Global Research

For nearly a century, Japan posed the greatest threat to the security of Korea and most of Asia through its agenda of aggressive militarism and Western-style imperialism; today, that distinction belongs primarily to the United States. Yet the casual newsreader wouldn’t know this from the unanimous outcry that has poured out from the military-intelligence establishment in South Korea, Japan, and the United States over the Moon administration’s recent decision to withdraw from its intelligence-sharing agreement with Japan, GSOMIA.

According to the experts and talking heads who represent this establishment, South Korea’s GSOMIA withdrawal leaves all of East Asia more vulnerable to the real security threat in the region: North Korea, followed closely by China and Russia.

Indeed, Japan and South Korea signed the bilateral agreement in 2016 with the intent to “streamline intelligence sharing between Seoul and Tokyo in the face of North Korea’s nuclear threats.” GSOMIA was designed to serve both “practical” and “symbolic” functions: the agreement allowed for the unmitigated sharing of various forms of intelligence — military, satellite, cyber, and human — between Japan and South Korea concerning the activities of North Korea. More importantly, it symbolized the triumph of the U.S.-led alliance with South Korea and Japan to project military and economic power in East Asia against the rising powers of China and Russia.

Embedded into this rationale lie certain hypocrisies both blatant and subtle. A thorough account of U.S. imperialism in Asia in the past half-century would extend beyond the scope of this article, but the pervasive lack of clarity about the current situation among Asian countries themselves reveals certain contradictions worth spelling out.

East Asia: appearance vs. reality

Since its defeat in World War II, the government of Japan has thrown up a white flag of pacification that has won over much of the Western world. In line with its international image and traumatic national experience of nuclear warfare, Japan became a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty more than 40 years ago. Today, however, Japan implicitly postures to its neighbors as a de facto nuclear state with the technical capability to produce 5,000 nuclear weapons in six months. Meanwhile, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe praises the “glories” of Japan’s past, and his glowing praise contains within it a veiled threat to every country Japan invaded and plundered during its colonial era. Nowhere is this threat more apparent than in Japan’s aggressive attempts to stake a territorial claim over the island chains of Dokdo and Diaoyu: for centuries these territories belonged to Korea and China, respectively, only to be seized by Japan in the mid-twentieth century and placed under a foreign administrative rule that continues to this day.

Within the Korean peninsula, the supposed threat of North Korea has served as a convenient excuse for the continuation in South Korea of multi-million dollar joint military exercises and unchecked arms build-up — along with a dizzyingly vast, subterranean “spy manufacturing machine” that churns out highly questionable North Korean defector narratives for the sake of acquiring so-called human intelligence to be directly shared with the U.S. and until recently, Japan. Consequently, a national culture of anti-North paranoia pervades the South.

Under the weight of these contradictions, the rationale behind South Korea’s current military and security arrangement has been steadily waning. Despite the resumption of a familiar back-and-forth of joint military exercises on the U.S.-South Korean side and missile tests on the North Korean side, neither the Moon administration nor the DPRK government appears to have lost its long-term resolve in striving for peace and reunification on the peninsula. Japan, meanwhile, has only offered half-baked apologies and recalcitrant chauvinism towards Korea.

And so a stormy trade feud with deep historical roots has brought the relationship between Japan and South Korea to a new low for this century: last year, a South Korean court ruled in favor of compensation for Korean victims of forced labor by Japanese companies during the era of Japan’s colonial rule. In retaliation, Japan removed South Korea from its list of preferred trading partners and increased restrictions on exported products earlier this month. Incensed South Koreans erupted into a widespread boycott of Japanese goods, and the Moon administration downgraded Japan’s trade status. Beneath South Korea’s decision to abandon GSOMIA, then, lies a century of simmering anger at the refusal of the Japanese people and their government to fully recognize and make true amends for their imperialistic crimes against humanity.

With the renunciation of its intelligence-sharing pact with Japan, the South Korean government has not only responded to the mandate of the Korean people but dealt a practical and symbolic blow to the status quo in East Asia. As prospects for peace between North and South Korea loom closer than they have since the Korean War, the widening rift between South Korea and Japan has opened a door of opportunity for a new peace paradigm to be created in the region.

Ultimately, the termination of GSOMIA does not so much reflect the failure of inter-Asian diplomacy as it does the inefficacy of the U.S. alliance structure in East Asia. As American power dwindles in the Asia Pacific, the possibility of multilateral cooperation among the Asian countries increases. A regime built on the dominance of a foreign superpower can be replaced with a regional or continental system based on mutual relationships. Such a system would not emerge by chance or fate, but rather by the political will of the people involved. It is easy to talk of government officials and newsroom personalities when it comes to matters of international import, but the more important question is whether the people of a country want peace — for it is they who can decide whether peace is won.

The panic in Washington

Predictably, any forecast of peace appears as a threat to those who hold a stake in maintaining a climate of war. Perusing the lines of mainstream news reports and analyses on the recent GSOMIA decision proves highly instructive in this regard, insofar as these lines reveal the panic and dismay among the Washington elite at the thought of South Korea breaking up a military bloc that the United States has taken such pains to build over the past 75 years.

A prime example can be found in Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation. In an interview with Yonhap News Agency, Bennett opined: “In the event of a conflict with the North, the U.S. would deploy forces in support of its South Korean ally, but some of those troops would need to arrive via airports in Japan… South Korea’s decision to terminate GSOMIA reflects a failure of the South Korean government to recognize the importance of Japanese support to South Korean security.” In another interview with Voice of America, Bennett estimated that a conflict with North Korea would require the U.S. to bring about 690,000 troops to the peninsula — 662,000 more than the 28,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Korea. Terminating GSOMIA would “significantly slow the ability of U.S. forces to get to Korea” through Japanese airbases.

Perhaps unwittingly, Bennett paints a horrifying picture: a full-sized army of American soldiers flying halfway across the world to attack Korea from Japan.

Bennett’s employer RAND is a U.S. government-funded think tank whose tendrils have spread far and deep into every aspect of U.S. military and intelligence strategy since the Cold War, making Bennett a reliable mouthpiece for the permanent-war complex in Washington. The key detail to notice in Bennett’s opinion on the South Korea-Japan situation is that he presupposes a conflict between North and South Korea. In a delicate act of subliminal messaging, he slips in the mental image of war with North Korea as a given assumption from which all other reasoning must proceed.

The military-intelligence elites in Washington need lawmakers and everyday citizens to believe that a possible peace between the two Koreas should not be factored into any sort of decision-making when it comes to South Korea’s national security strategy or U.S. military involvement in Korea. Crucially, however, the Trump administration does not always align with the agenda of permanent war, especially when it comes to Korea.

In scores of news reports, opinion columns, and interviews, President Trump has been held wholly or partially guilty for the Moon administration’s most recent drastic course of action. Analysts have been quick to denounce Trump for botching trilateral relations between the U.S., South Korea, and Japan due to a bevy of accused missteps: his reluctance to step between the latter two nations to paternalistically resolve their issues with one another, his awareness of the hypocrisy in condemning North Korea for testing missiles when other countries do the same, and his personal crusade to reduce U.S. troop involvement and monetary support toward military “readiness” operations in South Korea that signal a flagrant threat of war to the North.

Whether Trump has consciously willed it or no, what is clear is that his administration’s political and rhetorical stances towards Korea have precipitated a seismic shift in the balance of power in East Asia — a fact which has drawn the ire of those who cling onto the outdated idea that the world needs the United States to maintain the global order because the smaller, darker nations cannot govern themselves.

In an interview on KBS World Radio, James Brown, a professor at Temple University’s Japan campus, ventured that a change in administration in the United States might “make a difference” in trying to “promote cooperation between the two sides and get them to overcome their differences” — an area where Trump has evidently failed. A Democratic president might, in other words, reverse the spiraling disarray of the U.S. alliance in East Asia. If Trump is unseated in the 2020 elections, pro-war factions can likely anticipate a more conventional U.S. military strategy akin to former President Obama’s disastrous “pivot to Asia”.

For those of us in the United States who care about peace and believe that the universal right to self-rule means that other peoples should exercise responsibility for their nation’s path without requiring the blessing of the West, the upcoming presidential election presents an opportunity to put, as the saying goes, our money where our mouth is. Will we elect a president who stands for persistent wars? Or will we elect a president who can help open the door to peace? Will we do what we can to hasten the arrival of a new paradigm in East Asia? Or will we bow before the so-called experts who tell us that further militarization is best for “America’s interests” or that somebody else “needs” America’s help?

It is not necessary to fully agree with or condone the governments of North Korea, China, and Russia. It is right, however, to practice some basic self-awareness about the gaping contradictions in our own society’s use of wholesale violence and extortion against not one, but multiple continents of human beings. As a famous Jewish rabbi once said, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

The military-intelligence establishment has decried South Korea’s refusal to cooperate with a country that will not recognize the persistence of its own evils, and hawkish trumpeters are sounding the horns of war and mayhem — but a great many others will be sounding the bells of peace and justice in the days to come.

*

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.

Jeremiah Kim is a graduate of Cornell University, a member of Asian Pacific Americans for Action (APAA), and a former editor at The Cornell Daily Sun.

On August 27, joint forces of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups launched an attack on positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near the town of Abu Dali in southern Idlib. Clashes between the SAA and militants erupted in the villages of Tal Maraq, Salmuia, Jaduia, Sham Al-Hawa and Abi Omar. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham employed at least one suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive device. Nonetheless, they were not able to overrun the SAA defense.

Pro-militant sources claimed that militant forces captured a battle tank and 3 armoured vehicles from the SAA. Pro-government sources reported that at least 37 militants were killed and a T-55 battle tank and a BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle belonging to them were destroyed.

The developments near Abu Dali, a Russian observation post is located in the same area, demonstrate that no real de-escalation of the situation in Idlib is possible while Hayat Tahrir al-Sham operates there.

Watch video here.

Meanwhile, the SAA deployed a batch of reinforcements to northern Lattakia. Pro-government forces have been seeing the militant-held town of Kinsabah as a high priority target in the area. However, all previous attempts to capture it have resulted in no progress.

On August 28, pro-militant sources reported that a supposed Syrian Air Force airstrike hit a Turkish observation post near Sheir Magher in northwestern Hama. Later, it appeared that the Syrian Su-24 dropped a strike near the post causing no damage to it. The Turkish Defense Ministry also denied that any of its posts was targeted.

Radical militant groups, including Hayat Tahrlr a-Sham, often deploy their positions used to shell SAA positions near Turkish observation posts using Turkish troops as de-facto human shields.

On the same day, Jaysh al-Nasir reported that one of its field commanders, Mohamad Turki, and two of his body guards were eliminated near the town of Alhakorh. The group blamed Russian special forces.

The situation on the contact line in southern Idlib remains tense.

*

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.

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

From an ignorant child you’d never learn it.
Yet the sophisticated know it is work
That is the secret of the good life. God forbid,
Not labor that breaks your back, picking
Vegetables, cleaning toilets, laying down
That steaming hot blacktop on summer days.

Nothing that crushes your body to fine powder.
No, no, nothing as crude as dirty work like that.
They are, after all, wise in the world’s ways, those
Who mean a career, achievement, a steady craft,
Day in and day out whether you like it or not,
Whether it involves crushing others or ignoring
Them, playing dumb and innocent, bad
Faith to be sure, tapping at a keyboard as you
Lie or steal to build your innocent dream
House, construct your illusions to hide from truth
As you sell your soul to the money lenders, those
Who hunt and kill the poor everywhere. Sometimes
It is couched as art or intellect.  Get something down
Every day. It is not important what it is or that
It doesn’t serve to salve the wounded ones. Regularity is what
Counts, a daily drop in the bucket of fugacious waste,
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, creeping
Through a petty pace in petty pursuits in petty lives.

All wise and happy people know it.

A career a work a task to call your own, to say
I am a lawyer, a professor, a journalist, anything
With a name, a title, a way to be but not become,
A way to say that dusty death can never
Claim that you have lived an idiot’s life, wasted
Work in time that you will never have again.

Real work true work regular work,
So merry Rodin advised the sad young poet Rilke,
Work, work, work, my boy, never cease
From toiling over your clay world of words.
Exactly why he never said exactly,
Except I guess he meant it would bring benefit.
And bubbly Freud’s advice is legendary.
You need work that is yours, so too
Some love, but mostly work to keep you jolly
Sane. Life is a long and lonely vale
Of tears, so you must find your work and do it
Whether you like it or not. Civilization is a
Valley of deep discontent, pleasure
Might come to you later, a little here
Or there, once you get regular, down to it
Daily. Success will rise to greet you,

From an ignorant child you’d never learn 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.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The G7 Summit is an obsolete, useless talking shop, as Finnian Cunningham so adroitly says. RT calls it The Unbearable Pointlessness of G7. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the United States constitute the G7 gang. It should strike any logical thinker as extremely odd that the world’s largest economy (by purchasing parity-based GDP), China, is not part of the club. Why is that? – It’s clear, the club is for western turbo-capitalist ideologues only; the self-proclaimed world hegemons.

Yes, the G7 are, no doubt, a useless talking shop – and much worse. These seven self-nominated leaders of the world are also among the greatest war criminals of the globe. They are involved in and initiate conflicts and wars that have in the last 20 years – roughly since 9/11 gave them a ‘free pass’ to raise in the name of fighting endless terrorism havoc around the globe – killed an estimated 15 to 20 million people, either directly or by proxy and mercenary armies.

That is of course much worse than uselessness.

*

Does anyone ever talk about the value and cost, of these ‘summits’? – The value, i.e. the output, is at best zero – and in most cases negative. These conferences highlight conflicts, create new ones and add to the fire what was just smoldering. And I am not talking about the Brazilian amazon fires. This was the case of the G7 in Biarritz. The high-ranking delegates were insulting each other, plus, as this was not enough, barbs were thrown back and forth across the Atlantic between Macron and Bolsonaro. That just shows about what level of human consciousness we are talking.

Trump was confusing the lot, or those who paid any attention to the outbursts of the creator of pure chaos, more tariffs on Chinese goods, then not, then again, levying tariffs for French wines, new sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, threats of new aggressions and even war with Iran; and surprise-surprise “Kim Jon-un, North Korea’s President, is a friend”. Peace talks were not even on the back-burner. So, it would be fair to say, the benefits or values of this summit were less than zilch, they were negative. It was a laughable propaganda stint, but an expensive one at that.

Defining the costs of the event is a rather complex algorithm. However, any cost for an event that produces a sum of negative values, is money thrown into a bottomless pit. The costs, of course, do not just amount to travel, lodging, good food and drink – they include for starters also the entire entourage of the megalo-politicians, police and military security. Biarritz alone was protected by about 20,000 police and military troops combined, they shielded the worldly leaders (sic) from anti-G7 / anti-establishment demonstrators.

Protests are widely justified against this clan of smiling tyrants and despots, with the audacity to appoint themselves to the world’s rulers. No UN or other international body has selected or ratified them. Their arrogance with impunity is meant to irradiate power around the globe. Their smoke of grandeur emanating from their heads can most likely be seen from space. The sad story is that the vast majority of this world, especially the western world, takes them seriously. They bow to the G7 nonsense; they accept their often-criminal decisions for wars, conflicts and killer-sanctions, as God-given. – The G7 decide over the fate of sovereign nations, like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Afghanistan – and who is next? – If it wasn’t for Russia and China the damage, they cause would indeed be unbearable.

They selected themselves as rulers of the universe. Unheard of, only half a century ago, that something so aberrant like the G7, the G20, the WEF (World Economic Forum that meets every January in lush Davos, Switzerland), are able to assemble many of the same rulers to hold the scepter of power over the planet. How come the peoples of this world allow their supremacy with impunity? – One can but shake one’s head about this lunacy – what has humanity become?

The Trump delegation usually travels with a flock of aids, journalists, advisors, let alone his bodyguards – and the blinded cars he brings from Washington by special air carriers. And all the others? Maybe slightly less, as they are – as vassals of the Great US Emperor – bound to be a bit more modest. Nevertheless, the total cost must be in the hundreds of millions – all counted, including shadow costs, environmental damage, CO2 emissions, and ‘externalities’ – which includes everything that establishment economists don’t want you to know, say a total cost of 200 to 300 million dollars?

Source: Flickr

Maybe that’s an underestimate. The published figure on what Biarritz alone spent on this illustrious event is around US$ 41 million equivalent, 15,000 police and about 5,000 troops, but not counting for the damage caused by the authorities fighting peaceful protesters. Add to this the cost of all the other attendants. Never mind the exact cost – the sheer fact that a grotesque amount of money in the range of 200 to 300 million dollars, is spent for nothing, zilch, for the bolstering of egos of some megalos, is an absurdity of our western civilization.

Hundreds of millions of dollars – a fiat currency produced at will and whim by the Federal reserve (The FED – the entirely privately owned US Central Bank) – nevertheless a currency that still drives much of the world, is used to pay for basics, like food, housing, clothing, health care and what’s left of education  – meaning what the world rulers are still allowing young people to be educated with.

Just think about it – who pays for all these hundreds of millions of dollars, euros, yen, or whatever other fiat currency? – You – the tax payer. So, you, the tax payer have something to say about how your money is spent. Don’t you think?

Therefore, we the people have to stop this arrogant nonsense – that leads to less than zero, or worse, but costs hundreds of millions that could be spent on education and health services and other public services, including taking care of refugees – in the G7 countries, or alternatively in countries to be rebuilt after the destruction by wars for greed and hegemony by the very G7.

So far – and every time more – the money spent on G7 and similar events, is like negative interest – destructive. You the citizen and tax-payer, spend money for something that has a negative return. It is as nefarious as if you deposit your savings in a bank and the bank, instead of giving you an interest on your savings, charges you interest for keeping your money, then lends it to, say, a corporation, but the corporation has to pay back less than it borrowed. In other words, you the ‘small saver’ subsidize the big corporation, or anybody who can afford and is considered ‘eligible’ and solvent enough by the bank to borrow money. – It’s a new form of transferring resources from the bottom to the top.

The money spent on the G7 – or other comparable events – is similar. The event rulers take your money (taxes) and transfer it upstairs, where you will never see it again. Not only do you get nothing for it, but it costs you more, as the G7 foment wars and conflicts which kill millions, annihilate entire countries’ infrastructure, housing, schools, health facilities and generate an influx of refugees, for all of which you pay again.

Let’s see – a year of primary education, say in Africa, costs about US$ 400 / per student, and about US$ 650 for high school education (2017). Providing decent health care, preventive and curative, per person in Bangladesh amounts to about US$ 650 per year. Assuming the money spent on the G7 Biarritz summit was about 250 to 300 million, you could provide education for a year to about 550,00 students in, say, Kenya, or provide a year of decent health care to about 430,000 Bangladeshi. – Or – the G7 funds could build drinking water and sanitation facilities for about 2.5 million people in developing countries. These figures may have a margin of error of plus or minus 20%. But you get the picture.

Or closer to home – how many refugees could xenophobic Europe, especially France and Italy,  take care of – refugees driven from their countries, precisely for wars started and sustained by the G7s, to line their weapons industries with huge profits, to dominate the world’s natural resources and eventually put all the people under one hegemonic, globalized roof – one culture, one currency, and only one kind of thinking and ideology allowed – their final goal.

Well, these refugees streaming to Europe, children without parents, divided families, sick people, people dying in the ditches, on the sides of roads in self-built camps, camps exposed to the climate elements, camps that are eventually erased by bulldozers – these human beings – put into misery by the very G7 – why not use the money spent on such nefarious fora to impress the lot of the well-off populations on either side of the Atlantic, instead on a little humanitarian act – act of consciousness, what’s left of it – taking care of the trans-Mediterranean refugees?

Mr. Macron, you are besieged by the Yellow Vests, who will not go away – what do you think canceling the event and instead pledging the funds for humanitarian shelter for refugees, and lobbying with the remaining G6 to do the same – would have done to your Presidency, to your ever-sinking popularity? – Maybe some uplifting? – You could badly need it. But the image – that’s what it is, the image of grandeur, rubbing elbows with the so-called “leaders” of the world, is of all-overarching importance. Isn’t it? – Never mind the unbearable suffering of many of the people you claim to democratically represent.

*

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

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21^st Century; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

GR Editor’s Note.

Mark Carney is a Canadian citizen and former senior official at Goldman Sachs before becoming Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013).

He was the first foreign national since the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 to be appointed to the position of Governor (2013- ). He broadly reflects the interests of the The Washington Consensus and the Anglo-American banking establishment. He is a candidate for the position of Managing Director of the IMF.

Carney talks about “dislodging the U.S. currency” with a view to developing “a diversified multi-polar financial system”.

But what does this new global currency arrangement –which he describes as a “Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC)–imply?

Is it not a process of integration of the dollar process, namely the dollarization of existing national currencies under a new (dollar hegemony) SHD label?

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 30, 2019

***

It is remarkable that Bank of England Governor Mark Carney recently spoke publicly about “the U.S. dollar’s “destabilizing” role in the world economy”, going on to suggest that “central banks might need to join together to create their own replacement reserve currency (see link at end of article).” This is very significant because in his capacity as Bank of England Governor, Carney serves as Chairman of the Monetary Policy Committee, giving him a major role in directing national economic and monetary policy.

The destabilizing role Carney’s referring to is the massive free ride that European-American capitalists (EACs) have enjoyed since going off the gold standard in 1971 and creating the petrodollar in 1974. Since then, EACs have raided the treasury so ruthlessly and completely that the financial system in the U.S. collapsed into insolvency in 2008.

The fiat, petrodollar has allowed EACs to project military power beyond America’s borders to an extent unprecedented in human history without collapsing the economy as happened to imperial Rome. The results are 800+ military bases and facilities in over 60 ‘nations.’ EACs have used the petrodollar arrangement to finance aggressive and illegal military actions in the Americas, Afrika and the Middle East for the past thirty years.

EACs and their European brothers have also used their domination of foreign currency reserves, totaling a whopping 82%, as a weapon to coerce recalcitrant ‘nations’ into following their dictates with the imposition of economic sanctions. EACs have placed heavy sanctions on several nations that possess major strategic petroleum reserves, effectively attempting to manipulate the oil market in their favor. While European capitalists have recently been a bit more circumspect in their efforts to maintain the supremacy of European capitalist men than their American brothers, they have yet to completely break ranks.

Domestically, the U.S. economy is running on fumes. Citizens have been stuck with stagnant wages, the loss of jobs resulting from manufacturers deserting the U.S. for ‘nations’ with cheaper production costs, brutal changes in work conditions such as the explosion of part time and contract jobs, the loss of benefits, rising cost of living, disastrous health care, crumbling public education, crumbling infrastructure, etc.

The Federal Reserve has added to the malaise with quantitative easing, in other words, printing money. In the aftermath of the financial collapse of 2008, the Fed bought up all that bad paper created by fraudulent casino capitalists that caused them to go insolvent in the first place thereby creating an ominous asset bubble.

The instability that Carney is talking about is the unbalanced, unstable, dystopian conditions created by EACs in their bloody determination to retain their supremacy by any means necessary without regard for friend or foe.

At the same time, several non-European nations have gained considerable economic strength over the same period beginning in the 1990’s. These nations, primarily located in Asia, are determined to lessen and eventually eliminate the outsized power that EACs have to manipulate their currencies and economies via the fiat, petrodollar and military coercion.

They are determined to slowly extricate their economies from global capitalism and thus protect themselves from coercion, manipulation and control. So, they are steadily adding to their strategic mineral reserves by buying gold, slowly ditching U.S. Treasury Notes, establishing currency swaps with trading partners, engaging in barter trade, developing independent interbank messaging systems and giving crypto currencies serious consideration. It is, perhaps, this rather morbid reality that motivates Carney to be so forthright in criticizing what EACs have been doing.

He goes on to suggest,

“The best solution to dislodge U.S. currency would be a diversified multi-polar financial system, something that could be provided by technology!”

Perhaps it is difficult to take this seriously in light of what European capitalists and their European-American brothers have done for the past 150 years but maybe it’s time that we do. The fact is that cycles are an integral part of how things work in this universe. The decline and collapse of such an ruthless, unbalanced, pseudo political economy as capitalism was inevitable from its beginnings in England 500 years ago.

Here’s the kicker:

“As a consequence, it is an open question whether such a new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) would be best provided by the public sector, perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies,” Carney said.

Let that sink in for a moment! Carney is the governor of the Bank of England. He is a capitalist administrator in a major institution of global capitalism.

Clearly, international power relations are changing dramatically. We will predict that within 5 generations capitalism will no longer be the world’s dominant political economy. It will be replaced by hybrid economies that some will call ‘socialist’ (see China, Venezuela, etc.), however, the political economy that ultimately comes to dominate globally cannot be predicted at this time.

One thing’s for sure, capitalism is dying and, once gone, will never return. That’s why European-American capitalists, who have ‘carried the flag’ most aggressivelyfor elite European men, are so desperate and behaving so erratically recently and will probably continue to do so as long as they can.

What does this mean for Afrikans in America? Good question!

