of conventional war or nuclear decimation, it is based on the fact that this is a psychological war waged by psychopaths against all mankind, and it is being advanced by a small group of monsters that have taken control of the minds of the masses through long-term indoctrination and policies meant to breed dependency.” Gary Barnett
Which political party supported the protests, riots and looting that spread to over 400 cities across the country? Which party supported the toppling of historical monuments and statues across the country? Which party’s elected officials think that the government does not have the right to defend federal property from vandals, rioters and thugs in Portland? Which party allowed a vicious mob to seize control of an area in central Seattle and declare its own sovereign nation? Which party looked on approvingly while the country descended into a “society-wide upheaval that included.. mass riots — the magnitude of which have not been seen in the U.S. since at least the 1960s.” (Michael Tracy)
Which party’s governors imposed lockdowns that pushed the economy into freefall destroying millions of jobs and businesses? Which party’s governors issued edicts mandating the wearing of masks without a vote by the representatives of the people? Which party’s leaders conducted a 3 year-long coup claiming the President of the United States was a Russian agent? Which party launched impeachment proceedings based on spurious claims that were neither serious nor verifiable? Which party has stubbornly refused to accept the 2016 presidential election results and has done everything in its power to deepen political antagonisms and polarization?
Which party worked with members of the elite media and the intelligence community to infiltrate the Trump campaign with confidential informants, electronic surveillance, and other illicit skulduggery aimed at sabotaging the election and derailing Trump’s political agenda? Which party is using a public health emergency to perpetuate a state of hysteria aimed at exerting greater control over the population? Which party is deliberately prolonging the Covid restrictions in order to destroy what’s left of the eviscerated US economy?
Which party has shown time and again that it does not serve the interests of the people but the cadres of elite globalists that now have the Constitutional Republic in their crosshairs and plan to erase our history, our icons, our traditions, our culture, our identity and even our most heartfelt ideals in order to establish a new order governed by technocrats, financiers and plutocrats? Which party is not a party at all but a fifth column determined to subvert the elected government and divide the country into warring factions?
The Democrats cannot be trusted. They have already implemented their anti-worker trade policy and their pro-war foreign policy, and they’re now bent on imposing their own pro-business immigration policy that will further erode the living standards of working people struggling to make ends meet in a post-industrial hardscrabble America.
Who supports these policies?
Certainly not the people in the center of the country who’ve seen their jobs outsourced, their businesses off-shored and their prospects for the future go up in smoke as Democrats Clinton and Obama transformed the country into the hollowed out, service sector-dependent basketcase that it is today. Isn’t that the real reason the Democrats are so supportive of “racial justice” and BLM? Isn’t it just a way of concealing their contempt for the mainly-white working class people who used to vote Democrat until the party threw them under the bus in order to better serve their deep-pocket corporate donors and Wall Street honchos?
Of course it is. African Americans are not going to benefit from their support for the Democrats. No way. As far as the Dems leadership goes, Black Lives Matter until November 5 when the ballots are counted. After that, all bets are off. This is an excerpt from an article at RT:
“Black Lives Matter is using black pain to cash in on white liberal guilt, dividing American society in pursuit of a Democratic political agenda, St. Louis activist Nyota Uhura told RT. Having witnessed BLM’s rise up close as the nascent organization swooped into Ferguson amid the calls for justice triggered by Brown’s killing…, Uhura has fought to warn others of what the organization really represents – leveraging black activism into a boost for the Democratic Party.
White liberal and progressive groups “use the energy of our movement to push their agenda”…
“In order to mobilize people, they need those black faces out front – because what are they going to look like protesting? Just in terms of optics it’ll look like a Klan rally,” Uhura joked….’ Like all controlled opposition movements, one of BLM’s primary functions is to derail meaningful change, Uhura explained: “They always march us back into the voting booth.”
Well-heeled movement activists consistently divert money and energy into electing Democratic Party candidates .…billionaire currency speculator George Soros alone has given over $33 million to BLM, its founders, and associated groups, and the Ford Foundation pledged to raise $100 million for the BLM-affiliated Movement for Black Lives Coalition in 2016.” (“Veteran activists have called out BLM as a tool of the Democrats from day 1“, RT)
BLM is a prop the Dems are using to take-back the White House, nothing more. The proof of this couldn’t be more obvious. While Pelosi and her pals bowed down in Kente cloth for a well-rehearsed photo op, her recent bill on police reforms did not include even one of BLM’s demands. Like we said, the Dems are great at public relations but never veer from their corporate agenda.
In the last four years, the Democrats have engaged in one seditious misadventure after the other all of which helped to reveal that the real levers of state power are not under the control of the president but of agents operating in the intelligence community, law enforcement (FBI) and the media all of who are now owned by scheming billionaires whose tentacles extend to every corner of the permanent bureaucracy, aka–the deep state. The Democrats have joined this sketchy alliance and are presently executing a plan that will irreversibly change the country by decimating its economy, increasing poverty and destitution by many orders of magnitude, and strengthening the grip of tyrannical oligarchs who don’t simply want to rule by force, but by wearing down the population with one hysteria-soaked psyops after the other. The recent surge in suicides and mental health issues attests to the success of their strategy just as the wearing of masks illustrates how easily fearful people can be whipped into conformity. Mission accomplished!
Is it any surprise that the Dems joined the Intel agencies to spy on members of the Trump campaign or that the Dems are actively enlisting members of the intelligence community to join their ranks? Take a look:
“An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history….
Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit.” (“The CIA Democrats, Part One”, World Socialist Web Site)
Did you know that the drive to impeach Trump was spearheaded by former CIA agents that had just been elected to Congress? The media said that leftists pushed Pelosi to impeach, but that simply isn’t true. It was former spooks acting on behalf of unknown constituents. (John Brennan??) Here’s he scoop:
“Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) announced Monday that they would vote for the impeachment of President Trump on Wednesday when it comes before the House of Representatives. Both women had decade-long careers in the CIA before they won Republican-held seats in the House in the 2018 election….With the pro-impeachment declarations by Slotkin, Spanberger and, also on Monday, Jason Crow of Colorado, a former Army special forces operative, ten of the eleven “CIA Democrats” have now said they will vote for the impeachment articles.” (“CIA Democrats back CIA-led Impeachmen t”, World Socialist Web Site)
What does it mean when a nation’s foremost intelligence service (CIA) enters the political realm and assumes a central role in governing the country? Is that a positive development or a national security threat? And how should we judge the political party that allows itself to be subsumed by an agency that conducts all manner of anti-democratic and criminal activity around the world including kidnappings (rendition), drug trafficking, covert wars, electronic surveillance, torture and regime change operations?
Here’s a question for you: Was the CIA under John Brennan directly involved in the campaign to frame Donald Trump as a Russian agent and have him removed from office?
Yes, they were.
Were leaders at the DNC involved in the same plot?
Yes again, just as they were involved in the impeachment fiasco, the George Floyd foofaraw and now the Covid hoax.