In the short term, that is, over the next 10 years, we can expect more of the same in America, that is, repeated economic recessions, increased inflation, stagnant wages, declining social services, environmental degradation, increased violence, increased underemployment and unemployment, increased police violence and mass incarceration, increased ethnic and ‘racial’ tension, etc. In other words, more of what has been happening for the past 30 years.

Therefore, Africans in America should focus on building the institutions our people will need to survive the coming dystopian conditions in America.

We need to focus on building up our communities.

We need to institutionalize the knowledge, training and skills needed to ensure the viability and survival of our people.

It’s up to us.

Evolve the Revolution!

The Marathon Continues!

*

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

Featured image is from Flickr

Just about 50 years ago the West Coast rock group Quicksilver Messenger Service recorded “What About Me”. Sadly, in this America 2019 the lyrics are more relevant. 

Fifty years later! Let’s analyze certain parts of the song:

What About Me

You poisoned my sweet water.
You cut down my green trees.
The food you fed my children
Was the cause of their disease.

My world is slowly fallin’ down
And the airs not good to breathe.
And those of us who care enough,
We have to do something…….

Well, you cannot get more apropos than the first stanza. Go ask the folks in Flint, Michigan and thousands of communities nationwide about the lead and other toxins that they and their kids suck down. Go ask anyone with even half a brain about what the loggers and ranchers are doing in Brazil to our precious rainforest? The trail of smoke, I am told, can even be seen from our satellites in space. As far as the food we ingest, well, with all the pesticides and genetically engineered veggies and fish, plus all the **** manufacturers place into their formulas for pre prepared meal, as well as artificial sweeteners like Aspartame (Donny Boy Rumsfeld was CEO of G.D Searle when they manufactured this poison), and nitrites etc…

Your newspapers,
They just put you on.
They never tell you
The whole story.

They just put your
Young ideas down.
I was wonderin’ could this be the end
Of your pride and glory?

You know, Trump borrowed the phrase ‘Fake News’ to exploit his base into thinking that he tells the truth and the media lies. Well, he got that half correct. Historically, all of our presidents and their minions have lied whenever it suited them. The embedded in empire mainstream media can not only outright LIE, but  diabolically steer their viewers and readers into any right wing direction they wish. Yes, right wing. You see, one of the great ‘Long Cons’ has been to instruct the sucker public that the Democrats are ‘Left’ and the Republicans are ‘Right’. It used to be that one party was seen as ‘Liberal’ and the other ‘Conservative’. Regardless of labels these two subservient political parties always make sure to keep the interests of the Military Industrial Empire above that of the people they are supposed to represent. Thus, this ‘Left vs. Right’ is only valid on the slew of news talk shows on CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

 I work in your factory.

I study in your schools.
I fill your penitentiaries.
And your military too!

And I feel the future trembling,
As the word is passed around.
“If you stand up for what you do believe,
Be prepared to be shot down.”  

Does this need explaining at all for 2019? This is the voice of the young, the ones who could  not either afford or qualify to be in college. So, they work tedious dead end jobs, or join the military or break the law (like selling tax free cigarettes?) and wind up dead or in jail. Fifty years and nothing changes.  

I smoke marijuana
But I cant get behind your wars.
And most of what I do believe
Is against most of your laws

I’m a fugitive from injustice
But I’m goin’ to be free.
Cause your rules and regulations
They dont do the thing for me  

Marijuana is slowly being accepted by the empire because it supports the state budgets with its heavy sales tax revenue. The monies needed to run things properly should be gotten by taxing the super rich individuals and corporations that need to pay their fair share (In 1961 when JFK took office the top federal tax rate for individuals was 90% and for corporations at 52%- today it is at 37% and 21% respectively). Ok, so at least taking pot off the ‘ Public Enemy’ list is a positive. Of course, the ‘ War ‘ part of the song referred to the Vietnam War era when we had a draft. Don’t we who ‘ know better’ feel like fugitives from injustice as our nation moves into the ‘ Fourth Reich Zone’ ?

A phrase from the chorus of this powerfully written song that seems to sum it all up::

When will more of we working stiffs stop believing all that MAGA  **** ( Make America Great Again) and all that Resistance **** from each of these two sell out parties? It is not just about elections either. It is about raising one’s consciousness to say NO to empire and , more importantly, to be role models for our youth.

*

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 a frequent contributor to Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust 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 300 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].

Tehran and Washington have been locked in a dispute since last year when the US unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear agreement and re-imposed crippling sanctions on Iran. On Monday, President Donald Trump said he is ready to meet his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani within weeks after a G-7 leaders’ summit. The idea was proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron who was hosting the summit. But Rouhani said Washington must first lift sanctions imposed since its withdrawal from the nuclear deal.

Below is a timely interview with Peter Koenig, Geopolitical analyst and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

***

PressTV: Could you comment on Mr. Rouhani’s conditions for talks with President Trump?

Peter Koenig: Mr. Rouhani is right asking for lifting of sanctions, as a principle, because Iran has never bypassed or violated the rules of the Nuclear Deal. The sanctions are a groundless punishment by Washington – because Iran wants – and should – remain a sovereign country, not bowing to Washington.
Its sheer economic terrorism.

However, let’s be realistic – the US, especially Trump who is dancing to the tunes of Netanyahu – will not just lift the sanctions. It would, in my opinion, be more constructive if Mr. Rouhani would ask for lifting of the most “hurting” sanctions – for example, the ban on importing crucial medication and medical equipment and other vital goods.

We know, the US will not change behavior, especially under Trump, as long as they still feel they are the exceptional Nation, the undisturbed Empire. Never mind that the empire is rapidly declining. As long as they have a stranglehold, literally, on the wester monetary system. That will not change.

That’s why I keep suggesting that Iran gradually but firmly and ever faster detach itself from the western economy and financial system, western banks, the use of dollars and euros – and shift to the East, becoming a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as quickly as possible, and trade in Chinese yuan.

Yes, Mr. Macron initiated the talks with Mr. Trump. But, how shall I say this – Macron is not trustworthy. He does what he thinks can serve himself, not even the French people, but him, his image as King Macron.

He wants to be the go-between, be friends with Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi, but also be friends with Trump. Whatever serves his megalo-image.

When something doesn’t go his way, doesn’t bolster his image, he will step back.

So better Iran goes her own way – in direction East, where the future is.

And again – with as little as possible dealing with the west.

As long as the US is in the driver’s seat, and as long as the US controls the western money flow, anybody not liked by the Master is vulnerable for sanctions. We see it all over the world.

Therefore, asking for partial lifting of sanctions, namely for vital goods, those that cause most harm to the Iranian people, like medical imports, may be a good initial strategy.

Who knows, perhaps Trump goes along. And if not, Mr. Rouhani has at least tried, and a rejection by Trump would further tarnish his presidency.

*

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.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21^st Century; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from Voice of People Today

The announcement that the Brahmos supersonic missiles jointly produced by Russia and India will soon be exported to third countries that are on friendly relations with both increases the odds that their historic Vietnamese partners might receive these game-changing weapons.

***

The Brexit no deal prospect is engendering an element of lunacy fast seeping into every pore of the British political establishment.  As with all steeped in such thinking, some of it made sense.  Prime Minister Boris Johnson had been inspired by a mild dictatorial urge, seeking to suspend the UK parliament five weeks out from October 31.  This has been described as nothing short of a coup, or, if you are the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, a “constitutional outrage”.  

Legal expertise was called upon to answer the question whether Johnson’s proroguing of parliament was, in fact, constitutional.  This was itself a tricky thing, given that the UK has a “political constitution” that resists being inked into written form.  To be British is supposedly to be reasonable, and codifying such convention suggests a fear that reason might be lost.  As Professor Michael Gordon of the University of Liverpool explains, three avenues are open to evaluate the constitutionality of a government action in the system: “compatibility with the law, political convention and constitutional principle.” 

On the first point, it was near impossible to challenge Johnson.  For all the matters of convention, the monarch remains the figure who ultimately holds the power to prorogue parliament.  And the argument here by the prime minister is that this is the penultimate step to announcing a fresh legislative agenda in the monarch’s speech on October 14.   

As far as the second point was concerned, Gordon had to concede that the Queen would never have constituted herself as a “constitutional safeguard” to reject Johnson’s request. That would have done more than repudiate the long held convention on staying above politics and acting on the advice of the prime minister.   

This only left the nebulous notion of “constitutional principles”: as the government draws support from the House of Commons, it must duly abide by the body if its wishes are out of step.  As the House of Commons rejects the idea of a no deal Brexit, Johnson should have engaged parliament on the issue.  Well, that’s the view of the pro-parliamentarians, and as the current prime minister has a very flexible set of values both personal and political, few should have been stunned by the latest antics in subverting parliamentary scrutiny.

Beyond the legal pecking, a swathe of reaction were in agreement with Bercow.  Novelist Philip Pullman went one further, suggesting that, “The ‘prime minister’ has finally come out as a dictator.”  Britain best be “rid of him and his loathsome gang as soon and as finally as possible.”  This had a certain whiff of a coup of its own, the sort of thing that Westminster systems have been vulnerable to in history.  (Australia offers an apt, if undistinguished example of the overthrow of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975, ably assisted by opposition leader Malcolm Fraser and then governor general John Kerr.)

The prorogation ploy was taken so seriously by the Financial Times that a humble suggestion was made lest Britain comprise his airy position as law-abiding obsessive and exemplar of order to the world. “If Mr. Johnson’s prorogation ploy succeeds, Britain will forfeit any right to lecture other countries on their democratic shortcomings.”  (Hadn’t it already done so?)  Imperially sounding, the FT suggested that Britain’s singular disposition lay in “constitutional arrangements” long bound by “conventions.” 

Momentum, the Labour faction supporting Jeremy Corbyn, the man who would be usurper, was laying the ground for a challenge, albeit tumbling into the oxymoronic. “An unelected prime minister looks set to approach an unelected monarch to ask her if he can shut down parliament to force through a disastrous no deal Brexit.”  The assessment? “Make no mistake – this is an establishment coup.”  All fine, except that monarchs are known for being humanity’s unelected specimens, and that this coup was being countered with a proposal for a counter-coup. Messy be the conventions of the land. 

For those long linked to Britain’s gradual and seemingly natural integration into European affairs, the move by Johnson was near criminal.  Hugh Grant, summoning up a certain primal rage, was furious.  On Twitter, he launched a ferocious firebombing of Johnson’s position. 

“You will not fuck with my children’s future.  You will not destroy the freedoms my grandfather fought two world wars to defend.  Fuck off you over-promoted rubber bath toy.  Britain is revolted by you and you little gang of masturbatory prefects.”   

You will not fuck with my children’s future. You will not destroy the freedoms my grandfather fought two world wars to defend. Fuck off you over-promoted rubber bath toy. Britain is revolted by you and you little gang of masturbatory prefects. https://t.co/Oc0xwLI6dI

— Hugh Grant (@HackedOffHugh) August 28, 2019

Comedian and all round brain box Stephen Fry could not stomach it, asking for a good cry for Britain, and deeming Johnson’s effort as those of,

“Children playing with matches, but spitefully not accidentally: gleefully torching an ancient democracy and any tattered shreds of reputation or standing our poor country had left.”  

Unfortunately, such comments betray an old tendency in self-referential Britishness, a Britannia-rules-the-waves smugness.  The world admires, the world respects.  But that world died some time ago, if, indeed, it ever existed.  Britain made a pact for security and wealth with a Europe often reluctant to accept its suspicions and reservations. Both are now parting ways.   

Far milder assessments have also been offered to hose down the Grant ire.  Johnson’s attempt to schedule a Queen’s speech for October 14 was seen in The Spectator, a magazine he once edited with carefree indifference, as “normal” and part of the operating processes of a new government.  At the very least, it would also “bring to an end one of the longest parliamentary sessions in history”. 

The Queen was hardly going to refuse, stratified by, well, convention.  Had she done so, breaking the crust, and holding forth over the prime minister, there would been howls of a different sort.  The only conclusion to arise from this latest bit of chess play by Johnson is that, come October 31, Parliament will have a minimal a role to scrutinise the agreement, or non-agreement, as it might well be. 

*

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]

Benyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of “Israel”, the occupier of Palestine, may lose the election on September 17^th. He is the longest-serving prime minister in the history of the occupation; however, he is facing possible defeat even though he is the best friend of Pres. Trump, who enjoys a 70% approval rating in “Israel”.  Netanyahu is facing 3 serious corruption charges in a hearing set for October.  Some analysts predict he will lose the election, lose his case, and go to jail.  To win the election, Netanyahu has billboards all over “Israel” showing himself and Trump shoulder to shoulder. 

Netanyahu’s election strategy is to demonstrate that security is his main goal for the voters.  In the past, cracking down on Palestinian resistance groups in the West Bank and Gaza would have been enough; however, his new focus is on Iran.  He has consistently portrayed Iran as the enemy and has influenced U.S. officials into a similar perception. Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal was influenced by Netanyahu.

On July 19^th, “Israel” attacked targets in Iraq, which killed Iraqis and damaged military property.  The Iraqi government in Baghdad complained to the U.S., and this attack seemed unusual given the fact that Iraq is an ally of the U.S. and houses thousands of U.S. military on its soil while fighting terrorism together.  “Israel” could have killed American troops in their attack on the Iraqi military; however, we have heard no warnings to “Israel”, or outrage from the Pentagon.  For some time Iraq has been undecided as to whether they would identify nationally with the resistance movement.  The attack in July may have pushed them to take a stance.

Saturday, “Israel” stepped up the attacks with one in Damascus, hitting a residential building that killed 2 Lebanese citizens.  Hours later on Sunday, “Israel” attacked Beirut with 2 drones, one of which was a 2-meter long military drone which destroyed and damaged offices and homes, and another C-4 laden military drone which did not explode but was captured intact.  Hezbollah was the target of both attacks.  Monday, “Israel” attacked a Palestinian resistance group in Lebanon east of Zahle.  Yesterday, another 2 drones from “Israel” were fired upon at the Lebanese border.  Lebanese President Michel Aoun said on Monday that Lebanon had a right to defend itself against attacks.  Hezbollah has vowed to respond to these attacks.

“Israel” has a long history of preemptive airstrikes, which are a form of targeted assignations.  They have a history of striking first, in an unprovoked attack, and then building a case in the media to justify the attacks, deaths, and destruction. For example, they would attack a car in Gaza, kill everyone in it, and then tell the media they had suspicions that the man who died was going to attack “Israel”.  Attacking and killing people who they speculated might one day do something against “Israel”, but before anything had occurred.

The Resistance

During WW2 the French resistance fought the Nazi occupiers and helped to win the liberation of France.  Palestine has been occupied since 1948 and the suffering of 5 million persons, denied human rights has drawn the attention and passion of millions of global citizens who form the resistance movement.  Some countries have embraced the resistance to the occupation of Palestine, such as Syria, Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon.  Many Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE, have openly supported “Israel” and have developed close ties with the occupier.

Hezbollah is a Lebanese group committed to the armed resistance to the occupation of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine.  The Lebanese citizens suffered 23 years under brutal “Israeli” military occupation of the South of Lebanon.  The people of Lebanon and Syria want to see the human rights restored to the Palestinian people, as well as the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights,  returned to Lebanon and Syria, and these 3 points could be achieved through a just and comprehensive peace treaty between the occupiers and Palestine and the neighboring countries.  According to the UN, international law, and the Geneva Convention all persons living under occupation have the right to armed struggle to recover their rights.

Iran has made resistance a core value.  Saudi Arabia has been coached by “Israel” and the U.S. to see Iran as the enemy, thus making the trio the foundation of political power in the Middle East today.  The Middle East region is in a precarious position, sitting on a powder-keg which could be ignited at any moment, by an international cast of players.  The recent military aggressions ordered by Netanyahu in the region may prove to be a miscalculation once Lebanese resistance responds.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

Cambodia, unlike its similarly sized and in many cases much larger peers in the international community, is relentless in is criticism of the US’ blatant intervention in its domestic political affairs, showing how small countries could stand up to the US if their leaders actually have the will to do so.

***

Cambodia surprised many across the world when one of its spokesmen said earlier this month that American diplomats should leave the country if they don’t like it, specifically remarking that “we don’t welcome you” and adding that “We have the same right to speak as President Donald Trump. It’s simple. If you don’t like it here, leave.” Whatever one thinks about Trump’s controversial rhetoric against the four congresswomen collectively referred to as “the Squad”, Cambodia should be commended for throwing his own words right back at him in response to the incessant criticisms that American diplomats have made about the Southeast Asian state over the past couple of years. The verbal attacks have increased in intensity recently after rumors began to be floated about a supposedly secret deal that it clinched with China to open up a military “base” there, which if true, would be more of a standard overseas logistical facility of the sort that all Great Powers’ navies have than anything else.

Cambodia countered these unsubstantiated claims by inviting journalists to visit the facility in question in order to show them that there isn’t a Chinese naval presence of any kind there. It also doubled down on its strategic partnership with the People’s Republic by announcing that it’s purchasing tens of millions of dollars of more weaponry from it in order to defend its sovereignty. That’s an extremely urgent task, too, since the US has been conspiring to overthrow the government of long-running Prime Minister Hun Sen, something that Washington denies but which Phnom Penh has proven beyond any doubt with the February 2018 publication of its 13-page report titled “Cambodia: Stability And Development First“. The authorities make the well-articulated and inarguable case that the US-managed so-called “opposition” had been engaging in treasonous activity against their homeland at the behest of their foreign patron by trying to stir up Color Revolution unrest a few years ago.

The Cambodian government obviously isn’t taking any of this laying down like some countries do, but is opposing it tooth and nail in both kinetic and non-kinetic ways. It disbanded the largest so-called “opposition” group after the treason trial and then released the aforementioned report explaining its decision in detail (and importantly, in an historical context) to the international audience. Phnom Penh has refused to be bullied by the US despite being a comparatively weak country by most metrics, showing that its similarly sized and in many cases also much larger peers don’t have to bend over backwards for Washington either if they truly have the political will to oppose its schemes. The example being pioneered by Cambodia is a powerful one that could serve to inspire other states as well, which could learn a lot from the “Cambodia: Stability And Development First” report and Phnom Penh’s relevant actions in respect to defending its sovereignty. It’s for that reason, however, that American pressure on the country will continue to intensify for the foreseeable future.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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.

It is not often that one hears anything like the truth in today’s Washington, a city where the art of dissimulation has reached new heights among both Democrats and Republicans. Everyone who has not been asleep like Rip Van Winkle for the past twenty years knows that the most powerful foreign lobby operating in the United States is that of the state of Israel. Indeed, by some measures it just might be the most powerful lobby period, given the fact that it has now succeeded in extending its tentacles into state and local levels with its largely successful campaigns to punish criticism or boycotting of Israel while also infiltrating boards of education to require Holocaust education and textbooks that reflect favorably on the Jewish state.

Occasionally, however, the light does shine in darkness. The efforts by Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar to challenge the power of the Israel Lobby are commendable and it is worth noting that the two women are being subjected to harassment by their own Democratic Party in an effort to make them be silent.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has attempted to make them the face of the Democrats, calling them “Jew haters” and “anti-Semites” while also further claiming that they despise the United States just as they condemn Israel. This has developed into a Trump diatribe claiming that American Jews who vote for Democrats are “disloyal.” By disloyal he meant disloyal to Israel, in a sense ironically confirming that in the president’s mind Jews have dual loyalty, which, of course, at least some of them do.

And Trump has further exercised his claim to the Jewish vote by accepting the sobriquet “King of Israel” bestowed by a demented talk radio host. As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has already asserted that Trump’s election victory was the result of divine intervention to “save Israel from Iran,” the kingship is presumably an inevitable progression. One can only imagine what will come next.

One Democratic congressman who has apparently become fatigued by all that bipartisan pandering to Israel is Ted Lieu (image on the right) of California. Last Thursday Lieu rebuked Trump’s US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman over his support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to allow Tlaib and Omar to visit the West Bank where Tlaib’s grandmother lives under Israeli occupation. Friedman had issued a statement saying that the United States “respects and supports” the Israeli action. He went on to elaborate

“The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel is not free speech. Rather, it is no less than economic warfare designed to delegitimize and ultimately destroy the Jewish state. [Israel] has every right to protect its borders against those activists in the same manner as it would bar entrants with more conventional weapons.”

As Friedman was describing two thirty-something nonviolent first term congresswomen as nothing less than armed attackers about to be unleashed against the Jewish state because they support a peaceful boycott movement, Lieu apparently felt compelled to courageously respond to the ambassador, tweeting

“Dear @USAmbIsrael: You are an American. Your allegiance should be to America, not to a foreign power. You should be defending the right of Americans to travel to other countries. If you don’t understand that, then you need to resign.”

Later that day, on CNN, Lieu explained his objection to Friedman’s actions, saying

“Actually, I think he should resign because he doesn’t see to understand that his allegiance is to America, not to a foreign power. He should be defending the right of Americans to go abroad to other countries and to visit their relatives.”

The outrage from the mighty host of friends of Israel came immediately, with accusations that Lieu was accusing Friedman of “dual loyalty,” that greatly feared derogatory label that is somewhat akin to “anti-Semitism” or “Holocaust denial” in the battery of verbal munitions used to silence critics of the Jewish state. Indeed, Lieu was accused of employing nothing less than a “classic anti-Semitic” trope.

Under considerable pressure, Lieu deleted the tweet and then issued something of an apology,

“It has been brought to my attention that my prior tweet to @USAmbIsrael raises dual loyalty allegations that have historically caused harm to the Jewish community. That is a legitimate concern. I am therefore deleting the tweet.”

But the reality is, of course, that Friedman does not have dual loyalty. He has real loyalty only to Israel, which he demonstrates repeatedly by uncritically supporting everything the kleptocratic Netanyahu regime does with nary a pause to consider actual American interests. He has supported the weekly slaughter of unarmed Gazan civilians by Israeli sharpshooters, praised the bombing of Syria, pushed for the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, applauded the recognition by Washington of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and is an active supporter of and contributor to the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank. He has even pressured the State Department into ceasing its use of the word “occupation” when describing the situation on the West Bank. It is now “disputed.” So, it is no surprise that David Friedman, formerly a bankruptcy lawyer before he became ambassador, lines up with Netanyahu rather than with two American Congresswomen who, apart from anything else, have good reasons to travel to a country that is the largest US aid recipient in order to see conditions on the ground. To put it mildly, Friedman is a disgrace and a reflection of the character or lack thereof of the man who appointed him. If he had any decency, he would resign.

There is no benefit for the United States when an American Ambassador excuses the brutality of a foreign government, quite the contrary as it makes Washington an accomplice in what are often undeniably war crimes. Even though Congressman Lieu was clearly read the riot act and made to fly right by his own party’s leadership, it took considerable courage to speak up against both Israel and an American ambassador who clearly is more in love with the country he is posted to than the country he is supposed to represent.

Of course, in never-any-accountability Washington a buffoon posing as an ambassador as Friedman does will get away with just about anything and, as the subject is Israel, there will hardly be a word of rebuke coming from anyone, to include the mainstream media. But the tweet by Lieu is nevertheless significant. Hopefully he will be among the first of many congressmen willing to put at risk their careers at times to speak 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.

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

The petition against the prorogation of parliament – i.e. ending the current session (believed by opponents to be a deliberate move to stop opposition to a no-deal Brexit) – is the fastest-growing petition to the UK parliament and government after one that topped 6million earlier this year calling for article 50 to be revoked.

It’s called prorogation, marking the end of a UK parliamentary session.

It’s usually for a week or two at most. Approved by Queen Elizabeth, PM Johnson is suspending it for five weeks — from either September 9 or 12 until October 14, beginning a few days after MPs return next month, the longest period since 1945.

It’s part of Johnson’s aim to ram through a no-Brexit deal — if he sticks to plan and no agreement is reached with the EU by end of October.

UK parliamentary affairs expert Ruth Fox called what’s going on an “affront to parliamentary democracy.”

Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn slammed the scheme, saying: “Suspending parliament is not acceptable. It is not on,” adding:

“What the prime minister is doing is a smash and grab on our democracy to force through a no deal.”

When MPs return to the Commons on September 3, top priority for Corbyn is attempting to pass “legislation to prevent what (Johnson) is doing.”

A vote of no confidence will follow “at some point,” he said. On Wednesday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside Westminster, chanting: “Stop the coup.”

Prorogation isn’t unusual. For an extended period at this time is very controversial, leaving little time for MPs to debate and vote on whether to leave the EU without a deal or reject the idea.

Legal action may try to block Johnson’s scheme. Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Nicola Sturgeon said

“(s)hutting down parliament in order to force through a no-deal Brexit is not democracy. It is dictatorship.”

Dozens of pro-Remain SNP MPs initiated legal action in Edinburgh’s Court of Cession to block a no-deal Brexit last month.

They now seek an “interim interdict” ruling to prevent parliament’s suspension until Brexit is debated on September 6 after MPs return from summer recess next Tuesday — a ruling expected this week.

As things now stand, MPs have little time left to approve or block a no-deal Brexit if an alternative with the EU remains unattainable.

Most MPs oppose Johnson’s scheme. Some accused him of creating a “constitutional crisis,” a “coup.”

Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow called what’s going on “a constitutional outrage…to stop parliament (from) debating Brexit and performing its duty.”

MPs rejected Theresa May’s no-Brexit/Brexit deal three times, no alternative plan agreed on, a no-deal Brexit also rejected.

Is it coming on October 31? It’s possible but uncertain. It can be blocked legislatively or judicially.

The deadline could be extended further if Johnson requests it and Brussels agrees, though this seems unlikely.

To leave or not leave the EU has been unresolved since majority Brits voted for Brexit in June 2016. It remains uncertain how things will turn out.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

It’s impossible to imagine any realistic scenario where “Israel” would sit back and let its number one enemy strengthen its influence in the region unless Russia was involved as a stakeholder for keeping Iran in check.

***

Iran is reportedly exploring the possibility of building a pipeline across Iraq to Syria to complement the plan that it earlier proposed for constructing a railway corridor connecting all three of them. Each of these countries has the sovereign and international legal right to enhance cooperation with one another as they see fit, but it’s unrealistic to imagine any scenario where their shared “Israeli” foe would sit back and let the Islamic Republic strengthen its influence in the region through these hard infrastructure projects unless Russia was involved. The self-professed “Jewish State” has already proven its willingness to take direct military action against its enemy and its allies in the Mideast through its recent high-profile bombings in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, so it’s inconceivable that it would passively let these pipeline and railway plans proceed.

Both projects represent fixed targets that are extremely easy for aircraft, cruise missiles, and even local proxies to destroy, all of which “Israel” could throw at them in order to stop them dead in their tracks. Iran doesn’t have the military capability to defend either the pipeline or railroad across this vast distance, and any moves that it takes in this direction would surely be thwarted before they can make any tangible difference in deterring “Israel”. Tel Aviv will stop at nothing to enforce the “containment” of Iran that was officially put into practice by Washington following its withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, and it therefore obviously has the US’ full support in doing so. Neither “Israel” nor the US want Iran to circumvent the unilateral sanctions via its pipeline, nor to receive economic relief from the same via the railroad, so there’s no doubt that they’ll take action.

That being the case, one has to wonder whether Iran seriously thinks that it could succeed with these plans or not. The Islamic Republic is known for its principled rhetoric in defense of its national interests and also humanitarian ones abroad such as Palestine that it regards as inseparable from its own, though it only rarely ever delivers on what it says that it’s set out to achieve. That’s not to say that Iran “lies”, but just that it has a soft power stake in keeping the morale of its regional supporters high, such as envisaging a “New Middle East” where its closest ones could cooperate with one another through pipeline and railway connectivity projects. There’s no doubt that Iran would like this to happen, but it’s dubious whether or not it can actually pull it off given the aforementioned analysis about “Israel” and the US’ interests in stopping it.

Interestingly, there might be one possible solution to this seemingly intractable problem, and it’s if Iran contracts its Russian partner to become a stakeholder in these two regional initiatives. Russia has recently tried to “balance” between Iran and “Israel” though Moscow has lately shown that it’s much closer to the latter than is publicly recognized by most, but nevertheless, it might have both financial and strategic interests in getting involved that could convince Tel Aviv to allow these projects to proceed. To explain, Russia’s energy and railway companies are world-renowned for their expertise, and Moscow wouldn’t pass up an opportunity for its state-owned companies to strike profitable deals that could potentially bring billions to the national budget if it had the chance to do so after being invited to participate.

From the strategic perspective, Russia would be expanding its influence in the region to the point of possibly even challenging Iran’s, albeit in a “friendly” way but one that would align with the objectives of its Western partners in the event that a “New Detente” between them is finally struck. That might at first sound strange to countenance considering that it doesn’t initially make sense that facilitating Iranian oil exports could result in the country’s “containment”, but upon further thought, making Iran more dependent on Russia via Moscow’s participation in this project would allow the Eurasian Great Power to indirectly wield even more influence over the Islamic Republic itself which could later be leveraged on behalf of its Western partners. The same logic goes for the prospective railway between Iran, Iraq, and Syria, too.

That said, it’s still unlikely that Iran would invite Russia to jointly construct these projects and that “Israel” would even agree to it since Tel Aviv has no reason to “compromise” on what it considers to be its pressing “national security” interests in militarily “containing” Iran after it recently once again proved the effectiveness of its heavy-handed approach. Iran also views Russia as a strategic competitor of sorts despite their anti-terrorist cooperation in Syria, so it would be reluctant to sell a stake in this project to its energy and connectivity rival unless it was truly desperate. As such, these plans will likely remain on the drawing board for the indefinite future since they’re politically unfeasible in the current context, which doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon, but their significance rests in inspiring Iran’s supporters across the region to not lose hope in the future.

*

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

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.

Last week the town of Khan Sheikhoun was finally liberated by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), led by the Tiger Forces and Republican Guard. Earlier this month a truce was entered into force in Idlib. It was understood that if Ankara failed to implement its obligations under the ceasefire agreement brokered by Russia and Turkey last September in Sochi, the Syrian army would continue with their military operation. A few days later, Turkish-backed terrorist factions violated the ceasefire and the Syrian Arab Army resumed their military operation, just as planned.

The strategic town of Khan Sheikhoun is within the southern Idlib Governorate in northwestern Syria. Idlib is the last terrorist stronghold in Syria. It sits on a highway connecting Damascus and Aleppo, part of which has been controlled by terrorists since 2012.

Efforts to pave the highway as Syrian troops progress north towards two other nearby Turkish posts are underway.

In order to make their recent advancement, the SAA surrounded a heavily fortified Turkish military observation post in the northwestern village of Morek. In response to the rapid advances made by the Syrian army over the past few weeks, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said,

“We have no intention of moving it and it will continue to serve out its purpose,” he added “The regime should stop playing with fire.”

The twelve observation posts in northwestern Syria are part of the agreement reached last year between Turkey and Russia. Turkey’s support for terrorist factions throughout the war, along with looting factories in Aleppo, and their expansionist ambitions have all led to increased friction and deteriorating relations between the Turkish and Syrian governments. Furthermore, Turkey is seen as an unwelcomed invader much like the US, and all other foreign uninvited forces on Syrian territory.

Two years ago, Khan Sheikhoun made headlines for a supposed chemical weapons attack that was automatically pinned on the Syrian Government. Allegations were quickly made by local terrorists with strong ties to media platforms such as The White Helmets. Quickly thereafter and based on falsities, US President Donald Trump launched 59 tomahawk missiles on Syrian airfields.

Almost exactly a year later in Douma, the US, UK, and France responded to another alleged chemical weapons attack which once again was blamed on the Syrian government, by launching a coordinated missile attack on Syrian targets. In an interview with Sputnik News I mentioned both of these events and the premature attacks that followed, prior to OPCW findings being issued.

Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) issued a statement of the General Command of the Army and Armed Forces whereby it was announced that after intensive strikes over the course of days against terrorists in Hama’s northern countryside that their brave soldiers managed to liberate Khan Sheikhoun city, as well as many other locations including strategic hills in the northern countryside of Hama and Idlib’s southern countryside. They were able to inflict heavy losses on terrorists in both personnel and arms.

The General command reiterated that the plan is to liberate the entire country from terrorists. The statement concluded with confirmation that work is underway to clear these villages and towns of IED’s and the dense minefields that were planted by the terrorists, so that citizens can return to their homes and farmlands as soon as possible.

During combing operations in Khan Sheikhoun and al-Tamani’a area in Idlib’s southern countryside on Friday, the Syrian Arab Army uncovered a network of tunnels dug into mountains, which were used as fortified headquarters for Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists and affiliated groups. These tunnels included a set of chambers which were used by terrorists to plan their criminal acts and hide from the SAA’s intensive air strike campaigns, they were equipped with electric lighting, sanitation, and accommodations.

Humanitarian aid was delivered to Khan Sheikhoun on Monday, by the Russian military. Efforts are underway to restore water and electricity so that residents can return to their homes as quickly as possible.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated on Tuesday, the need for eliminating terrorism in Idlib and other regions of Syria during a press conference with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Putin said,

“The situation in the de-escalation zone of Idlib stirs our concern as terrorist groups in the area continue their attacks on the sites of Syrian army and Russian troops in Syria.”

Putin added that the de-escalation zone of Idlib should not be used for refuge by terrorists and that many procedures must be taken to remove terrorist cells from Idlib and other regions in Syria.

On Tuesday the SAA confronted an attack launched by Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists on military points positioned along the axis of Sham al-Hawa a town in Idlib’s southeastern countryside killing and injuring the majority of the attackers. The SAA also carried out a series of artillery and rocket strikes on fortifications of these terrorists and groups affiliated with them in Idlib’s countryside and was successful in destroying many dens, vehicles, and killing several domestic and foreign terrorists.

Foreign journalists came from Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Russia to view the newly liberated town. On Tuesday SANA reported that a Russian and European media delegation visited Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib’s countryside. The Governor of Idlib Muhammad Fadi Sadun also confirmed that over the past three days a road to one of the local schools was rebuilt and the building is being repaired with an expected opening date of September 1st.

“It is very painful to see all this destruction that happened to Khan Sheikhoun. Before the war, it was a very beautiful town, people lived a good, wealthy life. Thank God, now it is liberated, and we will try to do everything to make it as soon as possible the same as before, so that people live peacefully and children go to school”, he said.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. For media inquiries please email [email protected].

Featured image is from InfoBrics

It has been termed a ‘constitutional outrage’ by Speaker of the UK House of Commons, John Bercow, as the UK government announced its plan to delay the beginning of the parliamentary year till mid October in an attempt to avoid opposition parties from derailing Brexit. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has already asked the Queen to condone such a move, thereby postponing the Queen’s speech – which signifies the beginning of the parliamentary year – till 14th October. On Wednesday the Queen granted his request.

The move provoked a furious reaction from Johnson’s pro-Remain colleagues, who view it as a way of him ruling out any attempt to stop a No Deal Brexit.  Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn accused Johnson of conducting a ‘smash and grab’ on Britain’s democracy and he himself has also requested an audience with the Queen, having already written to Her Majesty to express his concerns about Conservative plans. Boris Johnson for his part has denied that he was stopping MPs from blocking a No Deal Brexit, saying there was ‘ample time’ for the issue to be debated in the last two weeks of October.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon earlier expressed her concerns on the matter, tweeting:

‘Unless MPs come together to stop him next week, today will go down in history as a dark one indeed for UK democracy’.

She went further to say that it was in fact ‘not democracy but dictatorship’ and called on Conservative party leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, to oppose the government suspension. Ruth Davidson for her part announced her resignation on Thursday, citing her desire to spend more time with her family, however admitting she felt conflicted over Brexit. Davidson’s resignation will be a huge blow to the Unionist movement in Scotland, and consequently a boost to the Scottish Nationalists. Other prominent Conservatives have also Johnson’s action, with former Chancellor Phillip Hammond terming it ‘profoundly undemocratic’.

The government may have been prepared for widespread protests given a No Deal Brexit on 31st October, but given yesterday’s news the backlash has already begun, with calls by media personalities such as Owen Jones on social media for people to take to the streets on Wednesday to ‘defend democracy’. A petition has also been started which aims to collect 17 million signatures against what is being labelled the ‘Boris Johnson coup’.

There are indeed questions surrounding the legality of such a bid to effectively shut down parliament at a time when debate and discussion surrounding Brexit is needed most. The Scottish National Party’s Joanna Cherry has stated that her party have called for the Scottish court to organise a hearing on this issue this week, and are confident of being heard. However, according to journalist Robert Peston, government lawyers state that they ‘absolutely confident the courts cannot interfere’.

As for the Queen’s role in this; it is normal for her to support such government decisions. This has not prevented opposition politicians however from appealing to Her Majesty not to prorogue parliament till Friday 8th November. 45 MPs from the Scottish National Party, Labour, Green and Liberal Democrats yesterday signed a declaration called an Early Day Motion which calls on the Queen to use her powers to overrule the government.

Johnson’s move has taken many by surprise, but the reality is that Brexiteers have long been intent on achieving Brexit at whatever the cost. The prospect of outcry from politicians and the public alike does not seem to concern the Johnson team, who staunchly believe in the advantages of Brexit, and are confident that the UK can weather any storm which awaits after October 31st. Boris Johnson’s meetings with EU leaders last week may have created a show of solidarity and a common desire to achieve a deal, but the reality is that the PM always knew it would be nigh impossible to get an agreement passed by parliament, and so regardless of any deal negotiated with Brussels, leaving without a deal is looking increasingly likely. Some analysts are suggesting that this is a way of Johnson forcing parliament to accept some kind of deal, but the fact is that the Johnson Brexit team is staffed of hard-line Brexiteers, some of whom have been calling for a No Deal Brexit for some time.

With this arguably reckless act however Johnson is no doubt storing up trouble for the future credibility of his party. It has only deepened the rift between Remainers and Brexiteers and exacerbated the feelings of mistrust in the Johnson government. With still around half of the country opposed to Brexit, and a majority of people in Scotland against it, he is also putting the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom on the line. By charging forward to implement a No Deal Brexit, he is undoubtedly only worsening the current constitutional crisis and fuelling the Scottish independence movement. Time will tell if the opposition can succeed in stopping him.

*

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.

Johanna Ross is a journalist.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Amazon, now on fire, has become the central political and geopolitical hot spot for humanity’s right to its own future. Optimism is the gasoline that must feed the fight.

***

June and July have been the hottest months on record in the Western Hemisphere as the climate crisis escalates. This summer, the ice in Greenland has been melting at an unseen rate under an unprecedented heat wave. Droughts and wildfires are on the rise ravaging significant forest surfaces, and the role of the rainforest as a carbon dioxide absorber is being jeopardized by a substantial acceleration in deforestation efforts.

The Amazon basin, which contains 40% of the world’s rainforest, plays a very complex yet central role as a buffer of climate change. It functions as a cooler of the atmosphere through moisture evaporation and it produces its own rainfall in the dry season while also capturing carbon and acting as the Earth’s lungs.

But lately, the Amazon’s vulnerability has become apparent, as fires have been spreading at an unprecedented rate. As Leonardo DiCaprio put it to his 34 million Instagram followers in a post: “the lungs of the Earth are in flames.” Data released by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research shows that from January to July, 4.6 million acres of the Brazilian Amazon went ablaze, a 62 percent increase over last year.

Overall, the basin is experiencing an increasing number of threats from “development” involving logging, mining, farming, ranching and infrastructure construction (road and dam building). At the beginning of August, the latest in a series of reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focused on the impacts of agriculture, deforestation and other land use on the environment.

“Climate change, including increases in frequency and intensity of extremes, has adversely impacted food security and terrestrial ecosystems, as well as contributed to desertification and land degradation in many regions,” the report states.

To slow global warming, the UN report warns, agriculture and cattle ranching must change. This conclusion holds political undertones as agriculture and cattle ranching support many capitalist world economies.

Today, one cannot talk about the Amazon without talking about local, regional, and global politics.

Since Jair Bolsonaro, a far right-wing politician, was elected president in Brazil and took office this past January, many of the policies put in place to protect the Amazon over at least the past two decades are being paralyzed or reversed, while “trees have been disappearing at a rate of two Manhattans a week.” As The Economist writes in its first week of August issue, Deathwatch for the Amazon:

  “If there is a green shot in Mr. Bolsonaro’s scorched-earth tactics towards the rainforest, it is that it has made the Amazon’s plight harder to ignore”.

With the Amazon ablaze since January, the issue can no longer be avoided by the international community.

“The ongoing forest fires in Brazil are deeply worrying,” the European Commission said in a statement last Thursday. “Forests are our lungs and life support systems.”

The fact that the international press has joined activists and has become more aggressive on the issue of the climate crisis and the Amazon, acknowledging that this is a political issue and that it has to be approached as such, is progress. Journalism has a key political role in preventing the furthering of this catastrophe and it must be used to its fullest extent. And yet, when journalists working in the Amazon talk about politics, we discuss the people living there.

One should recall that the Greek root of politics is “polis” meaning city, which produced the word “polités” meaning citizens. And when one talks about the people living in the Amazon, be they indigenous, riberino (river dwellers) or quilombolas (escaped black slaves’ descendants), one should not forget that these people are all citizens of the Earth; citizens, just like most of the readers of this article.

Yet, being citizens means having equal rights, and when we investigate in this part of the world and meet indigenous riberine or quilombola people, we must overcome our neocolonial, Western-centered and often racist prejudices. We must always bear in mind that they are our equals and that they are as much citizens of this world as we are, even if their lives are different from our own.

This concept of global citizenship seems obvious from an intellectual point of view. However, it is not so straightforward. There is a severe contrast between our urban, technology-driven lives and their traditional, ancestral and analogic world.  An effort should always be made to bridge cultural gaps, but that has become increasingly difficult for young generations born in the urban digital world.

Yet, as journalists working in the Amazon basin, our priority should be putting people at the center of our approach, which must be, above everything, humanistic. Yes, humanistic in the sense expressed by the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras who said, “Man is the measure of all things,” but also humanistic in the sense of bringing together different concepts of knowledge and disciplines.

The term humanist can also be interpreted as having an interdisciplinary perspective. One cannot approach such a complex and interconnected system as the Amazon from only one discipline, for to cover the Amazon means to be able to consider many disciplines. From geography to economics, ecology to anthropology, history to sociology, and engineering to environmental and climate sciences. But, above all these disciplines, it is key to acknowledge that in the Amazon, when any kind of scientific or journalistic work is performed, people and politics are involved.

The Amazon is so key to the future of our planet that it has become a hot issue of geopolitics. And, we are not only talking about the physical environment. We are talking about the future of the people- those who live there and us. And, above all, when we talk about people, we talk about values. We need a humanistic and value-oriented approach when working in the Amazon to solve the issues developing in the area.

Yet, with a president like Bolsonaro, who considers the Amazon a commodity to deplete and export, and its people as leftists who refuse to integrate into his development mirage, we have to agree that the root of this issue has to do with human rights. What we are witnessing in the Amazon is a natural and human rights violation. But also, and most importantly, it is the violation of the right of humanity to exist in the future. So, it is not an exaggeration to sustain that, should Bolsonaro pursue his vandalistic approach to the Brazilian rainforest, he should be brought to justice by the international court.

The fact that the Amazon has become significant as it occupies an increasingly central position in the spotlight of global media gives room for some optimism.  Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher who was very influential to science with his theory of falsification and its implications to the methodology of scientific research, was an optimist. He said something which is of key importance today, and that is that “optimism is a moral duty.” For him, the future is not written, but rather depends very much on what we do in the present.

Our duty is to be optimistic as a way to shape a better future for all.

And, optimism is what is found in Open Democracy’s Rainforest Defenders series, produced with photojournalist Pablo Albarenga and the people from the Brazilian environmentalist NGO Engajamundo down in the Tapajós River with the support of the Rainforest Journalism Fund, administered by the Pulitzer Center in Washington.

In producing the series, Open Democracy put young people at the center of the stories, allowing them to speak about their struggles, frustrations, hopes and views for a better world. And, in spite of the many difficulties they face daily, we found optimism in them after all.

*

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 is based on the speech delivered by the author on July 11, 2019, in Manaus (Amazonas / Brazil) during the first meeting of the Rainforest Journalism Fund which funds reports in the Amazon and other tropical forests, in partnership with the Pulitzer Center.

Francesc Badia i Dalmases is editor of democraciaAbierta at openDemocracy.net London and a journalist. A political analyst, an author and a publisher, he specializes in International Affairs and is a Pulitzer grantee. Born in Mexico and based in Barcelona, Francesc has been senior fellow and general manager at the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), general manager at the European Institute of the Mediterranean and at the Interarts Foundation. He was executive director of URB-AL-III, a decentralised and urban cooperation program for Latin America of the European Commission.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

One must be Boris Johnson’s lucky number. He has been subjected to just one day of parliamentary scrutiny since being ‘crowned’ prime minister by the tiny fraction of the British electorate that happen to be paid-up Conservative party members.

He has a majority of just one in parliament, thanks to the £1-billion plus ‘confidence and supply’ bung paid out to Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) by his predecessor Theresa May.

And now his singular dreams of autocracy have come a whole lot closer with his request to Queen Elizabeth to prorogue parliament until 14 October, thereby throwing into disarray plans by fellow MPs to devise a way to halt Britain crashing out the European Union without a deal on 31 October.

Parliament was due to open next week after the long summer recess, and MPs who believe a no-deal Brexit spells chaos for the UK economy, shortages of food and medicine, and subservience to a trade agenda determined by US president Donald Trump, were due to try and devise legislative ways of avoiding a reckless no-deal Brexit.

Labour’s John McDonnell called Johnson’s move: ‘A very British coup.’

Boris Johnson, for his part, maintains that MPs will still have time to discuss Brexit and that the proroguing is just normal at this time of year.

But Conservative Speaker John Bercow called it ‘a constitutional outrage’. ‘However it is dressed up, it is blindingly obvious that this is a way of stopping the parliament debating Brexit,’ he said. It was ‘an offence against parliamentary democracy’.

Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon said it was the action of a ‘tinpot dictator’ and mourned ‘the day that democracy died’. To Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn it was a ‘smash and grab’ of our democracy.

So, what happens now? The Queen was constitutionally bound to follow the advice of her prime minister – in other words, she could not say no to Johnson.

The chances of a vote of no confidence in the prime minister is increased, as is the possibility of an early election.

But there are profound dangers in having an election now. Questions about electoral fraud have not been dealt with. There are strict limits to how much parties can spend on advertising during elections or referendums. The Electoral Commission has proved itself incapable of effectively tackling the issue of Facebook campaign advertising that allegedly broke the law during the referendum campaign. Mastermind of the Vote Leave campaign was Dominic Cummings, who MPs accuse of contempt of parliament for refusing to attend a key select committee inquiry into the Cambridge Analytica scandal. He is now Boris Johnson’s senior adviser – and busy buying up Facebook ads for his new boss.

The Metropolitan Police has also moved at a glacial pace when it comes to conducting criminal investigations, in spite of information supplied to them by investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr and openDemocracy about the ‘dark money’ behind Brexit.

Cadwalladr, who spoke at the recent Byline festival, is currently being pursued by arch-Brexiteer and business entrepreneur Aaron Banks, who is suing her for libel.

Boris Johnson’s bid to suspend parliament is being resisted strenuously. But at least it’s blindingly obvious.

It’s the things going on under the surface, that are not being addressed, that we really have to worry about. The foreign interference from East and West, the dark money behind election campaigns, the lobbyists, the thinktanks, the special interest groups, that are the deepest threats to our democracy.

And if these forces come to play in the next election – or referendum, if there is one – we will have done little to protect British democracy from 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.

Vanessa Baird lived and worked as a journalist in Peru during the tumultuous mid-1980s, and she maintains a passionate interest in South America. She joined New Internationalist as a co-editor in 1986.

In spring, Ukraine witnessed an event that will surely be written down in the country’s history – the presidential elections were won by Volodymyr Zelensky, a showman who had never been involved in politics before. And as Zelensky’s victory is astonishing so Petro Poroshenko’s defeat is unexpected. It delivered a hard blow not only at his reputation as politician but also at his ego.

Petro Poroshenko hasn’t accepted the defeat and tries to rehabilitate himself in politics, which however hasn’t brought any success so far. The Ukrainians don’t trust the former president, and a criminal case against him can lead to imprisonment or make him leave Ukraine. To prevent this from happening and take revenge on Zelensky, Poroshenko turns to all means at his disposal – his connections in politics, law enforcement agencies, courts and business. At the same time, one of the main cards up Poroshenko’s sleeve is the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) which was created by the former president and unites many of those loyal to him.

In Ukraine, Poroshenko created an image of an uncompromising fighter for religiosity. During the election campaign, his political consultants stressed that he formed the first recognized independent Church in the Ukrainian history. Many of OCU supporters believe that the merit of its creation belongs to Poroshenko and are ready to back him. The OCU hierarchy, led by Metropolitan Epiphany (Dumenko), is also extremely loyal to the former president; due to him, they came out of the shadow of the Filaret (Denysenko), primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyivan Patriarchate, and founded their new Church. All these led to the formation of the so-called “Autocephalous Bloc” involving OCU priests, business persons and, most importantly, politicians.

Out-of-favor politicians supporting Poroshenko

First of all, Poroshenko is supported by now-disgraced politicians who contributed to the Autocephaly project. One of Zelensky’s main antagonists is Rostislav Pavlenko, the former director of the National Institute for Strategic Studies who was dismissed in May 2019. Pavlenko, one of the main ideologists of the Autocephaly project, is in rigid opposition to Zelensky, criticize his internal policy and the incompetence of his team. The new president has declared several times his intention not to interfere in Church affairs, and Pavlenko will do his best to undermine the apathetic Church agenda.

Andriy Parubiy, the former speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, is also ready to stand against Zelensky. Poroshenko’s supporter had a number of conflicts with the new president over the past couple of months including the one which was caused by Zelensky’s intention to prematurely dissolve the Rada. Parubiy is close to his resignation after the recent parliamentary elections and is offended by Zelensky as well as many politicians of 2014-2019.