What lessons can we draw from the way the Democrats have conducted themselves over the past four years? Are they willing to use the accepted, traditional means for opposing the incumbent government or are they more inclined to engage in subversive, covert and likely illegal scorched earth tactics designed to inflict maximum damage on their political enemies through relentless character assassination, illicit surveillance, divisive racial violence and even the cover of a global pandemic manipulated to prosecute the war on Trump?
We all know the answer to that question.
Is this how the Democrats plan to govern the country, by setting aside principle and the issues that people really care about–health care, immigration, jobs, the environment and the economy– and, instead, using public health emergencies and other contrived diversions to justify the further evisceration of the economy, the further imposition of onerous mandates, and the further tightening of their grip on the levers of state power? Check out this excerpt from an article by Charles Burris:
“What we have been seeing played out on the streets of America, particularly in large Blue State metropolitan areas and dense urban cities is classic planned chaos and the “Strategy of Tension.” Unable to dislodge Donald Trump by the Russiagate hoax or the malicious soft coup impeachment process, his sworn enemies, using COVID-19 as their pretext, have turned to the destruction of the economy by repressive lockdowns, creating mass unemployment and annihilation of small businesses, thus fracturing civil society. The Democrats, elements of the deep state, and their complacent, compliant regime media pawns, have turned to an age-old psy/war strategy to be wielded as an ax against the president, insidiously using the weaponized corpse of the slain George Floyd as the new rationale for these riots and insurrections….
The willfully ignorant nihilistic mobs and savage looters are simply acting as pawns, the unwitting tools of the deep state “strategy of tension” 2020 in creating the pretext for the elite’s technocratic New World Order .” (“The Elite’s End Game”Lew Rockwell)
Bingo. It is, in fact, the elite’s endgame and the Dems have put themselves right at the heart of that operation. But the Democrats are not steering the ship of state nor will they. They are merely lackeys for the meddling “do goodie” billionaires who want to save humanity by branding us like cattle, reducing us to abject poverty, and eliminating the “useless eaters” who stand in the way of their glorious New Order. Check out this quote from World Economic Forum (WEF) founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab at a June 3rd event titled The Great Reset:
“The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions… Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
According to author Matthew Ehret-Kump, the gathering included elites from “the IMF, World Bank, UK, USA, corporate and banking sector” all looking “to take advantage of COVID-19 to shut down and “reset” the world economy under a new operating system entitled the Green New Deal.”
Is it true? Is the Covid pandemic actually part of a broader plan to break down the economy, destroy tens of millions of jobs, decimate thousands of businesses, and force the reduction of carbon by intensifying the suffering of half of humanity? Here’s more from Peter Koenig’s article:
“These obscure individuals are running, The World Economic Forum (WEF – representing Big Industry, Big Finance and Big Fame), the Group of , G-7, Group of 20 – G20 (the leaders of the economically” strongest” nations). There are also some lesser entities, called the Bilderberg Society, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Chatham House and more….
The infamous Agenda 2021 which coincides with and complements the so-called (UN) Agenda 2030, will be duly inaugurated by the WEF’s official declaration of The Great Reset, in January 2021. Similarly, the implementation of the agenda of The Great Reset began in January 2020, by the launch of the corona pandemic – planned for decades with the latest visible events being the 2010 Rockefeller Report with its “Lockstep Scenario”, and Event 201, of 18 October in NYC which computer-simulated a corona pandemic, leaving within 18 months 65 million deaths and an economy in ruin, programmed just a few weeks before the launch of the actual corona pandemic…The ruling elite used the lockdown as an instrument to carry out this agenda.” (“The Global Reset – Unplugged. “The Deep State”, Peter Koenig, Global Research)
The Democrats are working with the establishment media and elements in the intelligence community to effect the transformational changes that will actualize the elitist vision. There is no falsehood or act of terror so heinous that it cannot be justified in terms of the ultimate goal which is the emergence of a repressive police state ruled by voracious elites and their power-mad accomplices.
*
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.
Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
On July 19, the Libyan National Army (LNA) test-fired the Soviet-era P-15 Termit anti-ship missile near Zawiyat Zanzur, on the Libyan coast.
The P-15 Termit is guided by active radar homing and equipped with an inertial navigation system. Missiles of this type have a range between 35 and 80 km depending on the variant and a top speed of Mach 0.95. The Gaddafi-era Libyan Navy had large stockpiles of P-15 missiles and also operated an unknown number of 4K51 Rubezh coastal defense systems, which were armed with an advanced copy of the missile. Thus, the LNA may have access to at least a part of these stockpiles.
The test-launch of the anti-ship missile was presented by pro-LNA sources as a message to Turkey that its warships deployed near the Libyan shores will become the target of anti-ship missile launches should they try to support the attack by the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord on the port city of Sirte. However, the test-launch had a quite different effect when on July 20 the video from the test site leaked online. It showed that the missile fell just a few moments after launching putting in question any potential anti-ship missile capabilities of the LNA.
Meanwhile, tensions within the LNA factions erupted in al-Brega, where the Al Saiqa Brigade was demanding the release of several affiliated people from custody. As of July 22, the area still remains the focal point of tensions.
Such failed missile tests and other demonstrations of issues within the LNA only strengthen the Turkish commitment to launch a full-scale attack on the port city of Sirte. According to Turkish media, Ankara is deploying T-155 Fırtına howitzers and T-122 Sakarya multiple launch rocket systems to the frontline west of the port city. The largest convoy with Turkish weapons and equipment arrived at the frontline from Misrata, an important logistical hub for Turkish supplies, on July 18. Nonetheless, reinforcements and weapons continued pouring into the western countryside of Sirte.
Right now, the main factor deterring further escalation is Egypt’s strong position describing a potential Turkish attack on Sirte or Jufra as a red line after which it would directly intervene in the conflict on the side of the LNA. On July 21, Egypt’s Parliament already approved “sending elements of the Egyptian armed forces in combat missions outside the borders of the Egyptian state to defend the Egyptian national security in the western strategic front against the acts of criminal militias and foreign terrorist elements until the forces’ mission ends.” Thus, a preparatory attack on Sirte risks turning into a military confrontation between Turkey and Egypt on a Libyan battleground. The Erdogan government has not demonstrated readiness for such a scenario. However, if the LNA carries out some more failed missile tests like the one on July 19, Ankara may just take that risk.
*
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.
For those wondering what will come after the Covid19 pandemic has successfully all but shut down the entire world economy, spreading the worst depression since the 1930s, the leaders of the premier globalization NGO, Davos World Economic Forum, have just unveiled the outlines of what we can expect next. These people have decided to use this crisis as an opportunity.
On June 3 via their website, the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) unveiled the outlines of their upcoming January 2021 forum. They call it “The Great Reset.” It entails taking advantage of the staggering impact of the coronavirus to advance a very specific agenda. Notably enough, that agenda dovetails perfectly with another specific agenda, namely the 2015 UN Agenda 2030. The irony of the world’s leading big business forum, the one that has advanced the corporate globalization agenda since the 1990s, now embracing what they call sustainable development ,is huge. That gives us a hint that this agenda is not quite about what WEF and partners claim.
The Great Reset
On June 3 WEF chairman Klaus Schwab released a video announcing the annual theme for 2021, The Great Reset. It seems to be nothing less than promoting a global agenda of restructuring the world economy along very specific lines, not surprisingly much like that advocated by the IPCC, by Greta from Sweden and her corporate friends such as Al Gore or Blackwater’s Larry Fink.
Interesting is that WEF spokespeople frame the “reset” of the world economy in the context of the coronavirus and the ensuing collapse of the world industrial economy. The WEF website states, “There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.” So the Great Reset of the global economy flows from covid19 and the “opportunity” it presents.
In announcing the 2021 theme, WEF founder Schwab then said, cleverly shifting the agenda:
“We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind.”
The implication is that climate change is the underlying reason for the coronavirus pandemic catastrophe.
To underscore their green “sustainable” agenda, WEF then has an appearance by the would-be King of England, Prince Charles. Referring to the global covid19 catastrophe, the Prince of Wales says,
“If there is one critical lesson to learn from this crisis, it is that we need to put nature at the heart of how we operate. We simply can’t waste more time.”
On board with Schwab and the Prince is the Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres. He states,
“We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.”
Note his talk of “sustainable economies and societies”—more on that later. The new head of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, also endorsed The Great Reset. Other WEF resetters included Ma Jun, the chairman of the Green Finance Committee at the China Society for Finance and Banking and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China; Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; Ajay Banga, CEO of Mastercard; Bradford Smith, president of Microsoft.
Make no mistake, the Great Reset is no spur-of-the moment idea of Schwab and friends. The WEF website states, “COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.” The WEF sponsors have big plans:”…the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.” This is big stuff.
Radical changes
Schwab reveals more of the coming agenda: “…one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office.” These are supposed to be silver linings?
He suggests that those radical changes be extended: “The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination… and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy…” It would include “changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.”
The second component of the Great Reset agenda would ensure that, “investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability.” Here the WEF head states that the recent huge economic stimulus budgets from the EU, USA, China and elsewhere be used to create a new economy, “more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building ‘green’ urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.”
Finally the third leg of this Great Reset will be implementing one of Schwab’s pet projects, the Fourth Industrial Revolution: “The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.” The Fourth Industrial Revolution includes gene-editing biotech, 5G telecommunications, Artificial Intelligence and the like.
UN Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset
If we compare the details of the 2015 UN Agenda 2030 with the WEF Great Reset we find both dovetail very neatly. The theme of Agenda2030 is a “sustainable world” which is defined as one with income equality, gender equality, vaccines for all under the WHO and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) which was launched in 2017 by the WEFalong with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
In 2015 the UN issued a document, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The Obama Administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification knowing it would fail. Yet it is being advanced globally. It includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals, extending an earlier Agenda21. The 17 include “to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions… to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change…“ It calls for sustainable economic growth, sustainable agriculture (GMO), sustainable and modern energy (wind, solar), sustainable cities, sustainable industrialization… The word sustainable is the key word. If we dig deeper it is clear it is code-word for a reorganization of world wealth via means such as punitive carbon taxes that will dramatically reduce air and vehicle travel. The less-developed world will not rise to the developed, rather the other way, the advanced civilizations must go down in their living standards to become “sustainable.”
Maurice Strong
To understand the double-speak use of sustainable, we need to go back to Maurice Strong, a billionaire Canadian oilman and close friend of David Rockefeller, the man who played a central role back in the 1970s for the idea that man-made CO2 emissions were making the world unsustainable. Strong created the UN Environment Program, and in 1988, the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) to exclusively study manmade CO2.
In 1992 Strong stated,
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” At the Rio Earth Summit Strong that same year he added, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
The decision to demonize CO2, one of the most essential compounds to sustain all life, human and plant, is not random. As Prof. Richard Lindzen an MIT atmospheric physicist puts it,
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
Lest we forget, the curiously well-timed New York pandemic exercise, Event 201 on October 18, 2019 was co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. It was based on the idea that, ”it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.” The Event201 Scenario posited, “outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.”
The declaration by the World Economic Forum to make a Great Reset is to all indications a thinly-veiled attempt to advance the Agenda 2030 “sustainable” dystopian model, a global “Green New Deal” in the wake of the covid19 pandemic measures. Their close ties with Gates Foundation projects, with the WHO, and with the UN suggest we may soon face a far more sinister world after the covid19 pandemic fades.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index
List Price: $25.95
Special Price: $18.00
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
As already known, BRICS is an association of five major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. South Africa joined the association in 2010. The BRICS has a significant influence on regional affairs and very active on the global stage. All of them are members of the G20. While the group has received both praise and criticism from different corners of the world, BRICS is steadily working towards realizing its set goals, bilateral relations among them are conducted on the basis of non-interference, equality and mutual benefits.
In this exclusive interview, Dr Byelongo Elisee Isheloke, who is currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Cape Town and has scholarly researched some aspects of BRICS for the past ten years, spoke with Kester Kenn Klomegah about his observations, the existing challenges, opportunities and the future perspectives of BRICS. Here are the interview excerpts:
Kester Kenn Klomegah: South Africa joined BRICS in 2010, a decade ago, and so how do you assess South Africa in BRICS these years? What are its greatest contributions to the development of the group?
Dr Byelongo Elisee Isheloke: I would say South Africa is strongly committed to its engagement in the BRICS. It has hosted two of its summits. As an active member, it has what it takes to deliver despite the internal economic crises in South Africa. I think over the years, South Africa grew in confidence within the partnership, particularly when the first BRICS summit took place in Durban South Africa.
In the Durban 2013 BRICS summit, African presidents were invited to join leaders of BRICS and the theme evolved around Africa. In this context, South Africa regained its muscles as a BRICS member. South Africa therefore represents Africa well in the BRICS, in a way, and I think the African countries should support it. The only thing I think people want is to be more involved. While the BRICS started as a partnership of political nature, now that it has embraced economic development, the voice of the people must be heard.
The major problem of South Africa is that it is not robust economically compared to its BRICS counterparts, and its economy has been performing badly since the 2008/2009 world’s economic crisis. It has been a zero growth economy ever since. If any growth, then it has been below 1%. South Africa has struggled to stabilize its economy during the past few years, and now the COVID-19 has exacerbated this but it is common to many countries around the world.
KKK: In your previous discussion, you talk about a transition from politics to economy. How do you see BRICS influence on international issues, its collective position on the global arena?