Incumbent Cabinet

Meanwhile, a large number of the former president’s high-ranking supporters, who openly backed the autocephaly, continue to work in Ukrainian state bodies. One of the most dangerous opponents for Zelensky is Andriy Yurash, the director of the Department for Religious and Ethnic Affairs of the Ministry of Culture. It was Yurash who lobbied the president’s unsuccessful trip to the Phanar. Given the fact that one of the main initiators of the Autocephaly maintains ties with Constantinople, it becomes clear that this trip was an attempt to make Zelensky dance to his tune.

It’s unknown what document Zelensky refused to sign at the Phanar. The media claim that there were agreements on ecology but the point could be the transfer of Ukrainian stauropegions to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. If Zelensky had signed the agreement, it could have dealt a serious blow to his rating.

Moreover, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which scooped a large profit in Ukraine thanks to Poroshenko, can also exert pressure on Zelensky. Patriarch Bartholomew is rumored to have intended to discuss the criminal case against Poroshenko during Zelensky’s visit to Istanbul but changed his mind at the last moment.

Despite the fact that the Yurash family integrated in the new government, it will remain loyal to Poroshenko, which means the ex-president keeps under full control the Department for Religious and Ethnic Affairs that oversees Church developments.

Zelensky is also opposed by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin. Klimkin is still in office but he is in conflict with Zelensky and is said to leave his position soon. When it happens, Klimkin will join the opposition group of politicians backing Petro Poroshenko. Close ties of Poroshenko and Klimkin have lasted since the first was Foreign Minister. Poroshenko consistently awarded Klimkin and lent support to him.

Poroshenko’s another person in the government is Hennadiy Zubko, the Minister of Regional Development. Zubko maintains close relations with the family of the former president. The Foundation of Poroshenko’s wife Maria is funding a public organization of Zubko’s spouse while the official himself assisted the employment of the brother of Andriy Yurash’s daughter-in-law, Sofia Yurash, at his Department.

In addition to the above-mentioned officials, there formed a group of other senior politicians who support Poroshenko:

Minister of Youth and Sports Ihor Zhdanov. He was appointed after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014; Zhdanov was a commandant during the standoff at Kyiv’s Maidan square. The minister claimed that he would hold onto his position to the last though he is said to be soon dismissed by Zelensky.

First Deputy Prime Minister Stepan Kubiv. He was against Zelensky during the election campaign. A member of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc.

Minister of Culture Yevhen Nyshhuk. Spoke in support of the autocephaly and Petro Poroshenko but is not yet in strong opposition to Zelensky.

Business

Many businesspersons still actively support Petro Poroshenko. The autocephaly project is being backed by businessman Andriy Matsola and a criminal kingpin Oleksandr Nalekrishvili also known as “Narik” (i.e. “Dope”).

Matsola is a close friend of Epiphanius and the deputy head of the Department of external Church relations of the OCU Eustratius (Zorya). Due to Matsola’s support, Filaret’s strong influence was reduced. He also undertook all financial expenditures during the implementation of the Autocephaly project.

Narik has been showing his piousness in recent years. He was also present at the ceremony in Istanbul when patriarch Bartholomew officially signed the Tomos. Nalekrishvili is the co-father-in-law of Andriy Pavelko, a member of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc.

Poroshenko was actively promoting his project so many business persons not only joined the “Autocephalous Bloc” but also became its sponsors.

The OCU as a weapon

Volodymyr Zelensky’s decision not to interfere in Church affairs may result in far-reaching consequences. Poroshenko intends to use the OCU as a tool to exert pressure on the elected president and the new Church can become one of the factors of his political defeat. Zelensky’s indifference to Church issues will weaken the state control over Church developments. Petro Poroshenko and his “Autocephalous Bloc” will support any canonical or schismatic movement to provoke a full-fledged conflict among Ukrainian believers to shatter Zelensky’s presidency.

And if Volodymyr Zelensky doesn’t want to lose his position, he will have to take the Church agenda and those who covertly or openly are ready to act against him into consideration.

*

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.

Translated to English by Nadia Bazuk

After the recent Israeli attacks against Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, the Middle East has found itself in the midst of an undeclared war.

Almost everyone in Lebanon appears to agree. “This time Israel went too far. In just two days, it bombed three countries,” I am told by a local UN staffer based in Beirut.

The same day, my local barber was talking like he saw it all, his voice full of sarcasm and determination:

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing tough elections at home, while his wife is on trial for fraud. A bit of excitement during the evening news can only help his chances of regaining attention from his electorate. But we here have had enough; we are ready to fight for our countries.”

But ‘fighting for their countries’ could prove lethal, as Netanyahu threatened to attack Lebanon as a whole, if Hezbollah decides to retaliate.

My barber is not just a barber. He is a Syrian engineer, exiled in Lebanon. The entire region is dispersed, derailed and intertwined, after NATO and Israeli attacks, occupations and destabilization campaigns.

On August 25, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, put it bluntly during his televised speech in Lebanon:

“The dawn suicide attack is the first act of aggression since August 14, 2006. The Lebanese state’s condemnation of what happened and referral of the matter to the Security Council is good, but these steps do not prevent the course of action to be taken. Since 2000, we have allowed Israeli drones for many reasons but no one moved. Israeli drones entering Lebanon are no longer collecting information, but [carrying out] assassinations. From now on, we will face the Israeli drones when they enter the skies of Lebanon and we will work to bring them down. I tell the Israelis that Netanyahu is running with your blood.”

President of Lebanon Michel Aoun went even further, calling the drone attack against his country a “declaration of war.”

Meanwhile, a powerful block in the Iraqi Parliament – the Fatah Coalition – insists on holding the US “fully responsible” for the Israeli attacks, “which we consider to be a declaration of war on Iraq and its people.” The Fatah Coalition wants all US troops to get out of Iraq, as soon as possible.

There is no doubt that Mr Netanyahu, with his recent combat-drone incursions and bombings, has thrown the entire region into great and unexpected turmoil.

Israel has been regularly attacking Syria and bombing Palestine for decades. But Lebanon is a totally different story: only its airspace has been habitually violated by the Israeli jets flying towards the Syrian targets. Bombing Iraq is also clearly an escalation of Israel’s bellicose strategy. A bizarre escalation, considering that Iraq is still de facto a state occupied by Israel’s closest ally – the United States.

Everything that is Shia – short of Iran itself (for now) – suddenly became a ‘legitimate target’ for Israel. For many years, Shia Islam has been synonymous with the ideological resistance to Western imperialism in the Middle East: Iran itself, several factions inside Iraq, and Hezbollah, among others.

Lebanon is deeply divided 

Lebanon is one of the most ‘strategic’ countries in the Middle East and the most divided one. It is based on a ‘confessional’ system. Its government is always at least ‘shaky,’ but often totally dysfunctional. Compared to its Israeli counterpart, its air force consists of toy aircraft, like converted Cessnas.

The latest Maserati and Ferrari cars drive past some of the most miserable slums in the Middle East. Posh restaurants and cafes are often just a few meters away from destitute beggars. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees in this tiny country, from all over the region: Palestinians, living in dangerous, overcrowded camps with very little hope; Iraqis fleeing war and NATO occupation; and victims of the Syrian war.

The Lebanese government and the elites are profiting from the refugee crises, allegedly pocketing money from ‘foreign aid.’ Almost nothing is left for social services, or even for defense, let alone for the poor and the lower-middle class.

Hezbollah, on the contrary, is providing social services including food supplies, medical care and education to all people residing on Lebanese territory, regardless of race or religion. Plus, it is fighting Israeli invasions, taking into its ranks all Lebanese citizens who want to join. It also fights terrorists in Syria. It is closely linked to Iran. All this, of course, infuriates the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah is firmly on the ‘terrorist list’ of the West and its associates.

Israel is using the fight against Hezbollah and against Iranian-allied positions to justify bombing various countries in the region. It keeps ‘uncovering new plots’ and carrying out ‘pre-emptive strikes’ with the full support of the US administration.

During the latest escalation, Israel reportedly conducted three drone strikes in Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley on a base belonging to the secular, Marxist-Leninist, pro-Syrian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is, predictably, an ally of Hezbollah.

Blue Line 

Just a few days ago, I managed to drive to the border between Lebanon and Israel, and then went east, following the so-called Blue Line which is patrolled by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), for tens of kilometers.

Israelis have already erected a wall almost all the way from the Mediterranean Sea to the Golan Heights – the Lebanese frontier.

Israel right behind the wall

More than a year ago, the government of Lebanon claimed that ‘building the wall would amount to an act of war.’ Israel couldn’t care less. It put up a huge concrete structure right in front of the Lebanese Army, Hezbollah, and UNIFIL.

“On many occasions, Israelis actually crossed the border, at least a few meters or centimeters, while erecting the wall,” I was told by several local farmers in the village of Markaba. And nothing happened.

At the town of Kfarchouba, known as a Hezbollah stronghold right next to an eerie wall decorated with children’s drawings, people told me that they are “ready for a conflict; ready to die… if necessary.”

Kfarshouba is where the Israelis ‘discovered Hezbollah tunnels,’ which was an official justification for the construction of the walls.

“Nonsense,” I was told by the locals. “Tunnels were there for decades, and Israelis knew about them all along. They were fully barricaded for many years and posed no danger to Israel.”

Right in front of the horrid new Israeli fence, three flags are waving in the wind – those of Palestine, Lebanon and Hezbollah. Next to them, three UNIFIL armored vehicles are parked. Indonesian soldiers are resting, taking selfies.

“Are you going to take action if Israel crosses the line?” I ask them.

Indonesian UNIFIL selfie takers at war zone

They are grinning at me. No coherent reply is given.

The Israeli-occupied Golan Heights are just 10km from this point. And several Israeli villages and towns are right behind the wall.

With the firepower that Hezbollah has, they could be leveled to the ground in just one minute.

Although Hezbollah is apparently on ‘high alert,’ so far, the talk about ‘retaliation’ is just talk.

‘Inertia is like slow death to Lebanon’ 

In order to bomb targets inside Iraq, Israeli jets had to fly either over the territory of its former ally, Turkey, or over Saudi Arabia. As reported by Al-Jazeera:

“Israel and the Saudis do not have formal diplomatic relations but are believed to have established a behind-the-scenes alliance based on their shared hostility towards Iran.”

Is Israel trying to provoke several Arab countries of the Middle East into yet another war?

Or is this just another ‘humiliation’? Are Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad just going to count punches and remain idle? Are they going to quote, again and again, the UN resolutions, while Israel continuously bombs their cities and countryside, with total impunity and with the approval of the West?

It is a very tough decision to make. If Lebanon or Hezbollah decide to retaliate, or simply protect their country, thousands will die. Perhaps immediately.

If they don’t retaliate, new walls will be erected, and the ‘low-key’ bombing campaigns by the Israelis will continue for, most likely, many years to come. As a result, the entire region will continue to be paralyzed.

My local colleague was more expressive: “This inertia is like a slow death for the whole of Lebanon.”

*

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 RT News.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are China and Ecological Civilizationwith John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon

All images in this article are from the author

“Tomorrow will be too late to do what we should have done a long time ago.” Fidel Castro Ruz, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 12, 1992

The Network in Defense of Humanity joins the worldwide mobilization in protest against the ecological disaster caused by the fires in the Amazon and against the transnational corporations and politicians directly responsible for the catastrophe.

As Fidel said twenty-seven years ago, the human species, “is at risk of disappearing because of the rapid and progressive liquidation of its natural living conditions”. And he added an unequivocal denunciation;

“Enough of the selfishness. Enough of the schemes of domination. Enough of the insensitivity, irresponsibility and deceit.”

In the last few days the extensive clouds of smoke over the Amazon constitute a very serious alarm for humanity. However, it cannot be seen as an isolated event. Its main cause is the capitalist system and its conception of infinite economic growth that gives priority to the production and reproduction of capital instead of the production and reproduction of life. What is happening today in the Amazon is also happening in vast areas of Africa and other regions of the planet.

Businesspeople and neoliberal politicians, in their unbridled ambition for greater profits, do not listen to the growing and disturbing warnings of the scientific institutions and the defenders of the Amazon, and undertake and approve increasingly aggressive and destructive projects without taking into account the irreparable consequences of their action. The expansive interests of the mining, oil, aquifer, and agribusiness transnationals have found an unconditional ally in Brazil’s current neo-fascist government.

Bolsonaro has been promoting the deforestation of the Amazon, the weakening of all control and oversight over companies and the reduction of funds for the protection and conservation of the region. The persecution of indigenous and peasant leaders and communities who defend their rights and their territories has become a practice. These peoples, with their ancient cultures, worldviews and knowledge, are the ones who have best defended — and in many cases have guaranteed it at the price of their lives — the conservation of this great region as the planet’s greatest reservoir of biodiversity, whose loss or deterioration will cause irreversible damage to the already precarious health of ecosystems at the global level.

Due to these facts, the Network in Defense of Humanity expresses its solidarity with all the native peoples of our Amazon, victims of the policies of dispossession and the cruelest violence of transnational capital, and denounces the attitude of the government of Jair Bolsonaro, which in addition to promoting ecocide, turns its back on its people, and only after twenty days of fires does it announce, an order to confront it. He does this by the militarizing the region, which could constitute a dangerous step towards turning over the control of a strategic geopolitical zone, through international tutelage to the direct intervention of the transnationals, shielded in a supposed philanthropy.

It is necessary to remember that the “help” of other imperial nations in the face of similar disasters has historically been used as a pretext for intervention, destabilization and looting, in which the great powers have always had the most diverse tools for domination and, of course, the constant manipulation of public opinion. We must defend the principle that if there is a real will to help, it must be channeled through States and international bodies with full respect for the principle of sovereignty.

We denounce the false morals of the countries that have been the most responsible for the global ecological crisis, (among them the members of the G7) and that today express their concern for the Amazon, ignoring any kind of connection between fires and capitalist development. It is the transnationals of these same countries that are spreading throughout the natural strongholds of the world in search of resources of all kinds, lands and sources of energy. No apparent polemic affects the link between a neoliberal and sold out government like Bolsonaro’s to the transnationals and the great powers. In contrast we support the actions promoted by the government of the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Evo Morales Ayma, who has demonstrated a spirit of unity in adversity, and true concern to face the fire not only in his country, but in the region, and we also applaud the call made by his government and that of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for regional actions to be carried out that allow the emergency to be tackled quickly and efficiently.

The Network in Defense of Humanity, echoing the expressions of concern and pain in the face of the tragedy of many sensitive people on the planet, demands of the Brazilian government that urgent measures be taken to safeguard the lives of the peoples and cultures that are in danger today in the Amazon. With the fires, they are also being deprived of the material and spiritual sustenance of their existence. When a tree burns, a house always burns.

We urge the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, to activate the resources established by international instruments to immediately guarantee the protection of the more than four hundred cultures affected and in turn the sovereignty of the eight Amazonian countries. We urge the promotion of denunciations before the International Criminal Court and other competent bodies against the attacks on the environment, which should be considered crimes against humanity.

We encourage to work in the urgent articulation of popular platforms in a common and coordinated front of action in the face of all ecological and social disasters that allows an alternative that is truthful, accurate and opportune communication. We also call to reveal and to spread with emphasis the existing causal connection between the capitalist system and the environmental debacle that we are witnessing. This makes it essential to link the anti-capitalist struggles with that of the environmental movements in defense of the Amazon and other areas of the planet.

We call for activities in all our countries, popular mobilizations, sit-ins, marches, rallies and denunciations through social networks, or to use every possible tribune to show this crime against nature. We must accuse those responsible and warn of the danger that the media impact is having on this tragedy. It will be used by the great imperialist powers to intervene in the Amazon and to consolidate and legitimize the dispossession in a concerted manner with corrupt authorities.

We also call for the transformation of our logics of consumption and against the pollution and environmental degradation they produce, linked to the capitalist mode of production and its unviable paradigm for healthy civilization.

Let’s save the Amazon! Let’s save the planet! As Fidel said in 1992:

“Tomorrow will be too late to do what we should have done a long time ago.”

*

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 exile of prisoners to a distant place, where they can ‘pay their debt to society,’ make themselves useful, and not contaminate others with their ideas or their criminal acts, is a practice as old as civilization itself. The rulers of ancient Rome and Greece sent their dissidents off to distant colonies. Socrates chose death over the torment of exile from Athens. The poet Ovid was exiled to a fetid port on the Black Sea.”— Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History

This is how freedom dies.

This is how you condition a populace to life as prisoners in a police state: by brainwashing them into believing they are free so that they will march in lockstep with the state and be incapable of recognizing the prison walls that surround them.

Face the facts: we are no longer free.

We in the American Police State may enjoy the illusion of freedom, but that is all it is: an elaborate deception, rooted in denial and delusion, that hides the grasping, greedy, power-hungry, megalomaniacal force that lurks beneath the surface.

Brick by brick, the prison walls being erected around us by the government and its corporate partners-in-crime grow more oppressive and more pervasive by the day.

Brick by brick, we are finding there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

Brick by brick, we are being walled in, locked down and locked up.

That’s the curious thing about walls: they not only keep those on the outside from getting in, they also keep those on the inside from getting out.

Consider, if you will, some of the “bricks” in the police state’s wall that serve to imprison the citizenry: Red flag gun laws that strip citizens of their rights based on the flimsiest of pretexts concocted by self-serving politicians. Overcriminalization resulting in jail time for nonviolent offenses such as feeding stray cats and buying foreign honey. Military training drills—showy exercises in armed intimidation—and live action “role playing” between soldiers and “freedom fighters” staged in small rural communities throughout the country. Profit-driven speed and red light cameras that do little for safety while padding the pockets of government agencies. Overt surveillance that turns citizens into suspects.

Police-run facial recognition software that mistakenly labels law-abiding citizens as criminals. Punitive programs that strip citizens of their passports and right to travel over unpaid taxes. Government agents that view segments of the populace as “subhuman” and treat them accordingly. A social credit system (similar to China’s) that rewards behavior deemed “acceptable” and punishes behavior the government and its corporate allies find offensive, illegal or inappropriate.

Screenshot from Route Fifty

These are just a small sampling of the oppressive measures used by the government to control and constrict the American people.

What these despotic tactics add up to is an authoritarian prison in every sense of the word.

Granted this prison may not appear as overtly bleak as the soul-destroying gulags described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his masterpiece The Gulag Archipelago, but that’s just a matter of aesthetics.

Strip away the surface embellishments and you’ll find the core is no less sinister than that of the gulags of the Cold War-era Soviet Union.

Those gulags, according to historian Anne Applebaum, used as a form of “administrative exile—which required no trial and no sentencing procedure—was an ideal punishment not only for troublemakers as such, but also for political opponents of the regime.”

The word “gulag” refers to a labor or concentration camp where prisoners (oftentimes political prisoners or so-called “enemies of the state,” real or imagined) were imprisoned as punishment for their crimes against the state. As Applebaum explains:

Over time, the word “Gulag” has also come to signify not only the administration of the concentration camps but also the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps. Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself, the set of procedures that prisoners once called the “meat-grinder”: the arrests, the interrogations, the transport in unheated cattle cars, the forced labor, the destruction of families, the years spent in exile, the early and unnecessary deaths.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (image on the right) was such a political prisoner.

For the crime of daring to criticize Stalin in a private letter to a school friend, Solzhenitsyn was arrested and sentenced to eight years in exile in a labor camp.

That was before psychiatry paved the way for totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union to declare dissidents mentally ill and consign political prisoners to prisons disguised as psychiatric hospitals, where they could be isolated from the rest of society, their ideas discredited, and subjected to electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures to break them physically and mentally.

In addition to declaring political dissidents mentally unsound, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union also made use of an administrative process for dealing with individuals who were considered a bad influence on others or troublemakers. Author George Kennan describes a process in which:

The obnoxious person may not be guilty of any crime . . . but if, in the opinion of the local authorities, his presence in a particular place is “prejudicial to public order” or “incompatible with public tranquility,” he may be arrested without warrant, may be held from two weeks to two years in prison, and may then be removed by force to any other place within the limits of the empire and there be put under police surveillance for a period of from one to ten years.

Warrantless seizures, surveillance, indefinite detention, isolation, exile… sound familiar?

It should.

The age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by making them disappear—or forcing them to flee—or exiling them literally or figuratively or virtually from their fellow citizens—is happening with increasing frequency in America.

We saw it happen with Julian Assange. With Edward Snowden. With Bradley Manning.

They, too, were exiled for daring to challenge the powers-that-be.

It happened to 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub, who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys.

Raub’s case exposed the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans—especially military veterans—for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state.

Now, through the use of red flag laws, behavioral threat assessments, and pre-crime policing prevention programs, the government is laying the groundwork that would allow it to weaponize the label of mental illness as a means of exiling those whistleblowers, dissidents and freedom fighters who refuse to march in lockstep with its dictates.

That the government is using the charge of mental illness as the means by which to immobilize (and disarm) its critics is diabolically brilliant. With one stroke of a magistrate’s pen, these individuals are declared mentally ill, locked away against their will, and stripped of their constitutional rights.

These developments are merely the realization of various U.S. government initiatives dating back to 2009, including one dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

Coupled with the report on “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” issued by the Department of Homeland Security (curiously enough, a Soviet term), which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics bode ill for anyone seen as opposing the government. Although these initiatives caused an initial uproar when announced in 2009, they were quickly subsumed by the ever-shifting cacophony of the news media and its ten-day cycles.

Yet while the American public may have forgotten about the government’s plans to identify and disable anyone deemed a potential “threat,” the government has put its plan into action.

Thus, what began as a blueprint under the Bush administration has become an operation manual under the Obama and Trump administrations to exile those who are challenging the government’s authority.

An important point to consider, however, is that the government is not merely targeting individuals who are voicing their discontent so much as it is locking up individuals trained in military warfare who are voicing feelings of discontent.

Under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as ticking time bombs in need of intervention.

For instance, the Justice Department launched a pilot program aimed at training SWAT teams to deal with confrontations involving highly trained and often heavily armed combat veterans.

One tactic being used to deal with so-called “mentally ill suspects who also happen to be trained in modern warfare” is through the use of civil commitment laws, found in all states and employed throughout American history to not only silence but cause dissidents to disappear.

For example, in 2006, NSA officials attempted to label former employee Russ Tice, who was willing to testify in Congress about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, as “mentally unbalanced” based upon two psychiatric evaluations ordered by his superiors.

In 2009, NYPD Officer Adrian Schoolcraft had his home raided, and he was handcuffed to a gurney and taken into emergency custody for an alleged psychiatric episode. It was later discovered by way of an internal investigation that his superiors were retaliating against him for reporting police misconduct. Schoolcraft spent six days in the mental facility, and as a further indignity, was presented with a bill for $7,185 upon his release.

In 2012, it was Virginia’s civil commitment law that was used to justify arresting and detaining Marine Brandon Raub—a 9/11 truther—in a psychiatric ward based on posts he had made on his Facebook page that were critical of the government.

Incredibly, in Virginia alone, over 20,000 people annually are forced into psychiatric wards by way of so-called Emergency Custody Orders and civil commitment procedures.

Each state has its own set of civil, or involuntary, commitment laws. These laws are extensions of two legal principles: parens patriae Parens patriae (Latin for “parent of the country”), which allows the government to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest, and police power, which requires a state to protect the interests of its citizens.

The fusion of these two principles, coupled with a shift towards a dangerousness standard, has resulted in a Nanny State mindset carried out with the militant force of the Police State.

The problem, of course, is that the diagnosis of mental illness, while a legitimate concern for some Americans, has over time become a convenient means by which the government and its corporate partners can penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors.

In fact, in recent years, we have witnessed the pathologizing of individuals who resist authority as suffering from oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), defined as “a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures.” Under such a definition, every activist of note throughout our history—from Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr.—could be classified as suffering from an ODD mental disorder.

Of course, this is all part of a larger trend in American governance whereby dissent is criminalized and pathologized, and dissenters are censored, silenced, declared unfit for society, labelled dangerous or extremist, or turned into outcasts and exiled.

Red flag gun laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are a perfect example of this mindset at work. “We need to stop dangerous people before they act”: that’s the rationale behind the NRA’s support of these red flag laws, and at first glance, it appears to be perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others.

Where the problem arises, of course, is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

This is the same government that has, along with its corporate counterparts (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.), made it abundantly clear at all levels (whether it be the FBI, NSA, local police, school personnel, etc.) that they want no one challenging their authority.

This is a government that pays lip service to the nation’s freedom principles while working overtime to shred the Constitution.

Yes, this is a prison alright.

Thus, for those who take to the streets to constitutionally express their opinions and beliefs, rows of riot police, clad in jackboots, military vests, and helmets, holding batons, stun guns, assault rifles, and sometimes even grenade launchers, are there to keep them in line.

For those who take to social media to express their opinions and beliefs, squadrons of AI censors are there to shadowban them and keep them in line.

As for that wall President Trump keeps promising to build, it’s already being built, one tyranny at a time, transforming our constitutional republic into a carceral state.

Yet be warned: in a carceral state, there are only two kinds of people: the prisoners and the prison guards.

In a carceral state—a.k.a. a prison state or a police state—there is no difference between the treatment meted out to a law-abiding citizen and a convicted felon: both are equally suspect and treated as criminals, without any of the special rights and privileges reserved for the governing elite.