BEI: BRICS did not transit from politics to economy as such but put emphasis on economic projects. BRICS leaders still talk global politics while experts guide the leaders on foreign policy issues. For me, I think it is a very good approach going forward. BRICS must deliver on capital-intensive infrastructure development, and the funding from the New Development Bank (BRICS) is critical in this regard. With good policies in place, this will help the SADC region and the rest of Africa. It is great that the branch of this bank operates from Johannesburg in South Africa.
Furthermore, I must say that BRICS influence on international scale is dented by minor problems in the organization. For example, the diplomatic conflict between India and China, the fact that both Russia and China wants to be in a position of favor with the United States on diplomatic ground, this is not helping its influence globally. I think BRICS must clean its home, or clean before its door, if it wants to be the balancing power in international affairs. The other problem is the capital issue. At the moment, the BRICS do not have the muscles to outcompete the Bretton Wood Institutions, the World Bank and IMF. More investment, more capital is needed in the BRICS Bank.
In the past, there was the lack of synergy in diplomatic position as far as the BRICS is concerned. In the UN Security Council, for instance, the BRICS have to consult in order to accommodate views on issues of global importance. We know that South Africa is a member of the SADC and there is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), another SADC country, which has a plethora of problems of security and economic nature. I think that any assistance from such an organization (BRICS) would be appreciated. Quite recently, more than 200 civilians known as the Bembe people were massacred in the eastern DRC by Ngumino and Twagineho militias. These militias are of foreign origin to the DRC. This news is not broadcasted in South Africa, if the BRICS could invest more in peace-keeping mission,maybe help the current government, perhaps it could help the failing Monusco, a UN mission in the DRC. It is such engagement that can make the BRICS shine internationally. They need a collective position on global issues. This is just one example.
KKK: In relation to economy and trade, what are your arguments about collaboration among BRICS? Do you also see China and India racing for global dominance, and Russia steadily raising its business profile on the global stage?
BEI: With regard to this question, this is what I have to say. In fact, trade protectionism is only good temporarily and it works only in the short run. It is not sustainable as a policy in the long term. We know in the 17th century it was promoted in European countries but there was a time when the Laissez-faire ideology took precedence on economic isolationism. We also know that a couple of BRICS countries have a communist background (Russia and China). What I can say is that China opened up its economy to trade, and for more than 30 years, it manage to build a robust economy (now considered the 2nd largest after the United States) with potential prospects of outperforming the United States. I think we can learn from the Chinese economic success.
The COVID-19 situation may help change the forecasts but free trade has proven over the years to be highly supportive to the economy of nations. This does not mean one needs “to throw away the baby with the water” when it comes to the gain obtained during the socialist approach to economic development. The BRICS countries should find a way of striking a balance between the two economic systems. But frankly speaking, an open economy leaning more towards free trade is what I would recommend for an emerging economy. Now even countries where the economy is freer like South Africa and India, we see that the major hindrance is corruption and bad governance in certain instances. If the BRICS can address these obstacles or hurdles, they will have a better chance of winning. In China, human rights abuses shouldn’t be covered up. Doing-Business with countries where dictatorship and abuses are evident should it be alright.
In addition, there will be areas where BRICS will compete, and this is healthy to any economy, but there must be more focus on what BRICS can do together to address abject poverty, growing unemployment and human rights abuses. China and India need to talk more to address their differences. The future of BRICS depends, to some considerable extent, on their good relations. The race for dominance if military is dangerous. I think they need to talk as friends and partners. The rest of the BRICS should mediate in this regard.
Many experts still question the role of BRICS members in Africa. It is important here to recall that Russia was involved in helping African countries during their struggle for independence and that was the Cold War. It lost its influence after the split of the USSR. Currently Russia’s foreign policy largely seeks to regain what it lost to the United States and China and other foreign players in Africa. But for our Russian partners, Africa needs sustainable development, and not military weapons and equipment. Africa is looking for foreign players to invest in infrastructure and play large part economically.
KKK: In your post-doctoral research on BRICS, and in your article to The Conversation, you mentioned what South Africa can offer or shared with other members. Is it possible to restate explicitly the kind of “beneficiation” here?
BEI: I would make known, first, that as a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cape Town, my academic investigation deals with the impact of and the challenges towards mineral beneficiation policy interventions in the SADC region. This has some importance for foreign players looking opportunities to invest in mineral resources in the SADC.
Having said the above, I am more than prepared to embark on a project that will help BRICS to understand the effects of Brics partnership on mineral beneficiation in South Africa and within the Southern African Development Community. In this connection, I think South Africa has a lot to offer to the BRICS. There must also be a consensus with other African countries. Understandably, South Africa can be an investment gateway to Africa. As the presiding head of the African Union, South Africa represents the interests of the AU in BRICS.
On beneficiation, South Africa has a tremendous experience on nuclear power that, if used for energy, could help the beneficiation industry in the country. One needs to be cautious of deviations in that regard, not that I am suggesting South Africa would deviate, but care needs to be observed by all member countries on that issue. As a pacifist, I would advise that African countries look at alternative, renewable energy sources. A gradual approach to beneficiation and a dialogue between trade partners will take the BRICS partnership to another level as far as South Africa is concerned in the BRICS.
KKK: How do you assess the current coronavirus spread and its impact, especially among BRICS, (Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa) and allegedly (yet to be proved) virus originated from China (BRICS member)?
BEI: The BRICS are hit by the COVID-19 crisis just like any other country. As we know, the COVID-19 started in Wuhan, China, and then spread in no time to all the continents. It is however important to note that China closed its borders and cooperated with the World Health Organization (WHO) to alert other countries. On the other hand, in Africa, we saw China helping the African Union (AU) with PPEs and other test equipment. This should be appreciated.
Whether the alert came late or not, I do not have any means to determine that. Why would China want to do that? Instead of pointing fingers to others, I think it is time the world learns from the threat we face together as humans and find a common ground to halt (stop) the spread of COVID-19. It should be an opportunity to re-engineer our health facilities and capabilities for a better tomorrow for all. Personally, I would call for cooperation between BRICS and non-BRICS countries (the United States and Europe for example to get involved). Failing to do that will be a recipe for more complications.
KKK: What do you think of BRICS collaborating on COVID-19 vaccine? Do you see “cooperation or competition” among its members (China, India and Russia) racing for global market with the vaccine?
BEI: Interestingly, I see both cooperation and competition.But I think we need more cooperation and sharing of the information. The BRICS must remember what they owe the world. Cooperation should be on all aspects of life. We hear stories of people of color being ill-treated in China for example. I think the authorities should investigate that and take appropriate actions to care for others with dignity.
In South Africa as well, the refugee community was almost neglected in the management of the COVID-19. I am glad the government decided to do something about it. BRICS scientists, as well, need collaboration to come up successfully with a solution or vaccine. Efforts by other scientists need to be taken into account. And as regards Africa, an African solution to Africa’s problem approach should not be neglected or relegated to the backyard. BRICS are partners, they can help each other but they should not replace own efforts towards security and safety. Vaccine or solutions to the pandemic should not be profit-orientated. In Africa, we believe in Ubuntu. I think our BRICS leaders will not do such a mistake. I am highly optimistic on that.
KKK: Generally, what would you consider as the key challenges amid the coronavirus pandemic that has shattered the economy, and how do you see the future of BRICS?
BEI: The pandemic has, indeed taken a heavy toll on the global economy. As reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), Brazil, India, Russia, China, and of course, South Africa have high infections after the United States. The key challenges during the COVID-19 era are: Unpreparedness of the BRICS countries. It came as a surprise and BRICS were caught pants down in most instances. We should view the COVID-19 as an opportunity for better planning, re-engineering of our health facilities and capabilities for prevention.
Lack of financial resources. The poor countries in a dire situation. Most countries had no financial muscles to acquire respirators and PPEs. Russia and China managed to build specialized hospitals within a short time to contain the situation. This is an area where the BRICS Development Bank could make the stark difference if steered in the right direction.
Insufficient coordination. As for the case of South Africa, it is good that the government took the scientific approach in managing the situation. Coordination with public-private partnership could enhance the ability of the state apparatus to serve everybody regardless of their origin. There is still time to ensure that poor including refugees and asylum seekers are humanly served. We cannot be selective in enforcing human rights. Medical assistance, in time of coronavirus, be regarded as basic human right for all. A better coordination will therefore help not only South Africa, but all the countries.
Last but not the least, a holistic approach to fighting the pandemic should be promoted. A human being is not just a body, but it is also a spirit. While scientists and decision makers propose solutions, it must be done in conjunction with means that uplift the spirit as well. Faith based organizations should equally have a role to play to help the government and to provide interventions of psychological and spiritual nature. A healthy body in a healthy spirit is what we need. Otherwise, any solution will be half-baked and unsustainable. All the stakeholders must work together. This is not only for South Africa or for the BRICS, but it is also for the entire world. There are a lot of negative news on TV and Radio channels about the corona. It is time the media grasps the opportunity to serve humanity by focusing on giving hope rather than destroying hope. A balance needs to be set in this regard as well. Media have to exhibit a more constructive role for a better 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.
Kester Kenn Klomegah is a passionate contributor to Global Research.
Twitter cites fears QAnon activity will lead to “offline harm” while further empowering corporate media whose “offline harm” includes selling wars that have destroyed entire nations abroad and bled the American people dry at home.
***
News outlets like CNN reported on Twitter’s move to purge the QAnon movement from its platform.
There is no doubt that QAnon has been behind absurd conspiracy theories and verified lies circulating online – suspiciously absurd. Banning it from Twitter because of alleged fears its activity will lead to “offline harm” is even more absurd.
Source: Land Destroyer Report
Despite making absurd claims that demonstrably never materialize or providing evidence that is later revealed to be clearly fabricated, nothing QAnon has done differs from what the corporate media does on a daily basis. In many ways they are one in the same – dividing and distracting the public while US special interests advance their agenda unnoticed and unopposed.
QAnon allegedly made false claims that Hillary Clinton’s arrest was imminent – she was never arrested. Conversely, the corporate media regularly claims that various world leaders in nations targeted by Western regime change have “fled,” are “dead,” or otherwise “ousted from power” – with lies spread by the Western media over the alleged “fates” of still incumbent leaders like Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un coming to immediate mind.
The Western corporate media also helps sell various wars of aggression.
This includes the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, US interventions in Libya and Syria from 2011 onward and US-backed regime change in Ukraine in 2013-2014.
Collectively these conflicts have killed over a million people and driven millions more from their homes. This “offline harm” – the direct result of lies told by the Western corporate media – has not only gone completely unaddressed by Twitter – it is enabled by Twitter.
The banning of the more absurd QAnon movement will pave the way for other purges – eventually eliminating any alternative to the corporate media and its demonstrably dangerous and dishonest narratives. QAnon’s absurdity will make it easy for Twitter to justify its ban, but the momentum toward greater censorship across Western social media will eventually impact accounts and movements previously difficult to justify banning.
US-based “social media” platforms – Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. – are no longer truly social media. They are clearly transforming into centralized programed media where corporate monopolies create content that is consumed, removing the public, independent organizations, and competitors’ role in creating content, contributing to discussions, offering alternative views, and interacting with one another.
It is important that this fact be fully recognized and exposed as well as the creation of alternative platforms – especially overseas where US-based “social media” has been fully weaponized and used to undermine sociopolitical and economic stability.
*
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.
“Whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean would be a prominent player on the international scene.” (US Navy Geostrategist Rear Admiral Alfred Thayus Mahan (1840-1914))
Among Washington’s strategic objectives is the militarization of major seaways, extending from the Mediterranean to South Asia and the Far East, through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, The Gulf of Bengal, the Malacca-Singapore strait to the South China Sea and the East China Sea. (see map below).
This seaway route is central to the conduct of maritime commodity trade between East Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Western Europe. The US led-wars in both Yemen (Red Sea, Gulf of Aden) and Somalia (Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean) are in this regard strategic.
The US also exerts its strategic presence in the Indian Ocean from its Diego Garcia military base.
The unspoken objective of these militarized sea routes is to undermine China’s maritime silk road under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
The US-India Alliance against China
A dangerous game is currently unfolding in the Indian Ocean. Joint US-India naval operations are envisaged in the Adaman Sea. The Times of India has confirmed the planning of US-India War Games in proximity of the Nicobar Archipelago.
These war games take place at a time of political confrontation, with persistent threats by president Trump directed against China:
A US carrier strike group led by aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (right) is set to conduct an exercise with Indian warships near the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago.
… The USS Nimitz carrier strike group and another one led by USS Ronald Reagan have just completed an operational deployment and “freedom of navigation” mission in the South China Sea. This is seen as a major show of support for US allies and partners….
Several Indian warships are taking part in the exercise led by Eastern Naval Fleet Commander Rear Admiral Sanjay Vatsayan. They comprise warships, aircraft destroyers, frigates and submarines as well as maritime patrol aircraft from both the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC) and the Eastern Naval Command (ENC) headquartered at Visakhapatnam. (S Venkat Narayan: The Island)
India under Prime Minister Modi has been sucked into the US imperial agenda. Moreover, Japan and India have also carried out a naval exercise near the Malacca Strait in late June late, in liaison with Washington.
Australia is also involved in US sponsored war games directed against China:
“India is understood to be planning to invite Australia to take part in the Malabar exercise. If the move translates into reality, a military construct will firmly be added to the so-called “Quad” countries—India, Japan, the USA and Australia…
These war games consist in militarizing strategic waterways and maritime trade routes. They are intent upon undermining China-India relations under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
(They are also intent on undermining bilateral relations including trade between China and Japan, as well as Australia).
War games are an integral part of a “package” of threats and sanctions directed against Beijing including trade restrictions and the blacklisting of Chinese businessmen by the Trump administration.