With every new law enacted by federal and state legislatures, every new ruling handed down by government courts, and every new military weapon, invasive tactic and egregious protocol employed by government agents, “we the people”—the prisoners of the American police state—are being pushed that much further into a corner, our backs against the prison wall.

This concept of a carceral state in which we possess no rights except for that which the government grants on an as-needed basis is the only way I can begin to comprehend, let alone articulate, the irrational, surreal, topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass state of affairs that is being imposed upon us in America today.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we who pretend we are free are no different from those who spend their lives behind bars.

You see, by gradually whittling away at our freedoms—free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.—the government has, in effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect the constitutional rights of the citizenry while resetting the calendar back to a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.

Aided and abetted by the legislatures, the courts and Corporate America, the government has been busily rewriting the contract (a.k.a. the Constitution) that establishes the citizenry as the masters and agents of the government as the servants. We are now only as good as we are useful, and our usefulness is calculated on an economic scale by how much we are worth—in terms of profit and resale value—to our “owners.”

Under the new terms of this revised, one-sided agreement, the government and its many operatives have all the privileges and rights and “we the prisoners” have none.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from The Crux

Throughout history, the idea of those in power to oversee the education system started in the 16th Century. The history is complex and is rarely mentioned.

The formation of the American public education system began in the Kingdom of Prussia around 1525, a former Kingdom in north-central Germany with an extension of lands that crossed between the Baltic and Northern seas. It encompassed Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, France, and Switzerland to the south. It also touched upon the Russian border to the west and on the Austria-Hungary border to the east. During the time of the Titanic knights in the 13th Century, Christianity was established. The Teutonic Knights were a German militaristic-religious order based in Jerusalem, Palestine who had conquered the ‘Old Prussians’ and brought both German and Dutch settlers into their realm. Many ‘Old Prussians’ were killed, exiled or had to assimilate. In the beginning of the 14th Century, opposition to the Teutonic Knights gained momentum among the Prussians and overthrew the order with Polish and Lithuanian forces which led to the Thirteen Years War. It ended with the Prussians, Lithuanians and the Poles as the victors in the war leading to the ‘Second Peace of Thorn Agreement’ a peace treaty that was signed in 1466 between both sides. The Order agreed on the rights of the Polish Crown for Prussia’s western half called Royal Prussia in return the Knights accepted Eastern Prussia, later called Duchy of Prussia until 1525, as a territory under the Polish crown. Western Prussia was then administered under the Polish crown in accordance to the agreement.

Prussia became one of the most powerful states, although political conditions of that time became perplexed as those in power sought what can complement their special interests. Gordon A. Craig’s ‘The Politics of the Prussian Army 1640-1945′ said

“that they were maintained and that the disparate fragments of territory were forged, not only into a viable political union, but into one which was recognized as a Great European Power, was the result of two things: the political will and the sagacity of the Hohenzollern rulers after 1640 and the effectiveness of the Army which they created.” [1]

One of the last Grand Masters of the Teutonic Knights, Albert was a Lutheran who established Protestantism as he declared himself the first Duke of Prussia back in 1525. By 1569, Albert Frederick, the son of Albert became Duke of Prussia after he submitted himself or what would be called a “feudal homage” to the King of Poland named Zygmunt August which at the time, Ducal Prussia was a kingdom of Poland. By 1618, after the religious wars between the Protestants and Catholics throughout the Holy Roman Empire (a German Empire) utterly destroyed vast lands in the German territories and during the same time, the Vassal state of Poland was handed over to John Sigismund, a member of the Hohenzollern Dynasty. After Sigismund’s death, his son George William, Elector of Brandenberg was his successor, appointed in 1623 by the king of Poland, Sigismund III Vasa.

George William’s power to rule was rather weak so it was handed over to Catholic chancellor Count Adam von Schwarzenberg, a German official in his administration to manage the territory and then some time later, George William retired. His son, Frederick William, the Elector of Brandenberg, was known as the ‘Great Elector’ was the one who secured the Ducal Prussia’s independence of Poland, lead to the Peace of Oliva in 1660.

The Peace of Oliva, was the treaty that ended the Northern War of 1655 and lasted until 1660. It was signed by Austria, Brandenburg, Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania and Sweden who also fought in the war. Frederick William of Brandenburg gained political power from the treaty and his rule over Ducal Prussia through prior treaties of Wehlau and Bromberg in 1657.

The centralization of the administration of the Duchy by Frederick William was monumental in securing power originally from the nobility and the oligarchy. According to Craig “Prussia’s standing army was born during the war of 1655-60” [2], Frederick William was responsible for building a military that was able to defend itself with aid from France. However, Frederick William’s policy of religious freedom for both Catholics and Protestants was a positive factor that contributed to the rebuilding of Prussian lands that was destroyed by previous wars over religion. Frederick William set the foundation for Brandenburg-Prussia to become a self-ruled Kingdom under his son and successor Frederick the 1st who established the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701 after he crowned himself as the ‘King in Prussia,’ as his ambition became evident as to his willingness to extend the kingdom with support promised to King Leopold the 1st of the Holy Roman Empire and Archduke of Austria in exchange for his title since war was looming between the Holy Roman Empire and France.

Frederick the 1st legacy was that he convinced the Holy Roman Empire to allow the Brandenberg-Prussian state to become a Kingdom. His son Frederick William I became his successor in 1713, so the devout protestant passed a law making education compulsory by 1717. Known as the ‘Soldier King’, Frederick William I believed in military values. He increased the size of his military and built Prussia into a military power to defend the Kingdom. After the change in the state structure of power, the issue of education was the primary goal to enhance the power of the Prussian state militarily. Murray N. Rothbard, who was considered a heterodox economist of the Austrian School, a historian, and a political theorist from the Ludwig von Mises Institute wrote ‘Education: Free and Compulsory’ said that:

It was King Frederick William I who inaugurated the Prussian compulsory school system, the first national system in Europe. In 1717, he ordered compulsory attendance of all children at the state schools, and, in later acts, he followed with the provision for the construction of more such schools. It is perhaps appropriate that the King’s personal attitudes were quite in keeping with his ardent promotion of despotism and militarism. [3]

He was in favor of centralization by the government to oversee all aspects of Prussian life as he established an education system that would complement the military. To support these actions he imposed taxes on the middle class. Frederick William influenced his son, the future King of Prussia, Frederick the 2nd to allow a militaristic approach to power and control. He sent scouts to recruit young soldiers of other families for his military. The Soldier King set forth the preparation for a post-militaristic state able to defend itself from an invading forces or a state capable of being the aggressor. As Frederick the 2nd also known as Frederick the Great was left with enormous military powers and a vast amount of financial reserves as it enabled him to expand the military. He gained control of the education system and mandated attendance as a rule of law. Rothbard wrote:

These beginnings were carried forward by his son Frederick the Great, who vigorously reasserted the principle of compulsory attendance in the state schools, and established the flourishing national system, particularly in his Landschulreglement of 1763. What were the goals that animated Frederick the Great? Again, a fervent belief in absolute despotism, although this was supposed to be “enlightened.” “The prince,” he declared, “is to the nation he governs what the head is to the man; it is his duty to see, think, and act for the whole community.” He was particularly fond of the army, spent public funds freely upon it, and inculcated especially constant drill and the strictest discipline. [4]

Interestingly, Frederick the Great was also a student of the occult and was a member of freemasonry. Frederick believed that the elites were the superior force and chosen by a high order relative to the Sun, the highest order of power.

“Frederick was a financial supporter of Orthodox freemasonry and in 1768; he commissioned the building of a grand lodge for use by the Prussian brethren” [5].

Frederick was a supporter and a participant in the creation of the Illuminati “One of the many titles used by the Masonic secret societies founded by Frederick was the Illuminati.”6 The Illuminati was fully established on May 1st, 1776. Frederick the Great was indeed mystical by all standards. Frederick assumed that he was enlightened, he was convinced that they were legitimate and had the authority to rule and conquer territories throughout Europe. Prussia eventually became a major power in Europe. Frederick the Great invaded Austria’s province of Silesia which started the war of Austrian Succession. Silesia was eventually annexed by Frederick. In 1772, the Polish Royal Prussia was also annexed.

The Prussian Style of Public Education, A Breeding Ground for Soldiers

The Prussian Empire used their method of public education to create an army so that they can basically expand their empire throughout Europe. Heinz Stubig, professor at the University of Marburg (Germany) and author of ‘The Prussian German Army: School of the Nation in the Nineteenth Century’ said that in a speech given at Berlin University by classical philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff praised the education system in an open ceremony:

On the other hand one cannot value highly enough the blessing-and a seat of intellectual education has indeed the duty even to praise the fact-that an institution existed that provided a kind of breeding necessary to each and all, namely, one that leads through obedience to independence, through service to freedom: to wit, the Prussian Army. This army remained intact even as the state was crumbling internally, remained faithful to its commander by force of will, and swiftly extinguished the fire of open rebellion” [7]

The speech provided an admission that the Prussian education system was intended to create an army of obedient soldiers. Stubig said that

“The educational mission implied in this claim targeted in the first instance the simple soldier: the objective was to transform through training the mass of conscripted recruits into faithful and obedient subjects.” [8]

The Prussian State was based on military principals, it was even described as a giant penal institution where everything was regulated and run by the state including town buildings. John Taylor Gatto, a former public school teacher and author of ‘The Underground History of American Education’ described Prussia as “an army with a country”:

The little North German state of Prussia had been described as “an army with a country,” “a perpetual armed camp,” “a gigantic penal institution.” Even the built environment in Prussia was closely regimented: streets were made to run straight, town buildings and traffic were state-approved and regulated. Attempts were made to cleanse society of irregular elements like beggars, vagrants, and Gypsies, all this intended to turn Prussian society into “a huge human automation” in the words of Hans Rosenberg. It was a state where scientific farming alternated with military drilling and with state-ordered meaningless tasks intended for no purpose but to subject the entire community to the experience of collective discipline-like fire drills in a modern junior high school or enforced silence during the interval between class periods. Prussia had become a comprehensive administrative utopia. It was Sparta reborn. [9]

Many countries starting with Europe made compulsory education law. It started with Hungary in 1868, then in Austria during 1869 and in all German societies by 1872. Then followed other countries like Switzerland in 1874, for England it was in 1880. It was the the domino effect in compulsory education, a term relative to the domino theory used by the United States during the Cold War suggesting that if one country fell to communism then all countries surrounding it would turn communist. However, this was the situation in Europe as countries were adopting the compulsory public education system. Gatto declared that

“Administrative utopias are a peculiar kind of dreaming by those in power, driven by an urge to arrange the lives of others, organizing them for production, combat, or detention..” [10]

Darwinism and the Rise of Public Education

During the 1800’s, a significant realm of science had been developed in England by naturalist Charles Darwin. ‘Darwinism’ which is also known as the ‘Survival of the fittest’ was the development of the mind that is determined by the genetic inheritance which can be manipulated and controlled through steady observation. Darwin’s findings lead to the Eugenics movement, a science based on the genetic composition of the human population by improving human hereditary traits by promoting the ‘good’ traits of people that were considered ‘superior’ usually in the form of the elites or the ‘super-class’ and reducing the ‘bad’ traits found in the remaining population, so “Eugenics” became a science using depopulation methods such as sterilization and abortion. In Nazi Germany, Eugenics became standard practice for the Nazis where extermination, experimentation and racial hygiene became common practice, but began to lose its credibility during and after World War II.

Darwin was born in England in 1809. Darwin attended Edinburgh University in Scotland to study medicine, but he could barely stand the sight of human blood so he transferred to Cambridge University to study ministry, however, in his own time he would pursue his passion in natural history. While at Cambridge University, Darwin met John Stevens Henslow, a professor of Botany who introduced him to the field of zoology and geography. By 1831, Darwin accepted a position with a British Navy survey vessel called the HMS Beagle through the recommendation of Henslow which allowed him to travel through South America’s coastlines including the Galapagos Islands and other places in the South Pacific for more than 5 years. Darwin observed various species that included different types of animals and exotic plants. It was where Darwin developed his observations that lead to his idea on the theory of evolution by natural selection or ‘selective breeding.’ By 1839 he published ‘The Voyage of the Beagle’ based on his journals and field notes from his expedition and became an instant celebrity among the rich and powerful in London. Darwin married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood that same year and eventually had 10 children together.

He continued his studies on morphology and biogeography with animals and plants he closely observed as an established naturalist. Charles Darwin published ‘On the Origin of Species’ in 1859 where “He eventually concluded that species exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they were to varying degrees related.”[11] It led him to conclude his theory of natural selection which was on course to become mainstream, although there was another naturalist by the name of Alfred Russell Wallace who had developed his own theory of evolution, but Darwin was already prepared. In 1858, Darwin read a paper he had written to an audience at the Royal Society on what ideas he had formulated in relation to the theory of natural selection.

Then one year later, after his publication of ‘On the Origin of Species,’ he concluded how ‘Natural Selection’ can be utilized. Darwin’s use of this new science as a tool was to produce a new species, he proclaimed that

“it may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life”[12] What was implied in the theory of natural selection was that preserving the favored race was a necessary step to advance the “good” species. “Natural Selection will modify the structure of the young in relation to the parent, and of the parent in relation to the young. In social animals it will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the community; if each in consequence profits by the selected change.” [13]

By creating a population into what he considered for the good of human society with an acceptable race on top of the pyramid. Darwin believed that psychology can contribute to the natural selection process. Darwin said that

“In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation”[14]

In relation to public education, Darwin’s observation and later on, Francis Galton’s theories of natural selection became a topic of interest among educational tycoons including James Mckeen Cattell (which I will discuss in further detail later on), who was Wilhelm Wundt’s (the father of Experimental Psychology) first assistant.

Francis Galton believed that man’s natural abilities are the product of his inheritance. Galton was inspired by Darwin with the concept of identifying human abilities in relation to hereditary elements. He advanced and continued Darwin’s idea and in 1888, became the creator of the term ‘Eugenics’ an applied science that improved the genetic composition of the human population, a term called ‘Human Selective Reproduction’. He believed in the best of the human population should breed in what he called ‘Positive Eugenics’ that is deemed acceptable and those that should be eliminated through genocide, segregation and sterilization called ‘Negative Eugenics’. Galton developed his interest in human variability from Darwin’s ideas on the ‘variations’ of domestic animals as he applied the same concept of variations to humans in regards to weight, height, mental capabilities and facial features. It was clear that Darwin’s idea was consistent with Galton when he said

“to my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual”[15]

Maximilian Wundt’s Experimental Psychology

Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt is the father of ‘Experimental Psychology’ and is also the founder and practitioner of ‘Modern Psychology.’ Morgan Hunt, the author of ‘The Story of Psychology’ said

“Yet today he seems a strange and paradoxical figure. Despite the immense reputation and influence he long had, his name is now all but unknown except to psychologists and scholars; most lay persons who can easily indentify Freud, Pavlov, and Piaget have no idea who Wundt was” [16] (Born in 1832, in a southern German town called Neckarau).

In his late teens he entered Tubingen University and graduated in 1851. He then studied medicine at the University of Heidelberg where he earned his medical degree in 1856. He remained at the University for a short time while he studied with Johannes Peter Muller, a professor of physiology. He then became a professor and contributed to such journals such as the Contributions Towards’ a Theory of Sense Perception (1858–62) in several volumes which gave credibility to the core study of psychology. After his professorship at Heidelberg, Wundt accepted a position at the philosophy department at the University of Zurich for one year, and then returned to Germany to become a rector at the University of Leipzig until his death in 1920. Wundt taught the first course ever recorded in history called ‘Scientific Psychology’. Psychology was treated as a science because it collects knowledge through explanations, observations and tests from scientifically based methods since it provided the answers needed to form a definitive conclusion. Since ‘scientific psychology’ was still in the experimental phase, it was considered a science. In 1875, he accepted the chairmanship of philosophy at the University of Leipzig where he also established the first laboratory in 1879. Major encyclopedias description of Wilhelm Wundt is at a minimum of details, when in fact he was the first person to teach scientific psychology and published lectures based on his expertise. The Encyclopedia Britannica (www.britannica.com) describes Wundt and his accomplishments as follows:

It was during this period, in 1862, that Wundt offered the first course ever taught in scientific psychology. Until then, psychology had been regarded as a branch of philosophy and, hence, to be conducted primarily by rational analysis. Wundt instead stressed the use of experimental methods drawn from the natural sciences. His lectures on psychology were published as Vorlesungen über die Menschen und Thierseele (1863; “Lectures on the Mind of Humans and Animals”). He was promoted to assistant professor of physiology in 1864. [17]

Important details are left out of the Wundt’s description; to get a complete biography of who this man really was is quite interesting. According to a classic investigative book titled ‘The Leipzig Connection’ by alternative education promoter Paolo Lionni describes who Wundt really was. Lionni said that

“What they omit is that Wundt was the founder of experimental psychology and the force behind its dissemination throughout the western world” he continued “to Wundt, a thing made sense and was worth pursuing if it could be measured, quantified, and scientifically demonstrated. Seeing no way to do this with the human soul, he proposed that psychology concern itself solely with experience.” [18]

Germany was at the center for sciences and technology as it changed the world with advanced knowledge of the human mind, body and thought processes which became instrumental for political and financial interests:

Throughout the revolutions and revolts of 1848 across Europe, the rise of the Socialist Internationals, and the forced unification of the new Germany by Otto von Bismarck, Germany was a flourishing center of culture and the sciences, each of its universities a magnet for the ambitious intellectual youth of Europe and the United States. Leipzig was no exception and one of its principal attractions was Wundt, who was attempting to place his ideas within the mainstream of German Scientism by redefining psychology as a physiological rather than a philosophical subject. [19]

Wundt was an idealist who was in competition with other scientists who where inventing new approaches to various sciences at the time. All of these ideas led to newly created sciences which came from the Age of Enlightenment in the western world during the 18th Century. Germany’s scientific achievement did change society in several ways especially in educational teaching methods. The reasoning behind Wundt’s idea was in the interest of the individual’s feelings after stimulation had been introduced. What were the reactions of the subject after stimulation? To answer that question, Wundt decided to measure all of the data that was made available after the subject was tested. Wundt was “convinced that perceptions and experiences could be understood through measurable physiological reactions.” [20] Measuring reactions was the key component in understanding human actions and in response to a stimulating event that was produced by actions caused by Wundt. According to the studies conducted in the laboratory:

Wundt noticed that reaction began with stimulation, followed by (1) perception, in which the experience exists within the individual; (2) “apperception,” in which the body (or so he thought) indentifies the stimulus and combines it with other stimuli, and (3) an act of will which results in (4) a reaction to the stimulus. [21]

We react accordingly to what stimulates us from a past experience. The experience we have within ourselves is the ‘perception’ which allows us to respond to the stimuli. Since we identify the stimulus, which is the ‘apperception’, it forces us to react to the stimuli. Morton Hunt’s ‘The Story of Psychology’ explains further:

Other studies concerned the boundary between perception and apperception. In a notable one, the experimenter flashed a group of letters or words very briefly through a slit in a revolving drum; the subject “perceived” them (saw them at the periphery of awareness, without having time to recognize them) but in the next instant “apperceived” (consciously remembered and recognized) some of what he had seen. The major finding was the size of the attention span: most subjects could apperceive and name four to six letters or words after having seen them too briefly to identify them. [22]

We are physical objects according to Wundt. We need to be stimulated and directed towards a goal set out by the experimenter. Lionni said that

“Wundt asserted that man is devoid of spirit and self-determinism. He set out to prove that man is the summation of his experiences, of the stimuli which intrude upon his consciousness and unconsciousness”[23]

He used examinations of the sensory perception to measure every outcome of the action of the individual to the reaction and with this analysis, he determined what differences between individuals in the timing and the words that formed from the response to the stimuli. Wundt’s intention was to form a “new psychology as a study of the brain and the central nervous system” [24] Wundt did change the face of education through his experiments. He developed a new kind of education, one that goes against the idea of what an education was supposed to be originally, which had a formative effect on the mind, body and character of an individual. Education is supposed to be a natural development of a young mind. Not a programmed development process that stimulates your response with an expected outcome. Paolo Lionni analysis says the following:

To the experimental psychologist, however, education became the process of exposing the student to “meaningful” experiences so as to ensure desired reactions: [L]earning is the result of modifiability in the paths of neural conduction. Explanations of even such forms of learning as abstraction and generalization demand of the neurones only growth, excitability, conductivity, and modifiability. The mind is the connection-system of man; and learning is the process of connecting. The situation-response formula is adequate to cover learning of any sort, and the really influential factors in learning are readiness of the neurones, sequence in time, belongingness, and satisfying consequences. [25]

Lionni continued:

If one assumes (as did Wundt) that there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain, a nervous system, then one must try to educate by inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the “correct” response. The child is not, for example, thought capable of volitional control over his actions, or of deciding whether he will act or not act in a certain way; his actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, he is a stimulus response mechanism. According to this thinking, he is his reactions. Wundt’s thesis laid the philosophical basis for the principles of conditioning later developed by Pavlov (who studied physiology in Leipzig in 1884, five years after Wundt had inaugurated his laboratory there) and American behavioral psychologists such as Watson and Skinner; for laboratories and electroconvulsive therapy; for schools oriented more toward socialization of the child than toward the development of intellect; and for the emergence of a society more and more blatantly devoted to the gratification of sensory desire at the expense of responsibility and achievement. [26]

This was the first stage of educational psychology in a controlled setting, where the response was predicted with the proper stimuli. In an educational setting a controlled individual will react to a particular stimuli induced by a teacher. Since a child is pre-conditioned and not in control of their reactions as assumed by Wundt, the outcome he was searching for was successful because it was what he predicted would happen. This is the socialization of children, one that will lead to the desired outcome. Morton Hunt’s observation on Wundtian methods is clear:

Wundtian introspection is precise, circumscribed, and controlled; it is confined to what Wundt calls the “elements” of psychic life-the immediate, simple perceptions and feelings aroused by sounds, lights, colors, and other stimuli. The experimenter provides these stimuli and observes the subject’s visible reactions, while the subject focuses his attention on the perceptions and feelings the stimuli generate in him. [27] 

The controlled atmosphere that Wundt basically studied was a reaction-time experiment that was based on the timing of the stimuli responses.

“Wundt defines a scientific psychological experiment as one in which a known, controlled physiological stimulus-the “antecedent variable,” he calls it-is applied and the individual’s responses observed and measured.” [28]

The experiment led to measurements only to the visible reactions since Wundt was limited in his findings to accept the simplest state of feelings or reactions.

“But the laboratory’s most original and important findings came from its studies of “Mental Chronometry,” the measuring of the time required by particular mental processes and the interactions among them” [29]

Hunt concluded. It was the formula used for the future of public school classrooms. Students will be taught through a scientific method that includes class lessons and examinations administered by the public school bureaucracy. It is a science that accepts human conditioning as a necessity. A new psychology that was based on mind control experiments for the sole purpose to manage the population. The science produced by the Wundtian method was the start of “mind control experiments” that lead to an education philosophy that attracted many ambitious and radical scientists that had common objectives with an intended purpose of becoming pioneers in the new psychology. Lionni said that Wundt expanded his new psychology to Europe and the U.S.:

“Wundt’s second major contribution to psychology preempting of education wasn’t theoretical at all: he produced the first generation of researchers, professors and publicists in the new psychology. This group went on to establish experimental psychology throughout Europe and the United States.” [30] 

It was the new scientific trend for scientists. The determination to spread the new psychology was evident.

“The young Americans who studied with Wundt returned to found departments of psychology throughout the United States. With the prestige attached to having studied in Germany, these men found little difficulty in securing positions of influence at major American universities.” [31]

Practically all of the students became successful professors who trained hundreds of doctorate students that contributed to new associations, wrote articles and publications. Wundt’s first student was an American named G. Stanley Hall, a Harvard University graduate who studied under Wundt for a considerable length of time. In 1883, Hall returned to the United States and became a professor at Johns Hopkins University and then established a psychological laboratory. The university was following the German University model at the time, so Hall was an ideal prospect. In 1887, he founded the American Journal of Psychology that became influential. Then in 1889, he became president of the newly established Clark University in Worchester, Massachusetts. By 1892, he played a significant role in establishing the American Psychological Association. Child Development was a study that Hall decided to undertake that became the ‘Child Study Movement’ in the United States. He was an editor of the Pedagogical Seminary and The American Journal of Religious Psychology and Race Development. He published Aspects of German Culture in 1881, a two volume book called ‘Adolescence’ which became one of his most recognized works which are considered a monumental achievement and Youth: Its Education, Regimen, and Hygiene published in 1906 among others.