For more than 20 years, the US has ensured the militarization of both the East and South China seas, extending from the Korean peninsula to the Taiwan Strait. What US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo‘s wants is for Beijing to accept a “Monroe style Doctrine” of US naval hegemony in the South China Sea intimating so to speak that ‘China should withdraw from the South China Sea’
“…we made our policy on the South China Sea crystal clear. It’s not China’s maritime empire.” (Pompeo press conference)
*
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.
In an article in Foreign Affairs in March titled, “Why America Must Lead Again,” Joe Biden claimed that “the world doesn’t organize itself,” and promised to “put the U.S. back at the head of the table” among the nations of the world. But the premise that the world can only organize itself under the direction of the United States and Biden’s ambition to restore the U.S. to such a dominant position at this moment in history are out of touch with global reality.
This view is already being challenged by governments and social movements around the world, and Americans should also challenge it if we mean to avoid endless war and a debilitating new arms race. As if to underline precisely these dangers, the “Back at the head of the table” sub-heading in Biden’s Foreign Affairs article appeared just above a huge photo of U.S. troops firing heavy artillery into a town in Afghanistan at the height of Obama’s escalation of that war in June 2011 (above).
Biden’s Record
An in-depth report in Defense One on June 30th, based on interviews with dozens of Biden insiders, explained how his article and his foreign policy views have reassured military-industrial interests that were worried by the impact of the growing progressive movement on the Democratic Party. Defense One concluded, “Biden may not radically change the nation’s military, deviate from the era’s so-called great power competition, or even slash the bottom line of the Pentagon’s $700 billion budget.”
These conclusions are consistent with Joe Biden’s record as a senator and vice president. On the most consequential, life-or-death decisions that members of Congress must make, votes for war or peace, Biden only once voted against a U.S.-led war, the First Gulf War in 1991. That was largely a party line vote, in which 45 out of 55 Democratic senators voted against the use of military force to recover Kuwait from Iraq for its royal family.
But Biden seems to have learned a perverse lesson from that war, since he later expressed regret for his vote and never voted against a war again. The next time Congress voted on a bill to authorize the use of military force, over Kosovo in 1999, Biden wrote the bill himself. His war bill failed in the House in a rare 213-213 tie, but the U.S. and NATO attacked Yugoslavia anyway, in a war that was therefore illegal under both U.S. and international law.
As the bombing campaign escalated, killing thousands of civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure from Kosovo to Belgrade, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned that the U.S. and NATO’s decision to go to war without UN Security Council approval had set the world “on a dangerous path to anarchy.” Joe Biden responded, “Nobody in the Senate agrees with that. There is nothing to debate. He is dead, flat, unequivocally wrong.”
Biden then played a key role in the propaganda blitz for war on Iraq. As John Feffer and Stephen Zunes wrote later, “In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the American public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing.”
During his final 12 years in the Senate, Joe Biden never once voted against a military spending bill. Then, as vice president, despite the illusion of Obama as a “peace president,” which even fooled the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Biden was a senior member of an administration that set a post-World War II record for military spending and dropped more bombs and missiles on more countries than Bush and Cheney did.
To Biden’s credit though, he did oppose the 2011 regime change operation that plunged Libya into endless chaos. Biden also argued against sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but what he supported instead was a policy shift from large-scale U.S. occupations to a greater reliance on bombing, shelling, and covert and proxy war, which Obama adopted and Trump has continued.
The continuing chaos caused by the U.S.’s wars in the Greater Middle East, the guerrilla wars now raging across much of Africa, and the rubble and unmarked graves of Ramadi, Kobane, Mosul, Raqqa and other cities in Iraq and Syria are a damning testimony to the cynicism of the Obama and Trump administrations’ war policies. They have succeeded in reducing U.S. casualties and shifting America’s wars off our TV and computer screens, but only at the cost of hundreds of thousands of largely uncounted civilian deaths.
The U.S. Can’t Organize Itself, Much Less the World
People around the world must be scratching their heads over Biden’s claim that “the world doesn’t organize itself” and that it needs the U.S. to do it. The more pressing question right now is whether the U.S. can organize itself to deal with a pandemic that China, New Zealand, Vietnam, Germany, Cuba and other better-organized societies have already contained and nearly defeated, simply by prioritizing the health of their people over other interests for a relatively short period of time.
In the U.S., on the other hand, the pandemic was instantly politicized, and exploited as a new opportunity for corporate bailouts. U.S. leaders cavalierly treated the health of the public as a secondary concern to be weighed against the impact on the “economy,” mainly a euphemism for corporate profits and stock prices, and their own political interests.
In June, months into the pandemic, the U.S. still had only 37,000 contact tracers, barely a third of the 100,000 minimum that public health experts said were needed. Former CDC director Tom Frieden pointed out in April that the U.S. would need 300,000 contact tracers if it was to match the scale of China’s successful program in Wuhan. Now a surge in new cases in the U.S. in June has inevitably led to a tragic ever-rising death toll in July, with no end in sight.
In reality, the main obstacle to the world organizing itself in recent years has been the very country that Joe Biden promotes as its savior: the United States. Wikipedia lists 47 multilateral treaties that the U.S. has either not signed, signed but not ratified or withdrawn from. They range from the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Wikipedia’s list does not even include Trump’s disastrous decision to pull out of the Nuclear Agreement with Iran or his withdrawal from the World Health Organization in the midst of a pandemic.
U.S. leaders blame their abysmal record of international obstruction on U.S. partisan politics, but other countries also have contentious domestic politics and yet somehow manage to ratify treaties, cooperate with the UN and play their part in international affairs. Only the U.S. acts like a spoiled child, demanding a seat at the head of the table before it will cooperate on anything – and then still refuses to cooperate.
On climate change, the Obama administration wrecked the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which would have imposed binding limits on carbon emissions, refusing to sign on unless it was dropped in favor of a system in which each country would set its own voluntary, non-binding targets for emissions cuts. That was the basis for the much-hailed but ineffective agreements in Copenhagen and Paris that have allowed the U.S. to boost its oil and gas production to their highest levels ever.
On questions of war and peace, the UN Charter unequivocally prohibits the threat or use of force by any country, as Kofi Annan pointed out in the cases of Kosovo and Iraq. The basis of current U.S. war policy, as Biden implied in dismissing Annan’s statement on Kosovo, is that the U.S. will not be bound by the UN Charter when its “vital interests” are at stake or it can find any political justification for war that is persuasive to U.S. leaders.
In effect, the U.S. claims to be exempt from the rule of international law, which is why it vigorously rejects the jurisdiction of impartial international courts that could never uphold such a claim. In the case of Nicaragua v the United States in the 1980s, the International Court of Justice found the U.S. guilty of aggression against Nicaragua and ordered the U.S. to cease its aggression and pay war reparations – which it has still not paid.
In economic terms, no single country dominates today’s world economy or international trade as the U.S. did after the Second World War. The United States, China and the European Union are roughly equal in the size of their economies and their international trade, but even the combined GDP and external trade figures for all three only account for about 45% of the world’s trade and economic activity. The world we live in today is a diverse, multipolar world of 196 countries, where billions of people live, work and interact with each other, and all deserve a voice in our common future.
The notion that the United States deserves a special seat at the head of the international table is therefore a dangerous anachronism. It is not based on the U.S’s economic role in today’s world but on weaponizing the residual power of the U.S. Treasury and the dollar with murderous sanctions, and on a military imbalance that has given its leaders the erroneous idea that they can ignore the laws the world has agreed to live by and instead adhere to a doctrine of “might makes right” or the “law of the jungle.”
Far from earning the U.S. a position of privilege and authority among nations, the U.S.’s illegal military and economic warfare is a serious problem that the American people and the world must address and peacefully resolve before it does even greater harm.
How About a Round Table?
Amid all the rancor of U.S. politics, many of the older Americans who are Joe Biden’s base in the Democratic Party wistfully remember President Kennedy and the much mythologized “brief shining moment” when a young, glamorous president turned the White House into a vision of Camelot, and all things seemed possible. The most powerful symbol of the original Camelot was King Arthur’s Round Table, at which he and all his knights and guests sat as equals, and the identification of Kennedy with King Arthur was a symbol of his popular image as a man of the people – despite his privileged background.
So, here’s an idea for Joe Biden and his foreign policy advisers. Stop pretending that all America’s problems began with Trump, and that our failed bid for global military dominance has somehow earned our next president a “seat at the head of the table” when he sits down with his counterparts from China, Germany, Russia and the rest of the world. How about instead sitting down with them at a Round Table—real, virtual or just symbolic—on a basis of mutual respect and sovereign equality, to solve the urgent problems we all face in this century?
The American people are ready to turn the page on 20 years of war, undying hostility to our old Cold War enemies and massive military budgets that leave us trailing our more peaceful neighbors in education, healthcare, public transport, housing and social programs. Instead of trying to match Trump’s hostility to China, which will only encourage him to double down on his brinkmanship, Biden should firmly close the book on Trump’s New Cold War before it gets even more perilous.
Unfortunately, Biden’s past loyalty to military-industrial interests does not bode well for the kind of leadership we need, and which we have not seen from any U.S. president of this generation. So if Biden is elected, it will be up to peace-loving Americans to demand a foreign policy that takes illegal military “options,” brutal sanctions and a new arms race off the table and replaces them with a new commitment to the rule of law and “Round Table” diplomacy.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: A U.S. Air Force loadmaster assigned to the 746th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron performs a preflight inspection on a C-130 Hercules at Baghdad International Airport, Iraq, Dec. 9, 2019. The 746th EAS maintains a constant presence in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, supporting U.S. and Coalition aircraft in various operations in countries such as Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Bethany E. La Ville)
The American police state is currently making its boldest test run to date in Portland, Oregon, escalating violence and lawlessness against the peaceful population of an American city. The people of Portland have responded with increased resistance, but support from officials elected to defend the Constitution is scarce and weak.
Oregon’s two senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, are both Democrats with reputations for being on the better side of important issues. But until July 20, their best response to federal secret police operating without restraint in Portland had been to wring their hands and call for a federal investigation of the uninvited federal forces that have ratcheted up street violence and terrorized the city.
On July 20, the two senators made their biggest move yet, an amendment to pending legislation. Supported by 18 other senators and several members of the House, their press release “announced that they are introducing the Preventing Authoritarian Policing Tactics on America’s Streets Act, which would block the Trump administration from deploying federal forces as a shadowy paramilitary against Americans.” This sounds a whole lot better than it looks, since it’s only an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, unlikely to pass the Republican majority or, in the extreme, a presidential veto. It’s what you might call Potemkin legislation. The establishment of a police state is happening now, after decades of preparation, and this is a “solution” that will never matter.
What’s the matter with these people? The deployment of secret police, unidentified and unidentifiable, defying local control, should be recognized as a Rubicon crossing that cannot be allowed without kissing constitutional government one last goodbye. Why are these senators and their staffs not out in the streets with their constituents? What don’t they get that’s not worth even a single evening of their taxpayer-funded jobs?
Senator Merkley seems to understand on some level the significance of this crisis, having issued a statement on July 17 (more pushback!) that refers to two federal, executive-branch agencies, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ):
DHS and DOJ are engaged in acts that are horrific and outrageous in our constitutional democratic republic. First, they are deploying paramilitary forces with no identification indicating who they are or who they work for. Second, these agents are snatching people off the street with no underlying justification. Both of these acts are profound offenses against Americans. We demand not only that these acts end, but also that they remove their forces immediately from our state. Given the egregious nature of the violations against Oregonians, we are demanding full investigations by the inspectors general of these departments.
Oregon has five congressional representatives, two of whom – Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici, both Democrats – joined their senators in calling for an investigation. The other three – Democrats Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader, Republican Greg Walden – had even less objection to secret police patrolling Portland. There were no reports of them or their staffs taking a stand with their constituents in the streets.
Representative DeFazio issued a press release fretting about “reports” but failing to acknowledge the actual violence perpetrated by unidentifiable federal officers on peaceful protesters. The best DeFazio did was promise no action while vaguely expressing something like mild distress:
“I am deeply disturbed by the reports coming out of Portland about the escalating use of force against citizens peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights….”
In June, Rep. Schrader joined his senators and reps Blumenauer and Bonamici in a press release complaining about a possible surveillance aircraft flown by a federal agency over earlier protests following the police murder of George Floyd. The lawmakers wrote a letter to the U.S. Marshalls Service (USMS) asking for answers about a USMS-linked aircraft that spent three hours circling Portland protests on June 13. As for police-state tactics in Portland, Rep. Schrader seems so far to be AWOL. Also missing in action is Republican Rep. Walden, who is not running for re-election. Silent on federal secret police, Walden on July 21 called for a “safe, effective, accessible COVID-19 vaccine.”
Oregon’s Democratic governor Kate Brown has been consistently, insistently objecting to the federal secret police presence since it first started escalating police violence on July 11, when a USMS officer shot an immobile, peaceful protestor in the head with a “less than lethal” round that shattered the man’s skull. No one in state or local government requested any federal help. Those officials are unanimous in wanting the feds to leave.
Governor Brown has requested that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immediately withdraw its unwelcome officers from Portland, but with no effect. DHS officials have not responded to the Oregon governor’s office. In effect, the federal policing in Portland is an experiment in martial law with no justifying declaration of martial law. Acting DHS head Ken Cucinelli told NPR: “This is a posture we intend to continue, not just in Portland but in any of the facilities that we’re responsible for around the country.” The secret police presence in Portland does not limit itself legitimately to protecting federal facilities but operates freely outside its legal jurisdiction with no restraint by any other authority. This lawlessness appears to be a form of anarchy.