G. Stanley Hall was an influential figure to John Dewey, a major contributor in relation to the mutual interdependency of psychology and education. “To Dewey, as to Wundt, man was an animal alone with his reactions and entirely dependent upon experiential data” [32] A student of Hall for one year, Dewey obtained a doctorate from Johns Hopkins University in 1884. Afterwards he taught at the University of Michigan in 1884, then at the University of Minnesota in 1888. Dewey published the first American textbook Psychology in 1887 on the study of psychology and German philosophy which was used in several universities. In 1895 he joined the faculty of the University of Chicago which was funded by industrialist and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller to head a number of departments including the psychology department. During that time an educational laboratory called ‘the Dewey School’ was established to practice the principles of psychology and implement experimental techniques that can be used for the purpose of how learning can be applied to public schools. Dewey once stated that “Education is thought of also as something needed by some human beings merely because of their dependence upon others. We are born ignorant, unversed, unskilled, immature, and consequently in a state of social dependence” [33] It is unfortunate that those in power can ultimately decide what kind of education the public shall receive. They believed that humans are born into this world with no knowledge therefore we are considered animals. “The business of childhood is to grow into the independence of adulthood by means of the guidance of those who have already attained it.” [34] which is true when analyzing what public schools had become, a world where educational authorities, administrators and teachers who are trained by the very same institutions guide students to become ideally good citizens.

Lionni’s research leads us to James McKeen Cattell was a PhD from Leipzig who studied under Wundt and had developed an interest in mental testing and identifying the abilities of what individuals were capable of. The method focused on words which should not be “read” but rather can be seen as “total word pictures”, in other words instead of trying to compound the words by sounding out the letters through speech, but as a word that is recognized as a “picture”.

“Cattell found they could recognize words without having to sound out the letters. From this, he reasoned that words are not read by compounding the letters, but are perceived as total word pictures.”[35]

For example, if one sees a word such as ‘Dog’ sounding it out, and knowing how to pronounce the letters would naturally enable the individual to learn other words instead of a teacher showing you the words through a picture where it can be recognized as a word. “He determined that little is gained by teaching the child his sounds and letters as the first step to being able to read. Since they could recognize words very rapidly, the way to teach children how to read would be to show them words, and tell them what the words were”[36] The method was called “Sight-Reading” which became popular in the United States as it was used as a tool for newly trained teachers. While lecturing at Cambridge University in England he met Francis Galton, who believed that men with natural abilities are inherited.

“Cattell quickly absorbed Galton’s approach to eugenics, selective breeding and the measurement of intelligence. Cattell was later to become the American leader in psychological testing, and in 1894 would administer the first battery of psychological tests ever given to a large group of people, testing the freshmen and senior classes at Columbia University.”[37]

Cattell eventually became a professor at University of Pennsylvania who established a psychological laboratory fashioned along Leipzig’s model. Columbia University became interested in Cattell’s findings in relation to education as it attributed to his rise as a publicist and a promoter of experimental psychology where it allowed him to publish a journal called ‘The Psychological Review’. At Columbia University, he supervised more than 344 doctoral candidates and then was elected to president of the American Psychological Association in 1895. He was the first psychologist ever elected in 1900 to the National Academy of Sciences.

Another student of Wundt was James Earl Russell, a PhD and a European agent at Leipzig for the Federal Bureau of Education who also became an administrator and then a dean for more than thirty years at Columbia University’s Teachers College. This was the turning point for Wilheim Wundt’s laboratory psychology which influenced the American education system where teachers were trained in the new psychology. Russell hired numerous Wundtians, which included a disciple of Wundt himself, Edward Lee Thorndike. A Wesleyan and Harvard University graduate applied for a fellowship offered by Cattell at Columbia University and was accepted. Thorndike eventually earned his PhD in 1898. When he arrived in New York he brought along his two chickens in his hand to experiment. A disturbing fact that chickens would be treated as students for his new research was bizarre.

“Thorndike’s specialty was the “puzzle box” into which he would put various animals (chickens, rats, cats) and let them find their way out by themselves.”[38]

The experiment with animals was applied to classrooms across America and eventually throughout the world. “Thorndike equated children with the rats, monkeys, fish, cats and chickens upon which he experimented in his laboratory and was prepared to apply what he found there to learning in the classroom”[39] As he created laws from his research, he applied ‘Animal Behavior’ principles on how to train the teachers. Teachers then applied their new animal training techniques to their classrooms through school curriculums. After he received his doctorate, he went off to Western Reserve University to teach education for a year before Dean James Russell of Columbia Teachers College offered Thorndike a position where he would later accept to study animal behavior, but this time on young children and youths in collaboration with James McKeen Cattell. By 1903, Edward Thorndike’s ‘Educational Psychology’ was already published in numerous books and articles.

Barbara Beatty published her findings regarding Thorndike’s Educational Psychology on the academic journal of the American Psychological Association and acknowledged that “In the years before World War I, Thorndike combined learning theory, psychometrics, and applied research on school-related subjects to form a psychology of education.”[40] Since he landed a position in teacher education he became heavily involved in the mass commercialization of educational psychology.

“In the 1920s, he helped turn educational psychology into a mass-market industry and produced numerous commercially successful tests and textbooks.”[41] Thorndike believed in law and effect according to Lionni “which held that those actions and behaviors leading to satisfaction would be impressed, or stamped in, on those leading to unsatisfactory results would be stamped out.”[42]

In theory, a positive response by enforcing it would be automatically implemented and a negative response (an action that is considered non-compliant by the education authorities) would be eliminated. So if a child does not want to learn a particular subject it is up to the teacher to make it ‘Pleasurable’ by simply ’Rewarding’ the child will make them feel good about their accomplishment. If a child misbehaves he must be punished, therefore by denying that behavior the child would not find it as pleasurable.

“This thinking favors a society which operates more on the basis of gratification than on the basis of reason or responsibility. Children expect to receive what is pleasurable, and what they desire, because they have learned in school that what is pleasurable is good, and what isn’t pleasurable isn’t good.”[43]

In actuality, what Thorndike was advocating was a form of social conformity or the conditioning of children to have them act in a manner to what is acceptable. He found that the 3-R’s (Reading, Writing and Arithmetic) were not as important, even language and history were considered useless according to Thorndike. He maintained the idea that the three main functions should be experienced, which is already conditioned in the brain and the nervous system by stimuli produced with the Pavlovian method, not through the development of fundamental skills. He believed in testing each child on a regular basis to pinpoint weaknesses in the child’s learning abilities. By this standard, it can be determined which child will succeed and who will fail. For those who will not succeed to Thorndike’s standard will be directed to vocational training. Lionni understood that psychological testing excluded the teacher and the school system from responsibility as he points out that they are the culprits of a failed testing policy:

It is an easy conclusion, and it absolves educators from the responsibility for any of their students not learning, for if half the students in a classroom learn, that is proof enough that the teacher is teaching correctly. That the other half doesn’t is obviously not the teacher’s fault, as this half heard what the first half heard, and experienced the same stimuli. There must be something wrong with the second half, and psychological tests will determine what it is. [44] 

Through his experimental psychological findings, men were animals according to Wundt. Lionni’s research into education psychology allowed him to correctly predict that

“within half a century juvenile delinquency would run rampant, illiterates would pour out of schools, teachers would no longer learn how to teach, and generation after generation of adults, themselves cheated out of the fruits of a good education, would despair of any solution to the morass of “modern’ education.”[45]

Lionni believed that throughout the United States, and many other countries that had the same education model, all experienced the same problems. The problem of illiteracy is evident for students who graduate from the school system today, and with teachers not teaching anything useful is sheer proof that the public education system is a failed institution.

Prussian Education Comes to America

The idea of public education in the United States was first proposed by Horace Mann of Massachusetts who believed that all children, rich or poor should receive an education to become disciplined citizens. The education system that existed at that time was local and only available to the wealthy. But the two men who opposed this notion were Horace Mann and Henry Bernard of Connecticut whose education reforms allowed all children to attend public schools. Horace Mann, grew up poor and endured many hardships, he rejected the teachings of Calvinism or Protestantism (that follows Christian practices of John Calvin) due to its unrelenting teaching style. Horace Mann’s own early education was complex as it involved formal schooling of that time with teachers who were considered mediocre, so his attendance was inconsistent, consistently absent, perhaps two to three months per year. But once he learned how to read, he occupied the Franklin town library where Benjamin Franklin’s one hundred and sixteen volumes was stored. The young Horace Mann became self-educated through his vigorous reading, day and night. His self-study was significant as he was accepted to Brown University where he excelled in several subjects including politics and education. After he graduated in 1819, he was asked to return to the university to become a tutor and accepted the opportunity. It was where his humanitarianism developed and geared him towards public service. He then went on to study law at Litchfield Law School and was admitted to the bar in 1823. He eventually settled in Dedham, Massachusetts, became a politician who through his popularity earned him a seat in the state legislature in 1827.

By 1829, Horace Mann established one of the first public institutions for the mentally ill that later became a state hospital for the insane in Worcester, Massachusetts. He was then elected to the Massachusetts senate from 1834 until 1837. He supported the ‘Temperance Movement’ (a social movement to reduce the consumption of alcohol) since alcohol consumption was attributed to the rising crime-rate and was responsible for the increase of severe health problems among the public, he backed legislation to prohibit the sale of alcohol and even the sale of lottery tickets due to morality issues. During this period he had a successful legal practice in Dedham and then later in Boston. His legal practice earned him the reputation of a respected lawyer and became popular among the intellectuals of Boston. But Horace Mann’s main interest was the possibility of education for the public as a moral obligation. Mann seemed like he had good intentions.

Since the “Old Deluder Satan” Act of 1647 was passed in Massachusetts, it enacted towns of fifty or more families to build elementary schools to teach reading and writing and conduct bible studies. It also included towns with more than one hundred families to open grammar schools to teach Latin and Greek. It was an act to ensure that education can be passed down to the next generation. So a form of public education did exist, but it was under local control. During Mann’s time however, he witnessed the education system faltering. Lawrence A. Cremin who was an educational historian published ‘The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Men’ stated

“Yet during Mann’s own lifetime, public penury and disinterest had allowed the schools to fall into disrepute, and there was talk that neighboring states like New York and foreign monarchies-yes, even monarchies!-like Prussia were outstripping Massachusetts in the quality and vigor of their public schools.”[46]

The issue of public education was soon becoming a problem and a major concern for the reform movement in nineteenth century America.

Once efforts to reform public education was evident, a movement arose with politicians such as James G. Carter, a Massachusetts state legislator and a House Chairman of the Committee who wrote ‘Influence of an Early Education’ (from his ‘Essays upon Popular Education containing a particular examination of the schools of Massachusetts, and an outline of an Institution for the education of teachers’) Published in 1826. It involved the Mayor of Boston, Josiah Quincy Jr. and Edward Everett, a politician, educator and president of Harvard University. The reform movement also included reverend Charles Brooks and a member of one of the elite New England families, known as the Dwight family, Edmund Dwight a philanthropist and merchant were all instrumental figures who contributed to the establishment of the Massachusetts Board of Education. It was the first of its kind in America. On April 20th, 1837 a bill was passed to make the Massachusetts Board of Education a reality.

“Two weeks later Dwight, who more than anyone else had lovingly presided over the conception of the board, was dining with Horace Mann to urge his acceptance of the secretaryship.”[47] Cremin wrote. “if ever a post called for moral leadership of the first order, it was this one, and it is to Dwight’s lasting credit that he persuaded Horace Mann to accept it.”[48]

Mann accepted the position and in that same year, the board came into existence. Since he was tireless in his pursuits for the cause of public education, he closely examined the failures that were of concern. He was astonished with America’s diversity of different cultures and religions, as he was fearful of the possibility that the population can easily be divided or become disenfranchised against the government.

“Fearing the destructive possibilities of religious, political, and class discord, he sought a common value system which might undergird American republicanism and within which a healthy diversity might thrive.”[49]

Horace Mann sought an education system that will not challenge the state and will bring harmony among the masses, perhaps one that can mend all cultures into a single community so that a new American citizen will arise and his idea, was the ‘common school.’ He founded ‘The Common School Journal’ in 1838 where he criticized the current public school system that was in place at that time.

“What is perhaps most important about Mann’s view of the common school program is that he saw in it an educational purpose truly common to all. The common school would be ideally devoted to what we would today call general education.”[50]

The main platforms of the common school was that it had to be controlled by the public through it’s’ support and in it’s entirely as a whole avoiding any form of partisanship. “Public control-through the legislature, the Board of Education, local school committees, and other civil agencies-was the means by which the public could participate in defining the public philosophy taught in children”[51] is a forthright justification of state control over the education process directed by governmental agencies as the overseer. “A further problem bears comment here” wrote Cremin, “the problem of centralization. One of the most important reasons for creating the board was to counteract the adverse effects of local district control.”[52] It was a clear indication that the purpose of the Board of Education was to overreach its power over local districts to control education accordingly to state policy. Mann’s concern reflected greatly to what he said “In his very first report, he charged the low quality of public education to the “dormancy and deadness” of local communities.”[53] Nothing was more apparent than the plan to gain state control over children’s educational priorities, as in his ‘Seventh Annual Report’ of 1843 after he traveled throughout Europe; he came across the Prussian school system that involved the Pestalozzian method, an experienced based-pedagogy where children learn through self-activity instead of words. It was the system that impressed him the most. As Mann wrote:

I can only say that, during all the time mentioned, I never saw a blow struck, I never heard a sharp rebuke given, I never saw a child in tears, nor arraigned at the teacher’s bar for any alleged misconduct. On the contrary, the relation seemed to be one of duty first, and then affection, on the part of the teacher,-of affection first, and then duty, on the part of the scholar. The teacher’s manner was better than parental, for it had a parent’s tenderness and vigilance, without the foolish doatings or indulgences to which parental affection is prone [54]

By establishing the first normal school back in 1839 with state legislator James G. Carter with state-funding specifically to train teachers, preparations were made to teach children according to government policies. Horace Mann’s legacy is known as the ‘Father of American Public Education’ influenced other states within the union to adopt a similar education system that resembled Prussian schools. By 1848 age-grading was put into place, a system that placed children into grades according to their age. As they progressed, they were promoted to the next grade which was a higher level. A mandatory bill that required all children to attend elementary school was made law in the state of Massachusetts in 1852, followed by New York State in 1853. By 1918, effectively after World War I was waning, all elementary school children were required by law to attend public schools. Horace Mann ran unsuccessfully for the governorship of Massachusetts so he eventually became president of Antioch College in the state of Ohio in 1852.

The Prussian system had a significant impact on education. Horace Mann’s legacy was celebrated by those who believed in a universal education for every child as Arthur E. Morgan, the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority who celebrated Horace Mann’s accomplishment in a Convention sponsored by the National Education Association in 1937 when he said

“I look upon Horace Mann, as a great pioneer, not simply as a prophet and an administrator in founding the American public school system. He was great in seeing the significance of universality in education.”[55]

Indeed Horace Mann was praised by those who believed in the public school system that followed Prussia’s lead as it became a social fabric of American society.

Rockefeller and the Creation of the General Education Board

The goal of social engineering interested John D. Rockefeller, Sr., a wealthy snake-oil salesman who made his fortune in the late 19th Century. He became the owner of the Standard Oil Company, a monopoly that involved the early days of big oil corporations. It involved everything associated with the oil industry from drilling to transportation. It allowed him to accumulate enough wealth to influence many institutions including America’s education system. Rockefeller joined the “banking mafia” a little late in the game, but was still a ruthless businessman who conspired to destroy his competitors. One of the tactics Rockefeller used was to hire spies to gather information on his competitors so that he can make his next business move well in-advance.

Rockefeller’s aim was to undermine any business that would compete against his monopoly which he did quite successfully. He became one of the most despised men in America. The public was appalled by Rockefeller’s ruthlessness and was heavily criticized for it. It then enabled an investigative committees to question his actions on various occasions. Rockefeller’s image needed damage control, he sought a solution to build his reputation in a positive manner, a kind of a public relations campaign to win the admiration of the public to continue his business empire.

Rockefeller was also a Baptist, contributed part of his wealth to Baptist related charities and to its church. He was eventually asked by the people of the church if he would consider donating money in order to rebuild the University of Chicago, formally the Morgan Park Theological Seminary; he agreed to contribute more than $600,000 to the cause. During that time he became involved with the University, he met a Baptist minister named Frederick Taylor Gates, a former employee of George A. Pillsbury of the C.A. Pillsbury and Company (Known today as the Pillsbury Company, a manufacturer of mainly flour and other processed foods). Gates position involved donating part of the Pillsbury fortune to philanthropic causes. Rockefeller was actually impressed by the straight forward approach of Mr. Gates concerning financial matters, so he asked him if he would be interested in working for him. Gates accepted the position and began to work in earnest, taking the responsibility of the financial matters for the Rockefeller family. He tried to help Rockefeller regain his reputation as a millionaire who donated to just causes. But the public saw Rockefeller as an enemy with an image that was damaged beyond repair. Gates was concerned that the fortune Rockefeller was accumulating was outweighing the amount of money that was being distributed to various philanthropic causes.

With public outcry and the hatred towards the Rockefeller Dynasty, Gates’ main concern was the fortune being mishandled to causes that was useless to society at large. Gates was in search of causes that would enhance Rockefeller’s reputation among the public. Gates was quoted as saying

“I saw no other course but for Mr. Rockefeller and his son to form a series of great corporate philanthropies for forwarding civilization in all its elements in this land and all lands; philanthropies, if possible, limitless in time and amount, broad in scope, and self-perpetuating.”[56]

After Rockefeller had donated vast amounts of money to the University of Chicago, his reputation won favorable admiration among fellow church members and educators alike. Gates wanted to penetrate the rural south since the success of rebuilding the University of Chicago had a somewhat positive result among the public. Rockefeller’s son, John D. Rockefeller Jr. was working with Gates on his father’s behalf toured the schools of the south with Robert G. Ogden, a businessman who contributed to the founding of The Hampton Institute and was interested in rebuilding the education system. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was convinced and allowed Gates to set his sights on the rural south of the United States. Paolo Lionni’s said that “John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who had worked at no. 26 Broadway for four years, saw the potential here and went along. on his return, Junior met with Gates to propose that his father’s philanthropy be directed toward southern education.”[57] The south was still recuperating from the Civil war. Even after the ‘Reconstruction Era’ the education system was still in the rebuilding process, suffered from many problems including that of segregation.

It was an opportunity for the Rockefellers to advance their philanthropy. Rockefeller Jr. was enthusiastic towards educational philanthropy and it was evident when he spoke to Gates; as he vowed to convince his father and influential members of the Baptist church towards his plan to invest in southern education. “He also discussed the idea with his father, and with the secretary of the Baptist Home Mission Society, Dr. Wallace Buttrick, a man who would wield considerable influence in education in the coming years.”[58] Buttrick eventually became Secretary of the General Education Board. Rockefeller Jr. was determined to set up a board to advance southern education with the chance to form a Negro Education Board, but decided to expand the opportunity for all races which gave birth to the General Education Board in 1902. The new board was established with $1 million from Rockefeller Sr. who had a significant influence concerning Southern education. The John F. Slater Fund for the Education of Freedman and the Peabody Education Fund were active philanthropies in the south in regards to education, but were merged into the Southern Education Board at the behest of Daniel Coit Gilman who was the acting trustee of both organizations and also was co-founder of the Russell Trust Association along with William Huntington Russell as the financial operation of the Skull & Bones Society, a secret society based at Yale University. Gilman met with Frederick T. Gates and discussed the idea which materialized some time later. Gilman became a member of the newly formed General Education Board. The plan was legitimized by the passage of the General Education Board charter through the United States congress under the leadership of Senator Nelson W. Aldrich from Rhode Island in 1903. Coincidently, his daughter Abbey Aldrich was married to John D. Rockefeller Jr. As written in their own document called ‘The General Education Board: An Account of Its Activities, 1902-1914’ stated the following:

Incorporation by Act of Congress took place January 12, 1903. The charter set forth the general object of the corporation as “the promotion of education within the United States of America, without distinction of race, sex, or creed”; and this broad object was specifically stated to include the power to establish or endow elementary or primary schools, industrial schools, technical schools, normal schools, training schools for teachers, or schools of any grade, or higher institutions of learning; to cooperate with associations engaged in educational work; to donate property or money to any such association; to collect educational statistics and information, to publish and distribute documents and reports, “and in general to do and perform all things necessary or convenient for the promotion of the object of the corporation.[59]

It was clear on the intention of the charter imposed by the Rockefellers. This gave them the power they needed to further advance their plan not only to control public schools, it was for all schools that provided education through the General Education Board. Lionni mentioned who and what was behind the General Education Board,

“These men, it can safely be said, conspired to control American education while buttressing the Rockefeller fortune against all attacks, ensuring that their autocratic views would prevail. With the General Education Board, Rockefeller’s “education trust,” a virtually unlimited source of funds was to be made available to the Wundtian psychologists’ ambitious designs on American education.[60]

Columbia University’s Teacher’s College and the Wundtian Experiment: A New Beginning

The founding of Columbia University’s Teachers College was intended to provide poor children with an education. In 1887, philanthropist Grace Hoadley Dodge and philosopher Nicholas Murray Butler established the college to train teachers with scientific methods with a human approach. Their backgrounds were rather different in terms of ideology. Grace Hoadley Dodge came from a family that participated in causes that related to peace and justice as her great grandfather David Low Dodge who established the New York Peace Society to spread information on the consequences of war. Her grandfather was New York Congressman and businessman William E. Dodge, who was anti-slavery and a Native American rights activist. Grace Hoadley Dodge organized the founding of many societies to help working girls in relation to industry, one of them was the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) of the United States in 1885. She also helped establish the Travelers’ Aid Society of New York in 1907 to protect female travelers from ‘white slave traffic’ (at a time where white women were lured into a life of prostitution). Her intentions were good as she promoted the need for education for the poor.

Nicolas Murray Butler was president of Columbia University and a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University who at first, was an early admirer of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Butler founded the New York School for the Training of Teachers that was affiliated with Columbia University which later became the ‘Teachers College.’ He also founded the Horace Mann School in 1887 as a coeducational experimental and developmental chapter situated at Columbia University’s Teachers College. Butler invited German Chancellor Hans Luther to Columbia University to speak about Hitler’s “Peaceful Intentions” in defense of academic freedom. The reality was that Butler defended Hitler and the Nazi regime but later reversed his position during World War II after he realized that their intentions were not for peaceful purposes. As president of Columbia University for more than four decades and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931 for his participation in the Briand Kellogg Pact to outlaw war, he retired in 1945 right after World War II ended.

Over time, Columbia University experienced an increase in student enrollment as New York City’s population grew. The dean of Teacher’s College at the time was Dr. James Earl Russell, a former student of Wilhelm Wundt. Funding from the General Education Board soon followed on Dr. Russell’s request.

“There was an urgent need for teachers, and the Teachers College was now firmly established and ready to fill that need with a methodology most schools of education didn’t have-“educational” psychology”[61] Professors who were taught by Wilhelm Wundt were hired by the Teacher’s College “With Russell, Cattell, Thorndike, and other Wundtians, Dewey set the ball rolling for an amalgam of “educational” psychology and socialism.”[62]

John Dewey who was also a faculty member and the ‘Father of Progressive Education’ who followed ‘British neo-Hegelianism’ and even praised the Soviet education system. At one point during his career, he became president of The League for Industrial Democracy (LID), formally known as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS), an organization that wanted to impose the ideals of Karl Marx over Christian values in America. The plan was to influence universities and colleges through local chapters on college campuses, as an extension of the British Fabian Society, both organizations were created for the sole purpose to promote and establish a One World Government. Dewey believed in a community of common ideals, working in unity or you can call it, a collectivist society. :

A society is a number of people held together because they are working along common lines, in a common spirit, and with reference to common aims. The common needs and aims demand a growing interchange of thought and growing unity of sympathetic feeling. The radical reason that the present school cannot organize itself as a social unit is because just this element of common and productive activity is absent. Upon the playground, in game and sport, social organization takes place spontaneously and inevitably. [63]

The majority of the population can work towards a goal, but with a chosen leader that will direct them to that goal. Dewey believed that it was essential for the system to develop both leaders and the people who will be the followers:

There is something to do, some activity to be carried on, requiring natural divisions of labor, selection of leaders and followers, mutual cooperation and emulation. In the schoolroom the motive and the cement of social organization are alike wanting. Upon the ethical side, the tragic weakness of the present school is that it endeavors to prepare future members of the social order in a medium in which the conditions of the social spirit are eminently wanting.[64]

Dewey insisted that school can help focus the ‘thought patterns’ of its’ students. The school can offer much needed guidance in that capacity:

The great thing to keep in mind, then, regarding the introduction into the school of various forms of active occupation, is that through them the entire spirit of the school is renewed. It has a chance to affiliate itself with life, to become the child’s habitat, where he learns through directed living, instead of being only a place to learn lessons having an abstract and remote reference to some possible living to be done in the future. It gets a chance to be a miniature community, an embryonic society. This is the fundamental fact, and from this arise continuous and orderly streams of instruction”[65]

Dewey’s plan was to create a society that will be presumably acceptable to the American ruling classes with a radical form of ‘Progressive Education’ that can train a population that can work to serve and to only exist under a common system that will cooperate with the ruling political and financial elite. Dewey founded The University of Chicago Laboratory School to experiment on children while Edward Lee Thorndike’s Animal Psychology experimented with chickens led to new opportunities. Former researcher at The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and prominent member of the General Education Board, Abraham Flexner offered financial assistance to establish a similar laboratory At Teacher’s College called ‘The Lincoln School’. Flexner was responsible for Germanizing American medical schools through the General Education Board. Chemical based Medicine that involved prescription drugs and surgery replaced traditional medicine such as Naturopathy and Homeopathy (Read ‘The Social Transformation of American Medicine’ by Paul Starr and ‘The Politics of Philanthropy: Abraham Flexner and Medical Education by S.C Wheatley). With research experience, Edward Lee Thorndike and John Dewey were funded to continue their work in the name of “Progressive Education”.

Flexner wanted a school that can transform education into a system dominated by Wundtian ideals. As soon as the Lincoln School opened, new models of teaching were introduced along with newly published textbooks to be distributed among educators who were to be trained in the new methodology. It was evident that it would become problematic when core subjects were discarded. Lionni describes what Flexner’s schools would involve, “his experimental school would eliminate the study of Latin and Greek. Literature and history would not be completely abolished, but new methods would be instituted for teaching these subjects, classical literature would be ignored, and formal English grammar would be dropped. Flexner wasn’t just throwing out the baby with the bath water; he was blowing up the tub.” [66] As influential as Dewey was, his proposals on how and what to think was a radical process that involved methods that was not of human nature. Directed thought from school teachers sets the stage for a creation of students who would not think for themselves but rather their thought process will be pre-set for them while at school. Dewey believed that “Training” the thought of an individual can lead to a meaningful life. In ‘How We Think’ one of the many works Dewey published while at Teacher’s College said that:

The so-called ‘faculty psychology’ went hand in hand with the vogue of the formal-discipline idea in education. If thought is a distinct piece of mental machinery, separate from observation, memory, imagination, and common-sense judgments of persons and things, then thought should be trained by special exercises designed for the purpose, as one might devise special exercises for developing the biceps muscles. Certain subjects are then to be regarded as intellectual or logical subjects par excellence, possessed of a predestined fitness to exercise the thought faculty, just as certain machines are better than others for developing arm power. With these three notions goes the forth, that method consists of a set of operations by which the machinery of thought is set going and kept at work upon any subject matter [67]

If one has to be trained how to think, then an individual who thinks not for himself but for what is relatively in the interests of those who train you how to think with others collectively. Observations through study can and will lead to acceptable outcomes to the ruling class:

Training is that development of curiosity, suggestion, and habits of exploring and testing, which increases sensitiveness to questions and love of inquiry into the puzzling and unknown; which enhances the fitness of suggestions that spring up in the mind, and controls their succession in a developing and cumulative order; which makes more acute the sense of force, the proving power, of every fact observed and suggestion employed. Thinking is not a separate mental process; it is an affair of the way in which the vast multitude of objects that are observed and suggested are employed, the way they run together and are made to run together, the way they are handled. [68]

Dewey’s intentions were to formulate a society based on collectivism. A society that will not cause problems for the establishment and that will remain content within their communities and their standing in life. “When the school introduces and trains each child of society into membership within such a little community, saturating him with the spirit of service, and providing him with the instruments of effective self-direction, we shall have the deepest and best guarantee of a larger society which is worthy, lovely, and harmonious.”[69]

I will conclude with author Paolo Lionni’s final thoughts:

“Humanity is ill-organized. Geographically fragmented, it is spiritually and mentally even more dispersed by an informational oligarchy enthralling the population of earth with its psychologically programmed media. This curtain of disinformation drawn over our lives makes any betterment appear inconsequential and futile; all progress is reduced to mere news and is quickly overwhelmed by a relentless tide of deterioration, alarm, and crisis. Compulsory universal government psychotherapy is not education. Miseducation of both our leaders and their constituents or subjects is at the root of all our difficulties. Earth is educationally disenfranchised by the innate schemings of a universal ignorance. Nothing short of a complete educational renaissance will serve.”[70]

*

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, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1-Gordon A. Craig, The Politics of the Prussian Army 1640-1945, Chapter 1: The Army and the State 1640-1807: pg 1, first published by The Clarendon Press 1955, Oxford University Press 1964

2- Ibid., pg 5

3-Murray N. Rothbard, Education: Free and Compulsory, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Mises Daily, September 9, 2006.

4-Ibid

5-Michael Howard, Secret Societies-Their influence and Power from Antiquity to the Present Day, Chapter 3 The Rosicrucian Connection, pg 70, Destiny Books 2008

6-Ibid

7-Heinz Stubig, The Prussian German Army: School of the Nation in the Nineteenth Century, European Education, vol.34, no.3. Fall 2002, pg 2 (translated from the original text: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Reden and Vortrage, 3d ed. Berlin 1913. P. 160)

8-Ibid., pgs 7-8

9- John Taylor Gatto, The Underground History of American Education, Finding Work for Intellectuals, Chapter 7, pgs 171-172, The Oxford Village Press; 2nd edition (2001)

10-Ibid, The Underground History of American Education, The Technology of Subjection, Chapter 7, pg 172

11-Charles Darwin, ‘On the Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition, Special Introduction: The History of Charles Darwin, pg 3, Bridge-Logos 2009

12- Ibid., pg 107

13- Ibid., pg 109

14- Ibid., pg 275

15- Ibid

16- Morton Hunt, The Story of Psychology, Chapter 5: First among Equals: Wundt, pg 130, Doubleday, 1993

17- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/650018/Wilhelm-Wundt

18- Paolo Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 2. Heron Books 1993.

19-Ibid., pgs 3-4

20-Ibid., pg 4-5

21-Ibid

22-Morton Hunt, The Story of Psychology, Chapter 5: First among Equals: Wundt, pg 136-137, Doubleday, 1993

23– Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 7.

24-Ibid., pgs 7-8

25-Rudolf Pinter, et al, An Outline of Educational Psychology, rev. ed, New York, Barnes & Noble 1934, 79. As quoted by Paolo Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 8-9.

26- Ibid, Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 9.

27- Morton Hunt, The Story of Psychology, Chapter 5: First among Equals: Wundt, pg 135, Doubleday, 1993.

28-Ibid., pg 136

29-Ibid

30- Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 11. As quoted Duane P. Schultz, A History of Modern Psychology, New York: Academic Press, 1969.

31- Ibid., pg 14

32- Ibid., pg 19

33-John Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy and Essays 1920: The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899-1924 Volume 12, 7. Reconstruction in Philosophy, Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University 1988, The Library of Congress cataloged the first printing of this work as Dewey, John 1859-1952; The Middle Works 1899-1924, pg 185

34-Ibid

35- Lionni, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education:1, pg 23.

36- Ibid

37- Ibid., pg 23

38-Ibid., pg 31

39-Ibid., pg 32

40-Barbara Beatty, From Laws of Learning to a Science of Values: Efficiency and Morality in Thorndike’s Educational Psychology, American Psychologist, October 1998:1145

41-Ibid

42- Ibid, The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 34.

43-Ibid

44- Ibid., pg 38-39

45- Ibid., pg 41

46-Lawrence A. Cremin, The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Men, The Republic and the School, pg 6, Teachers College Press, 1957

47-Ibid

48-Ibid., pgs 6-7

49-Ibid., pg 8

50-Ibid., pg 12

51-Ibid., pg 20

52-Ibid

53-Ibid

54-Ibid., pg 55

55-Arthur E. Morgan, Horace Mann and the American Ideal of Education, National Education Association Convention, Vital Speeches of the Day, June 28, 1937

56- Peter Collier and David Horowitz, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, New York: New American Library, 1976, 59.

57- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 53.

58-Ibid

59-General Education Board, The General Education Board: An Account of Its Activities, 1902-1914, pg 3-4. 62- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pgs 58-59.

60- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pgs 64-65.

61-Ibid

62-Ibid

63-John Dewey, The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899-1924 Volume 1: Journal Articles, Book Reviews, and Miscellany published in the 1899-1901 Period, and The School and Society and The Educational Situation, Edited by Jo Ann Boydston, with an Introduction by Joe R. Burnett, Southern Illinois University Press 1976, pg10

64-Ibid

65-Ibid., pg 12

66- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 72.

67-John Dewey, How We Think: A Restatement of the relation of Reflective Thinking To The Education Process, Lexington, MA, D.C. Heath and Company 1910, pg 55.

68-Ibid., pgs 55-56

69- The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899-1924 Volume 1: Journal Articles, Book Reviews, and Miscellany published in the 1899-1901 Period, and The School and Society and The Educational Situation, pgs 19-20

70- The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education: 1, pg 98.

All images in this article are from the author

As of August 18th, when the United States test-fired a cruise-missile from San Nicolas Island, California, it would not be an exaggeration to say that we have entered an exceptionally dangerous phase in Russia-US relations, perhaps more so than at any point in the past 5 years. Furthermore, the US Department of Defense has announced plans to test a land-based intermediate-range ballistic missile in November. According to the Pentagon statement, a completely new missile similar to the Pershing II will be tested. Pershing II was prohibited under the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear forces) Treaty, which was terminated on the initiative of the United States on August 2nd.

Many readers will already be aware that the reason which US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave in October last year for the United States’ intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty was an alleged Russian treaty-violation, namely, the test-firing of the 9M729 cruise-missile from the Kapustin Yar launch-site in Astrakhan. Washington alleged that this missile-test exceeded the 500-kilometre range allowed under the terms of the treaty, an allegation which Moscow has consistently denied.

However, even if neutral observers have to be agnostic concerning the respective claims made by the US and Russian governments on this question, as there is no way to corroborate either government’s claims unless you happen to work at a high level in the military sector, the point remains that this alleged violation of the INF Treaty by Russia, even if it had in fact occurred, would have been quite a marginal violation. The United States itself had already quite flagrantly violated the INF Treaty through the deployment of the Aegis Ashore missile defence system in Romania. The US also plans to deploy Aegis Ashore in Poland. For years, the Russian government’s position had been to avoid raising concerns about the United States’ compliance with the terms of the treaty, as it saw INF as a vital component in the architecture of the international security system.

Then last year, the US starts accusing Russia of treaty-violations.

Projection is the oldest game in town.

On February 1st, the United States formally announces the suspension of its obligations under the INF Treaty.

One day later, the State Department announces a $2.15 billion sale of the Aegis Ashore system to Japan.

On August 2nd, the INF Treaty is officially terminated on the initiative of the United States.

Only 16 days later, the US conducts the cruise-missile test from San Nicolas Island.

Now, we have to make a distinction between declarations in principle and downright convenient timing. If you tell your girlfriend explicitly that, henceforth, you’d like to reserve the right to sleep with other women, then you’re not “cheating” as such. You’re explicitly withdrawing from the monogamy-agreement which you previously had with her. However, if you tell her that in future you reserve the right to sleep with other women, and then you actually do it only 24 hours later, then most people would regard that as downright shabby behaviour. No class.

In his statement to the Security Council of Russia on August 23rd, President Putin said:

“It is noteworthy that the tests of a missile with characteristics prohibited under the treaty were conducted just 16 days after the completion of the procedure of denouncing that treaty initiated by Washington,” he said. “Apparently, that was not an improvisation but another link in a chain of pre-planned actions….It is now obvious to everyone that the main aim of this campaign was to cover up Washington’s work, which was in violation of the Treaty and initially envisaged the withdrawal from this agreement.”

He instructed the Security Council to prepare what he called “a symmetric response.” This phrase turned out to underline his mastery of the art of understatement.

Starting on August 26th, drills involving 8,200 Russian personnel from the air force, army and Black Sea and Caspian Naval Fleets began throughout Russia’s Southern Military District. These exercises included fighter-jets based in Crimea firing air-to-air missiles, the drilling of Iskander missile-squads, exercises in counter-guerilla tactics and in traversing contaminated terrain for ground-forces, etc. Elsewhere, there were anti-ballistic missile exercises in Russia’s Far East, and nuclear submarines in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean test-fired intercontinental ballistic missiles at targets in Kamchatka and Arkhangelsk. Exercises involving the nuclear-capable, intermediate-range Iskander missile system have also been conducted in Khaliningrad.

In his August 23rd statement, President Putin also stated that

“We will not be drawn into a costly arms race that would be disastrous for our economy.”

The question does arise – is the US strategy attempting to repeat the scenario of the late 1980’s by combining economic pressure (in this case, sanctions) with an escalated and wildly costly arms-race so as to force the economic implosion of its geo-strategic adversary?

Strange contradictions have arisen in the American version of this story. Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Carver, a Pentagon spokesman, claimed that the Aegis Ashore system deployed in Romania is not capable of firing offensive weapons of any type, but can only fire the SM-3 interceptor. But this claim is straightforwardly, demonstrably false – we know that MK-41 launch-pads are deployed as components of the Aegis Ashore configuration in Romania, just as they will be in Poland and Japan, and the MK-41 can fire a wide range of missiles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles.

In any case, this is not a particularly crucial point, as even missile-defence systems in themselves, when deployed so close to Russia’s borders, play a tactically aggressive role. Given Russia’s geography and demographics, for the potency of Russia’s nuclear deterrent to be compromised would automatically imply a long-term threat to Russia’s territorial integrity. Sometimes advocates of the Russian position, including even President Putin himself, are too reticent to argue this point, probably out of concerns that the argument will be deliberately misrepresented or misconstrued in western media.

*

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.

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

In spite of online censorship efforts directed against the independent media, we are happy to say that readership on globalresearch.ca has recently increased. We wish to thank all of you who share our articles far and wide.

We cover a diversity of key issues you would be hard pressed to find on any other single online news source. This is truly independent news and analysis, a dying breed.

Our costs have increased and our revenue has gone down over the past year. We are running a monthly deficit. Help us keep the independent voice alive by becoming a member or making a donation today!

*     *     *

The EU and NATO Remain Closely Linked on the Most Important Issues. Nuclear Weapons “Sharing Policy” directed against Russia

By Shane Quinn, August 28, 2019

The Kremlin is a significant trading partner of the EU, but commerce between Brussels and Moscow has declined continuously since 2012; largely because of European actions such as supporting the overthrow of a government in the Ukraine, bordering Russia, and instituting a Western-backed leader (Petro Poroshenko).

Hollywood Reboots Russophobia for the New Cold War

By Max Parry, August 28, 2019

The Marxist German playwright devised theatrical methods designed to distance the audience from the staged drama while drawing self-reflexive attention to the contrived nature of the spectacle itself.

“Shadow Statistics”: US Government’s Fudging the Numbers on Unemployment, GDP and Inflation

By Bryant Brown, August 28, 2019

You may ask why the government would fudge the numbers. Williams found that between 1997 and 1999 the government understated inflation and as a result inflation indexed payments for social security didn’t escalate as they should have and the government saved millions.

U.S. Africa Command Marks a Controversial Return to Libya

By Alaeddin Saleh, August 28, 2019

The spokesman of Al-Bunyan Al-Marsous coalition Mohammed Al-Ghasri confirmed in an interview to a Libyan media outlet “Ain Libiya” that U.S. African Command team arrived at Air Defense College airbase located in Libyan port city of Misurata on July 22.

India’s Shadow Banking Crisis Is Intensifying

By Kavaljit Singh, August 28, 2019

The ongoing liquidity crisis in India’s shadow banking sector is intensifying. The troubles that started with defaults by Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (IL&FS) last year are far from over as the sector continues to face a severe liquidity crisis. If tight liquidity conditions persist over the next three quarters, it may turn into a solvency issue for several shadow banks.

Revival of Shintoism in Abe’s Japan: Why? Another Holy War?

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, August 27, 2019

It is possible that Abe’s Korea bashing is a part of his ambition of restoring the pre-1945 Japan where Shintoism ruled the body and the mind of the Japanese people.

Lula Tells the World He’s “Back in the Game” from Jail. “Lula is Brazil’s only Possible Factor of Stability”

By Pepe Escobar, August 28, 2019

In a wide-ranging, two-hour, world exclusive interview out of a prison room at the Federal Police building in Curitiba, southern Brazil, former president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva not only made the case to global public opinion for his innocence in the whole Car Wash corruption saga, confirmed by the bombshell leaks revealed by The Intercept, but also repositioned himself to resume his status as a global leader.

*

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.

Recentemente, o discurso de que haveria um “marxismo cultural” dominando o Brasil, embora esvaziado de qualquer constatação real ou racionalidade, tomou de braços a grande parcela reacionária que compõe as pouco cultivadas classes médias do país. 

O fenômeno é sintoma de nosso empobrecido cenário cultural: novamente (des)montado pelas elites antinacionais em conluio com generais e a mídia corporativa, como em 1964, por meio de um golpe (gestado desde o agravamento da crise da economia mundial que estoura em 2008). Um cenário em que as classes dominantes já não se envergonham de promover a exacerbação da violência estatal e da ignorância histórica, como forma de preservar da depressão econômica seus dividendos, às custas da miséria de dezenas de milhões de brasileiros.  

As ruas do centro de São Paulo intransitáveis – repletas de pedintes e crianças anoitecendo nas calçadas frias do inverno –, ou o metrô superpoliciado em que audaciosos ambulantes tentam sobreviver sob a pilhagem regular praticada por agentes tucanos, são um retrato da crise social reinventada por nossas classes privilegiadas, como não se via há mais de década. 

Moro, criminoso internacional (dadas as provas evidentes da Vaza Jato), segue solto e no poder; o reformista Lula, a que o ex-juiz bolsonarista encarcerou (sem provas para além de sua própria “convicção” de líder de quadrilha), segue preso. E o Brasil segue, em seu eterno retorno ao subdesenvolvimento, modernamente vira-lata.  

Assim, perigosas noções irracionalistas, como a de “pós-verdade” (cuja tolice de “marxismo cultural” é apenas um dos sintomas), ganharam o espaço grã-midiático, infectando rapidamente o senso comum. Com sua abilolada recusa de qualquer valor de “verdade” ao conhecimento científico ou filosófico, os defensores dessa doutrina idiotizante desprezam os saberes e valores humanos construídos ao longo de milênios por diversas civilizações do planeta em perene intercâmbio. 

Tal espécie de “vale-tudo discursivo” serve como desculpa para uma rejuvenescida ideologia do mais forte: a versão neoliberal da conhecida “lei do cão”, desprovida de humanismo, de ética e mesmo de uma mínima lógica (seja econômica, social ou ambiental). 

Sensacionalismo e ódio ao Outro

Forjado de modo sensacionalista e promotor do ódio ao Outro (a população pobre, o sem-terra, o índio, o negro, o transexual, o imigrante…), esse discurso reacionário tem por objetivo apavorar (e logo, armar) os estratos médios conservadores da sociedade – essas crianças grandes que em sua equilibrada mescla de ingenuidade e perversidade são dos seres mais desligados do real, e dos mais “ligados” no esquema da grande mídia (Veja, Globo, Estadão, El País) de informação rasa. 

No nosso minúsculo brasil bolsonaro, a extrema-direita apadrinhada por neoliberais (das contra-reformas Trabalhista e Previdenciária) vem se usando desse artifício argumentativo disparado intensamente pelas redes sociais para vender o blefe de que estamos sob um amplo e generalizado estado de “conscientização marxista” (ou algo assim); o que, aliás, seria formidável para uma evolução humana da espécie, não fora um disparate, um absurdo sem nenhum embasamento na realidade histórica. 

Para comprovar essa farsa, basta ver a enorme proporção de professores universitários reacionários nos maiores dos “redutos marxistas”, tal como o são efetivamente (embora em minoria) as grandes universidades públicas (USP, Unifesp, UFRJ, UFBA, etc). Ou observar o baixo nível de boa parte dos dirigentes dos grandes espaços públicos de arte e cultura (teatros, museus, centros culturais), tradicionais locais de contestação, mas contraditoriamente dominados por “artistas” (ou antes “profissionais das artes”) conservadores, alçados a cargos diretivos por suas “obras” submissas, enlatadas no padrão de consumo de maior liquidez: o modelo comercial hollywoodiano. 

***

A desonestidade de informação contida na ideia de “marxismo cultural” pode ser comparada àquela usada por militares entreguistas e empresários, em 1964, para instaurar seu regime de terror. 

À época deste anterior golpe das classes dominantes unidas, a lenda dizia que os brasileiros estávamos à beira da “revolução comunista dos comedores de criancinhas”. 

Um discurso construído por militares vendilhões (submissos, como documentado, às ordens estadunidenses), em aliança com a elite interna brasileira (a sócia menor do “centro” capitalista – EUA e UE).

As duas principais correntes de pensamento reacionário no século XXI

Para se elucidar alguns enganos presentes nesse debate, que afeta diversos estratos do ideário raso de espírito, é preciso antes entender um pouco acerca do pensamento marxista. E ainda, entender algo sobre as duas principais correntes de pensamento reacionário – cientificismo moderno e relativismo pós-moderno – que, aliadas, são patrocinadas pelas elites sempre controladoras dos três poderes, opondo-se “culturalmente” ao desenvolvimento das melhorias sociais e direitos humanos propostos pela “cultura marxista”, ou mais precisamente, pela “cultura socialista” de maneira geral (visto que nem toda a esquerda é marxista). 

Comecemos por alguns traços dessas duas correntes anti-socialistas, atualmente submetidas como um todo ao imperialismo. 

Nascidas do esforço da intelectualidade burguesa, no processo de consolidação da modernidade capitalista, inicialmente tiveram (algumas) intenções subversivas e aspectos sociodesenvolvimentistas (de viés anti-aristocrático). 

Hoje, contudo, são nitidamente dirigidas e bancadas pelo sistema (de modo a “conservar” os privilégios do jeito que estão). O “cientificismo moderno” e o “relativismo pós-moderno” são correntes ideológicas aliadas entre si – e alinhadas ao projeto de poder do capital. 

Apesar da retórica do “crescente poder marxista” (o que é uma paulatina verdade, mas que se dá de forma bem mais lenta de que a propagada), essas duas correntes conservadoras são as que de fato se mantêm ainda hegemônicas no poder global (militar, econômico, político). Suas pesquisas acadêmico-culturais são patrocinadas por megacorporações, segundo interesses, não pautados pela necessidade humana, mas por vantagens mercadológicas ou de dominação “cultural” de mentes incautas.

Tratam-se de duas linhas extremistas: uma de ilusão perfeccionista e temas restritos (técnicos, matemáticos, mecânicos), que desprezam questões propriamente humanas; outra descompromissada, cômoda, sem temas certos, voltada ao diversionismo… ou não. 

Em seu tempo, e em certa medida, ambas trouxeram contribuições ao pensamento humano e ao próprio marxismo. Mas hoje não passam de “âncoras culturais” do capital; instrumentos que atrasam o desenvolvimento das ciências e filosofia, com vistas à manutenção do poder geopolítico nas mãos dos atuais 0,00001% de megamafiosos: algumas centenas de famílias depredadoras (dentre bilhões de homens e mulheres) que se apressam em fazer “consumir” gente e natureza, num vicioso ciclo autodestrutivo. 

Decadência da modernidade: progresso técnico não leva ao progresso humano

Ao final do século XIX, alguns grandes pensadores como Nietzsche, Freud e sobretudo Marx (os “mestres da suspeita”, segundo Paul Ricoeur), com seu implacável poder de questionamento das ilusões da consciência, negaram ao homem moderno o estatuto de “centro do mundo” e “senhor da razão”. Apontaram as falhas e as imperfeições humanas, a animalidade e covardia que se oculta em tantos de seus atos. 

Suas críticas são uma recusa do “cientificismo moderno”, pensamento técnico-progressista que se consolida e desenvolve na modernidade capitalista, como oposição ao misticismo e fanatismo religioso que sustentava o poder da aristocracia europeia. 

No caso de Karl Marx, que de longe é quem mais aprofunda essa crítica à modernidade, ele denuncia a iniquidade social, alienação e violência implícitas nas formas de produção moderna, em que poucos privilegiados exploram o trabalho da imensa maioria de seres humanos. Acusa a mesquinhez adornada de “progresso” com que se corrompia a então vitoriosa sociedade burguesa ocidental. 

Já no século XX, duas irracionais guerras capitalistas (ilógicas mesmo com relação aos lucros  então visados) levaram o Ocidente a um dos mais baixos escalões de humanidade experimentados na história, arrastando consigo grande parte do planeta (que era então subjugado ao militarismo, cultura e ideologia europeias). 

Tais fenômenos acabaram por expôr ao mundo – até mesmo aos liberais menos torpes – a insuficiência do cientificismo moderno, que acaba por entrar em descrédito. Provas da decadência deste pensamento burguês e de sua sociedade foram e são inúmeras: da carnificina da I Guerra e as atrocidades da II Guerra, aos regimes de apartheid (dos eurodescendentes sul-africanos ou dos judeus-brancos israelenses); ou ainda, para olharmos a catástrofe de hoje, a paradoxal crise de fome de 2007-2008, em que a sociedade administrada pelo capital atinge (segundo dados da FAO-ONU) o número trágico de “um bilhão de famintos” – possivelmente a maior das calamidades já registradas na história.

Uma outra face violenta da sociedade burguesa ocidental (que explicita seu declínio) é a crise econômica “estrutural” do capitalismo. Crise agravada a partir dos anos 1970, explode no centro do sistema (EUA) em 2008, e a partir daí infecta as economias e sociedades de todo o mundo. 