“This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. We cannot have secret police abducting people in unmarked vehicles. I can’t believe I have to say that to the President of the United States.”
… against the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Marshals Service, the United States Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Protection Service and their agents alleging they have engaged in unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregonians by seizing and detaining them without probable cause (see AG Rosenblum vs John Does 1-10 Complaint).
In addition to its lawsuit, Oregon planned to seek an immediate temporary restraining order (TRO) against the federal government’s police state activities. If granted by the court, the TRO “would immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians.”
One of the incidents prompting the state lawsuit – when peaceful, standing-still protestor Donovan LaBella, 26, had his skull fractured by a projectile fired by an unidentified secret police officer – is also the subject of a criminal investigation by the Oregon Department of Justice, joined by the Multnomah County District Attorney.
Another lawsuit filed July 21, charges the US with violating the tenth amendment of the Constitution, that reserves to the states all rights not specifically granted in the Constitution to the federal government, such as local law enforcement. The multiple plaintiffs in this case include two state representatives, the First Unitarian Church of Portland, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Portland, Oregon during George Floyd protests, 2020 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
With the possible exception of the TRO, which would likely be appealed, none of the state’s measures promises any immediate relief.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, 57, is a timber fortune heir who once climbed Mt. Everest. In the current crisis, Wheeler seems hardly able to climb out of bed. By a quirk of local government, Wheeler was also able to assign himself the role of Portland’s police commissioner, which is both legal and a conflict of interest. Portland Police Bureau has a long, dismal history of bias and violence that Wheeler has been loath to address. In 2018, half of all Portland Police arrests were homeless people.
During the protests after the George Floyd murder, Mayor Wheeler imposed a curfew on Portland, despite objections that it would encourage police abuse. He lifted the curfew two days later, after nights of excessive police use of tear gas and other chemical weapons.
Wheeler issued a statement saying he shared people’s concerns about police using chemical weapons during a pandemic that causes serious lung problems. But Wheeler refused to ban police use of chemical weapons. His statement went on to enshrine his inaction in language amazingly lacking in any sense of leadership:
Today, I directed Portland Police Chief Jami Resch that gas should not be used unless there is a serious and immediate threat to life safety, and there is no other viable alternative for dispersal. I strongly believe that gas should not be used to disperse crowds of nonviolent protestors or for general crowd management purposes. It should only be used in response to violence that threatens life safety. My priority and focus are to protect the lives of demonstrators, our first responders, and the people in custody at the Justice Center.
That statement was issued June 6, and police use of chemical weapons in Portland has continued, unhindered by the mayor who is also police commissioner. Before issuing the May curfew in Portland, Mayor Wheeler asked the governor to mobilize the National Guard to patrol Portland. At a June 1 press conference, Gov. Brown said: “Mayor Wheeler asked me over the weekend to mobilize the National Guard and put them in direct confrontation with protesters. This was not the first time the mayor has asked to mobilize the National Guard and not the first time I have declined.”
Mayor Wheeler has said publicly th at he would like the federal secret police to leave Portland, but he has not made a big issue of it. In spite of his expressed concern for peaceful protestors, he has not chosen to join them on the streets any more than the rest of Oregon’s reluctant leadership class.
Real leadership in Portland is coming from the streets and has been growing in response to the violent tactics of the federal police state.
Doing what no one in Oregon government attempted to do, a “Wall of Moms,” mothers and grandmothers, has emerged to stand as a human shield between the federal aggressors and the protestors. The feds tear-gassed them anyway.
In one of the most vivid videos coming out of Portland, Christopher David, 53, a career Navy vet, approaches a line of secret police in camo to ask them a question or two. David hadn’t paid much attention to the first seven weeks of protest on Portland, but unidentified militia kidnapping bystanders in unmarked vehicles got his attention. The Naval Academy graduate told USA today:
What they were doing was unconstitutional. Sometimes I worry that people take the oath of office or the oath to the Constitution, and it’s just a set of words that mean nothing. They really don’t feel in their heart the weight of those words.
David is a large man, a head taller than most of the secret police that he approached, but his approach was slow, calm, deliberate, non-threatening. One of the feds hit him in the chest with a baton, knocking him off balance, backwards a step. He recovered, presumably still intent on asking the officers about their oath to the Constitution. Then one of the feds clubbed him three times (breaking his hand) and another reached out to pepper spray him in the face. He tried to slap the pepper spray away as he backed up, then turned away from the feds who had just given him the short course in police state violence.
Acting DHS secretary Chad Wolf is a former lobbyist who has been with DHS since March 2017. His early work centered on the Trump administration’s practice of separating immigrant children from their parents, but he told Congress it was not his job to say whether the policy was right or wrong. Recently, Wolf has been vociferous in his defense of US police state practices in Portland. In a statement which is technically true, but does not actually deny the underlying accusation of savagery, Wolf said: “These police officers are not storm troopers, they are not Gestapo. That description is offensive.”
Yes, that description IS offensive. It’s intended to be offensive. And it’s also accurate in characterizing the behavior of American secret police. Is it better or worse to know that Wolf sent them into the field even though he knew they had not been trained in riot control or mass demonstration management?
Even other DHS employees are worried, according to Buzzfeed, which reports that “DHS employees are worried the Portland Protest Response is destroying their agency’s reputation.” Wait, what reputation is that? DHS, you’ll recall, is a mega-agency with no coherent mission, created in bi-partisan fashion in the panic after 9/11 (Ron Wyden voted for it in a 90-9 Senate vote). It was never a good idea. Right-wing authoritarians had written the legislation long before 9/11, then used the crisis as an occasion to take a massive step forward along America’s evolution toward a police state. Where we are now should be no surprise to anyone, any more than the mostly supine response so far to the initial deployment of our Homeland Security police and the presidential promise to take it nationwide.
*
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.
William Boardman has been writing for Reader Supported News since 2012. A collection of his essays, EXCEPTIONAL: American Exceptionalism Takes Its Toll, was published in September 2019 and is available from Yorkland Publishing of Toronto. He is a former Vermont assistant judge.
Then, when Chávez was in power, almost all of the media apparatus tried in vain to prevent the convocation of a National Constituent Assembly and, since it was not possible to stop that process either, it directed its efforts to try to get the people to reject the new Magna Carta (constitution).
Livingston was one of the two workers who went into the missile silo to obtain vapor readings after a 9-pound socket was accidentally dropped into the 9-storey silo, hitting and puncturing the rocket. Seconds later, fuel started to escape. It was dangerous because so much material involved was flammable. All the warning lights on the oxidizer vapor launch duct, the fuel vapor launch duct, and the fuel launch duct were lit. Schlosser reports Livingston saying, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this. Somebody’s going to die out there tonight.” “He was not a fearful or high-strung type.”
War games are an integral part of a “package” of threats and sanctions directed against Beijing including trade restrictions and the blacklisting of Chinese businessmen by the Trump administration.