Vale frisar que esta crise é um problema das “estruturas”, das “regras” que regem o regime, ou seja, é uma crise da própria lógica irracional capitalista – e não um processo “cíclico” (ainda que haja, em paralelo a essa crise estrutural, também as crises cíclicas, que ora emergem, ora se apazíguam). 

Como exemplo de problemas “estruturais”, veja-se que, devido ao intenso progresso tecnológico, o emprego tende a escassear, piorando paulatinamente o já tenso desequilíbrio social (fenômeno que é incontornável dentro da lógica capitalista). Do mesmo modo, a competição liberal leva também a uma pilhagem cada vez maior dos recursos naturais (finitos!), o que tende a aumentar os conflitos sociais e a insalubridade.

Diante desse processo de crise, em que os caminhos da sociedade não acenam a nenhuma solução plausível, os donos do mundo, antes “cientificistas”, passam também a flertar com a relativização da verdade (pós-verdade) – como forma de desviar a atenção do povo quanto à realidade, aos reais motivos da agonia social que o aflige. 

Do outro lado do fronte social, o marxismo (socialismo contemporâneo) – resiste e se movimenta em seu projeto de conscientização (desalienação mental) e de superação do modelo abjeto de sociedade que é o capitalismo, especialmente em sua versão “neoliberal”. 

***

Vejamos então, brevemente, as linhas gerais que caracterizam estas três grandes correntes do pensamento atual: o cientificismo moderno, o marxismo e o relativismo pós-moderno.

Cientificismo: o progresso técnico acima do ser humano

A título de ilustração, pode-se entender o cientificismo moderno como aquela doutrina típica de cientistas, engenheiros ou intelectuais “puros” (os tais “bons naquilo que fazem”), sejam eles alienados ou mercenários. São intelectos alheios à sociedade em que habitam, enclausurados em frios laboratórios (tantas vezes pertencentes ou patrocinados por grandes corporações), com seus moderníssimos aparatos de medição experimental; os experts, profissionais especializados que visam, mediante suas pesquisas pragmáticas (no sentido monetário), quase sempre resultados imediatos, ou seja: “produtos” que gerem, não desenvolvimento humano, mas lucro rápido. São também classificados como “positivistas” (no sentido amplo do termo), dada sua pretensão de obter supostas “certezas infalíveis” (ou “verdades positivas”). 

Trata-se uma espécie de crentes no deus-metal, no deus-fama; embora os mais tolos ou filantropos sejam ainda devotos da ilusão iluminista de que a crescente “exatidão” das ciências deverá “um dia” ser traduzida em melhorias para a humanidade. 

Ignoram porém a realidade histórica, ou dela desviam seu olhar. Desprezam evidências que mostram que essa “evolução científica”, não domada nem planejada segundo propósitos realmente “humanos” (mas sim gananciosa por lucro e poder), nos está conduzindo a uma catástrofe: ao desemprego crônico (profissões que desaparecem, terras que se tornam latifúndios ou áreas de mineradoras); e à destruição do meio ambiente (pois a natureza é vista, não como espaço que proporciona a vida, mas como mero recurso material a ser extraído). 

Um modelo de “progresso” meramente “técnico”, mas alheio ao efetivo desenvolvimento do ser humano (que deveria ser o foco de todo progresso). 

Assim, o desenvolvimento do modelo capitalista de produção nos conduz velozmente a um maior subdesenvolvimento: a guerras e miséria em abundância. 

Como oposição a esse estreito pensamento cientificista, que sustenta tal forma de (des)organização social, no fim do século XIX surgem duas correntes de pensamento que contestam o discurso burguês moderno e seu “perfeccionismo” (tão perverso quanto ingênuo).

Marxismo: a concepção dialética da história

A primeira e mais forte destas correntes nascentes é a concepção dialética da história, também dita materialismo histórico ou marxismo, dentre outras denominações como comunismo internacionalista, ou socialismo “científico” (no sentido de ser uma filosofia não abstrata, que não flutua etérea acima dos conhecimentos empíricos, mas que é pautada pelas ciências, ancorada na história). 

Com seu olhar sempre posto na história, o socialismo marxista supera o anterior socialismo “utópico-idealista” (Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, etc). Refuta as abstrações idealistas e politicamente passivas destes socialismos anteriores, que apenas idealizavam uma sociedade com igualdade de direitos, sem nada de prático proporem para sua efetivação real.

Já o marxismo, sendo uma filosofia da práxis (pensamento combativo que visa transformar coletivamente a sociedade), parte da crítica da realidade histórica “concreta”: analisa as contradições, conflitos, injustiças, desigualdade e a consequente miséria humana causada pelo modelo burguês de sociedade moderna. 

Sua perspectiva de compreensão do mundo (da realidade que deve compreender para poder transformar), é tanto “materialista” como “histórica”, pois que recusa explicações a partir de superstições, de supostas soluções perfeitas, ou de providências divinas, centrando-se na interpretação dos fenômenos da história. 

Trata-se de uma forma de conhecimento vinculado à ação social coletiva: um pensamento de “práxis”. Seu objetivo é investigar a realidade histórica como um todo, a partir do estudo das relações entre cada uma de suas partes, e em suas variadas faces (social, econômica, cultural, política), dando especial atenção aos conflitos e oposições de interesses, às relações “dialéticas” que existem entre as classes sociais: os patrões-proprietários, os empregados altos, os médios, e os trabalhadores – frações da sociedade capitalista em perene e desigual combate, nessa guerra suja que se usa ora de armas, ora de meios coercitivos não diretamente armados (grande mídia, leis). 

Em suma, o intuito fundamental dos marxistas – em sua grande variação de matizes – é a superação da atual “sociedade de escassez na abundância”, rumo a uma sociedade em que os homens possam desenvolver sua plenitude de potenciais, realizando-se enquanto seres de fato “humanos”.

Relativismo: a origem do irracionalismo pós-moderno 

Outra corrente que contesta, ainda que parcialmente, o cientificismo moderno em decadência, é a concepção relativista, linha de pensamento que depois seria abduzida pelo sistema, e de cujas entranhas se gera o atual “pós-modernismo” – com suas vertentes mais estúpidas que relativizam qualquer possibilidade de efetivo conhecimento (caso do irracionalismo reacionário defensor da pós-verdade). 

Promovida por parcela intelectual da própria burguesia, essa doutrina surge como antídoto filosófico contra as falhas do pensamento burguês anterior (o cientificismo, alicerce da evolução capitalista). Mas não tardaria em mostrar sua maior “utilidade” às classes dominantes, passando a ser impulsionada artificialmente contra a “perigosa” ascensão do marxismo. 

Começa a angariar forças no instante em que o comando do capital percebe a decadência do seu modelo cientificista ingênuo, ou seja, quando constata o declínio do ideal moderno de “progresso técnico” que por séculos sustentou a ideologia burguesa: com sua falaciosa ideia de um “desenvolvimento” restrito somente à produção material, mas que jamais se cumpriu, sequer minimamente, enquanto efetivo “progresso social”.

Em seu processo de “relativização” da perspectiva cientificista estreita (com suas respostas rígidas, imóveis), o relativismo traz certa riqueza ao pensamento humano, e inclusive ao marxismo – caso da contribuição dos “pós-estruturalistas”, que leva o conhecimento contemporâneo a ter uma maior atenção às demandas das minorias sociais (movimentos negro, indígena, feminista, homossexual, de imigrantes, etc). 

Contudo, sendo levado ao extremismo da estupidez, a partir da segunda metade do século passado, a visão relativista pós-moderna se reduz à tal pós-verdade: a recusa mística (e interesseira) de qualquer conhecimento concreto, histórico ou mesmo natural (ideia propagada especialmente em tempos de crise – vide Trump e Bolsonaro).

As três grandes correntes do conhecimento na atualidade

Em síntese, são estas as três principais linhagens cognitivas que guiam a filosofia e a ciência praticadas no século XX e XXI: 

– o cientificismo (renovado no início do século XX como “neopositivismo” ou “filosofia analítica”, projeto que reduz interessadamente o espectro do conhecimento possível);

– o relativismo (especialmente na sua facção “pós-moderna”, de meados do século XX);

– o comunismo marxista (pensamento alicerçado nos princípios da “dialética” e da “práxis”, e voltado à utopia real da liberdade e plenitude humana).

***

Estas três concepções de mundo são as que vigoram e detêm hoje as mais amplas parcelas do poder discursivo nos locais “produtores do saber”: universidades, centros de pesquisa, laboratórios, etc – lugares que atestam, recusam e, sobretudo, que convencem a opinião pública sobre a suposta validade das teorias a serem tornadas “práticas” pelos poderes vigentes.

Marxismo: o efetivo pensamento contemporâneo

Contudo, há que se destacar que, dentre essas três correntes de pensamento, o marxismo é a única que pode ser considerada efetivamente “contemporânea”, já que somente ela propõe sentidos, soluções para a superação desse modelo fracassado de modernidade. 

Primeiramente, porque supera as deficiências do cientificismo moderno, a saber: o raso progressismo burguês que tem por pretensão divinizar o conhecimento “mensurável”, “calculável”, recusando qualquer estatuto de “saber” ao conhecimento humano (social, econômico-político, histórico) e filosófico-ético, cujo valor não se mede com aparatos mecânicos, mas só se comprova na complexidade da história vivida e comparada. 

E por outro lado, porque o marxismo não se abstém de propor saídas palpáveis para a crise, para a construção da nova civilização, para o novo homem – sugerindo ferramentas bastante concretas para que obtenhamos tal utopia concreta – ao contrário do niilismo pós-moderno que, com sua inação, com sua descrença na razão e seu desprezo pelas estruturas que comandam nossas vidas, acaba por apoiar a manutenção das injustiças e privilégios. 

Tática dos donos do poder: cientificismo nas armas e pós-modernismo na cultura

Apesar disto, na atualidade o marxismo está ainda longe de se alçar como “a mais forte corrente cultural” (como falsamente propagado pela atual aliança neoliberal-fascista), pois as instâncias de planejamento econômico, produtivo e militar são meios ainda controlados pelo cientificismo conservador das grandes corporações e Estados imperiais, enquanto o âmbito da cultura vem sendo lançado há décadas no poço sem fundo do nonsense pós-moderno (como se vê em grande parcela da produção das artes e mesmo da academia). 

Em suma, tanto o cientificismo (com sua estreita visão de mundo), como seu falso antípoda, o pós-modernismo (seita irracional desprovida de deuses e moral), não passam hoje de pensamentos superados nos meios do saber que respeitam a vida e levam o conhecimento humano a sério. E se estas doutrinas detêm ainda tanto poder, isto se dá artificialmente, motivado por interesses de uma minúscula fração de privilegiados que investem fortunas para que tais teorias arcaicas permaneçam em posição de absoluta hegemonia cultural. 

Este é o lugar confortável que os donos do mundo reservam aos intelectuais e artistas submissos, ajoelhados ao sistema, cujas pesquisas e (especialmente) as “soluções” interessam aos sócios do imperialismo.

Yuri Martins Fontes

Fuente de la imagen : http://www.anticapitalistes.net/spip.php?article6630

Yuri Martins Fontes : Doutor em História Econômica, com formação em Filosofia e Engenharia (Universidade de São Paulo) e pós-doutorados em História do Trabalho e Ética Marxista. Exerce atividades como pesquisador, professor, escritor, jornalista. Coordena o Núcleo Práxis da USP (formação política e educação popular). É autor de Marx na América: a práxis de Caio Prado e Mariátegui, dentre outros livros. Trabalhou nas revistas Retrato do Brasil, Caros Amigos, e na editora Boitempo. Colabora com meios independentes: Resumen Latinoamericano, Brasil de Fato, Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Revista Fórum, Mondialisation. 

Over the past few months, both mainstream and alternative news outlets have been covering massive protests in Hong Kong where tens of thousands of people have taken part in demonstrations that have since devolved into violence both with police, counter-protesters, and others. These protests have seen injuries on both sides and have now caught the eye of the world.

But the question is more nuanced than simply whether or not one supports the protests. After all, we have seen plenty of protests in the past that, at first glance, seemed legitimate, but unfortunately turned out to be merely tools of Western governments. So the first question is “Are the protests legitimate or are they a color revolution?” In 2019, it is no longer safe to assume that protesters are organic. However, it is also not safe to assume that every action of civil unrest is because the United States has organized a coup.

The Back Story

Before we look into whether or not the protests are legitimate, it is important to understand the trigger for the demonstrations that are currently taking place. The first protests in Hong Kong began in response to a proposed extradition bill that would have seen individuals who are wanted in territories with which Hong Kong does not have an extradition agreement to be detained. Many of the opponents of the bill felt that it would have placed both Hong Kongers and visitors to the territory essentially under the jurisdiction of mainland China, thus making the “one country, two systems” setup obsolete. Others, however, argued that the extradition bill made sense. After all, since it would be difficult to negotiate an extradition agreement with Taiwan or China, it would be useful to at least provide some sort of avenue for justice for individuals who committed crimes and subsequently crossed the border to evade jail time or other punishment.

It is worth noting that the bill was submitted by the Hong Kong government. It is also worth pointing out the complexities of the “One country, two systems” agreement whereby the British, after decades of imperialist rule over Hong Kong, ceded it back to China in 1997. The British forced Beijing to accept a number of conditions such as the agreement that Hong Kong would draft a mini-Constitution and retain its capitalist system, own currency, legal and legislative system as well as individual rights and freedoms. However, this agreement was only to last for fifty years, when the agreement is set to expire and Hong Kong is to be fully returned to China in 2047.

The first protests began in late March and early April and gradually increased in June when hundreds of thousands of protesters entered the streets. June 12 saw an increase of violence with clashes between protesters and police, who brought out the tear gas and rubber bullets. An even larger march began on June 16. On July 1, hundreds of thousands of people turned out for the annual July marches and a number of these protesters split away from the main demonstration to break into the Legislative Council Complex where they vandalized a number of government symbols and briefly occupied the building.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam suspended the bill on June 15, declaring it “dead” on July 9 though she did not clearly state that the bill would be withdrawn or not revisited. Executive Council members Regina Ip and Bernard Charnwut Chan then stated publicly that the government would be making no more concessions. 

Protests have continued throughout the summer and have resulted in increasingly violent confrontations between police and activists. In addition, pro-China “triad” members (organized crime) clashed with the protesters. A portion of the local residents also began to counter-protest the original protesters and clashes then broke out between the two.

For instance, on July 21, a mob of men dressed in white shirts attacked protesters, travelers, and journalists at a Hong Kong train station, injuring 45 people and leaving the train station floor stained with blood.

Demands being made by the protesters have gradually increased in number. They have called for the following:

• An independent inquiry on police brutality
• Release of arrested protesters
• Retraction of the official characterization of the protests as “riots”
• Direct elections for the positions of Legislative Council members and the Chief Executive
• Complete withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process
• Resignation of Carrie Lam

The following is appointed prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram‘s opening statement at Najib’s 1MDB trial, reproduced in full.

1. This case concerns the monies of a company called 1Malaysia Development Berhad, widely known as 1MDB. It was originally called Terengganu Investment Authority or TIA. The accused was instrumental in changing its name to 1MDB. He also caused amendments to be made to the articles of the company to place himself in sole control of important matters concerning the business and affairs of the company. In short, he was its plenipotentiary. Additionally, he was the chairman of the company’s board of advisers. He used that position and that of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to do certain acts and to exert influence over the board of 1MDB to carry out certain abnormal transactions with undue haste. The ultimate aim of the accused was to obtain gratification for himself. He succeeded in achieving that aim.

2. An elaborate charade was employed. It was acted out in four phases in which several characters played a part. But it was the accused who played the pivotal role. His objective was to enrich himself.

3. Although this case concerns four phases, the events in respect of them are to be considered as part of a consecutive story because of the pre-arranged plan by the accused to enrich himself.

4. An important character in the charade is a man called Low Taek Jho or Jho Low. He is a fugitive from justice. He was involved in TIA and later in 1MDB. The prosecution will prove that the accused by his words and conduct made it clear to 1MDB’s officers, its board and others that Jho Low was his alter ego. In truth, Jho Low was the accused’s mirror image. The prosecution will establish facts which will give rise to an irresistible inference that Jho Low and the accused acted as one at all material times.

5. The four charges under section 23 of the MACC Act are in respect of each of the four phases. In respect of these charges the prosecution will prove, through direct and circumstantial evidence that the accused, first in his capacity as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and later as Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Finance took several steps that led to part of 1MDB’s funds being channelled into his account through a circuitous route to prevent detection of its source. The accused thereby used his position for gratification. In each of the phases the accused acted as one with Jho Low.

6. The first phase concerns the scenario of a so-called joint venture created by the accused (acting through Jho Low and one Tarik Obaid, a close associate of Jho Low). It was a false scenario of a joint venture between 1MDB and a company called PetroSaudi International Ltd or PSI. It was called Project Aria. In the first phase the scheme worked in the following way.

7. 1MDB borrowed USD1 billion purportedly to invest in a joint venture company called 1MDB Petro Saudi Ltd. The money was to be paid into the account of the joint venture company. Petro Saudi International was to take up 60 percent of the shares in the alleged joint venture by injecting certain assets of dubious value. The USD1 billion was to represent 1MDB’s contribution for its 40 percent shareholding. But the so-called Joint Venture Agreement was entered into not with PSI but with a company called Petro Saudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd. And it was Tarik Obaid who executed the agreement on behalf of PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd. Evidence will be led to show the abnormality of the so-called joint venture which close scrutiny will reveal to be a mere device to siphon 1MDB’s money for the accused’s benefit.

8. The prosecution will, through oral and documentary evidence, prove that USD700 million of the USD1 billion, instead of being paid into the joint venture company’s account was diverted into the account of a company called Good Star Ltd which in truth had nothing whatsoever to do with the joint venture. It was incorporated in the Seychelles on 18 May 2009 that is to say 5 months before the joint venture agreement was entered into. It was a company owned and controlled by Jho Low.

9. The payment to Good Star was made in great haste and without approval from 1MDB’s board of directors and in defiance of its directions. Good Star was falsely described as the wholly owned subsidiary of PSI. The payment to Good Star, was vouched for by the accused through Jho Low as monies owed by the joint venture to PetroSaudi International (PSI). The joint venture agreement referred to a loan payable by the joint venture company to PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman). The prosecution will through documents show that the so-called loan was a sham employed to justify the payment to Good Star.

10. In March 2010, 1MDB entered into a so-called Murabaha financing agreement under the terms of which alleged USD 1 billion equity in the joint venture company was converted into useless Murabaha notes and 1MDB was required to make available to the joint venture company a sum of USD1.5 billion. In September 2010, a sum of USD500 million was sent to the joint venture company. This money has gone missing. Then in May 2011, a further sum of USD 330 million which was supposed to be the second tranche of the investment into the Murabaha financing, was diverted to Good Star. The accused took positive steps to put through this transaction.

11. From the original sum of USD700 million sums of money were disbursed by Good Star to several persons including one Prince Faisal, a close associate of the accused, Jho Low and one Prince Turki. Prince Turki, the accused and Jho Low were so close that they holidayed together on a yacht in the south of France. Prince Faisal received USD12,500,000 from Good Star on 18 February 2011. He received a further sum of USD 12 million from Good Star on 10 June 2011 which came from the Murabaha scam. From these sums he transmitted USD20 million to the accused’s personal account in two tranches of USD10 million each. The first tranche was received by the accused on 24 February 2011, that is to say, six days after Faisal received the money. The accused received the second tranche on 14 June 2011, that is to say, four days after Faisal received the money. The USD 20 million amounts to an equivalent of RM60,629,839.43. This forms the subject matter of the first charge.

12. The first phase came to an end in 2012 with 1MDB holding worthless pieces of paper. The scam having been achieved, Good Star was wound up on 2 May 2014 and PetroSaudi International was wound up on 8 April 2015.

13. The second phase concerns the acquisition of assets of dubious value by 1MDB. The accused using his position and acting through his mirror image, Jho Low took positive steps and caused 1MDB to enter into two transactions as a result of which the accused obtained a sum of RM90,899,927.28 as gratification. This forms the subject matter of the second charge.

14. These two transactions concerned the acquisition of two independent power producers namely, Tanjong Energy Holdings Sdn Bhd and Mastika Lagenda Sdn Bhd. Mastika owned 75% shares in Genting Sanyen Sdn Bhd. To make the purchase, 1MDB acted through its subsidiaries 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd, 1MDB Energy Ltd and 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd (all Labuan companies) as well as through Malaysian registered companies, namely, 1MDB Energy Sdn Bhd and 1MDB Energy (Langat). These companies were used to raise finance for both acquisitions.

15. I now take each acquisition separately. A local bridging loan of RM 6.17 billion was raised for the acquisition of Tanjong Energy. An additional sum of USD1.75 billion was raised through the issue of 10 year structured loan notes. Goldman Sachs were appointed as lead arranger for the issuance of these Notes.

16. Of the USD 1.75 billion, USD 786 million went to Tanjong Energy. Of the balance, a sum of USD907 million was paid into the account of 1MDB Energy Ltd with Falcon Bank in Hong Kong. Of this sum approximately USD 577 million in round figures went to Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI). This payment was purportedly as a security deposit for Aabar’s holding company IPIC issuing a guarantee guaranteeing the Notes. In addition to the security deposit Aabar was also given an option to take up 49% shares owned by 1MDB Energy Ltd in 1MDB Energy Sdn Bhd. On 22 May 2012 USD 295 million was paid by Aabar to a company called Blackstone Asia. Blackstone is a company controlled by Jho Low through his associate Tan Kim Loong also known as Eric Tan. He is also a fugitive from justice. Additionally, on 25 July 2012 a further sum of USD 133 million was transferred by Aabar to Blackstone. These monies remained with Blackstone until October 2012. Goldman Sachs were paid USD 192.5 million as arranger’s fee for this bond issuance.

17. For the Mastika acquisition, the alleged purchase price was RM 2.75 billion. The money for this came from two sources. First, another 10 year structured loan Notes of USD1.75 billion. For this 1MDB paid Goldman Sachs USD 110 million as arrangers’ fee. So, 1MDB got a nett sum of USD 1.64 billion. This sum was paid into 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd’s account with Falcon Bank, Hong Kong. The second was a local loan of RM700 million. The total loan raised from these two sources was about RM 6.16 billion. There was therefore available an excess of RM3 billion. This excess was almost wiped out by a payment on 23 October 2012 to Aabar Investment PJS (BVI) of a sum of approximately USD 790 million in round figures as security deposit for Aabar’s holding company IPIC for allegedly guaranteeing the repayment of the notes. As additional security Aabar was given an option to take up 49% shares owned by 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd in 1MDB Energy (Langat) Sdn Bhd. For the Mastika acquisition, Genting Power was paid USD 710 million. The loan raised through the Notes for the Mastika purchase came into 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd’s account on 19 October 2012

18. On 23 October 2012, Aabar paid a sum of approximately USD 291 million in round figures to Cistenique Investment Fund or CIF. On the same day Aabar paid USD 76 million to Enterprise Emerging Markets Fund (EEMF). On 23 October 2012 Aabar paid USD 75 million to Blackstone. This was part of the USD 790 million paid to Aabar. Later, on 5 November 2012 Aabar paid a further sum of USD 96 million to EEMF. Soon after CIF and EEMF received the monies in question they paid it over to Blackstone. These monies were then channelled by Blackstone into the accused’s account as follows.

19. On 30 October 2012, a sum of USD 5 million was paid into the accused’s account at AmPrivate Bank. Then, on 19 November a sum of USD 25 million was paid into the accused’s account. The total sum received by the accused in the second phase is set out in the amended second charge. Evidence will be led to show how financial layering took place to provide a false justification for the movement of the monies. So much for the second phase.

20. The third phase concerns another purported joint venture between 1MDB and Aabar in equal shares. The joint venture company was called ADMIC. This forms the subject matter of the third charge. The purpose of this alleged joint venture was to develop TRX or the Tun Razak Exchange in Kuala Lumpur. IPIC was to guarantee Aabar’s investment. The Ministry of Finance of which the accused was Minister guaranteed 1MDB’s investment by way of a letter of support. A loan of USD 3 billion was raised for this alleged purpose.   Goldman Sachs acted as the arranger of the loan.

21. On 14 March 2013 the accused signed a letter of support to raise a loan through the issue of bonds by 1MDB from the Bank of New York Mellon Group in the sum of USD 3 billion. On 19 March 2013 a sum of USD 2.721 billion was disbursed into the account of 1MBD Global Investment Limited with BSI Bank at Lugano in Switzerland. The balance went to pay the fee of Goldman Sachs.

22. From the USD 2.721 billion, a sum of USD 1,060,606,065 was paid into account of two fiduciary funds, namely, Devonshire Funds Ltd and EEMF. Devonshire received USD 646,464,649 in five tranches over two days, that is to say, on 20 and 21 March 2013. EEMF received USD 414,141,416 in three tranches, also within two days, that is, on 20 and 21 March 2013.

23. On 21 March 2013, Devonshire transferred USD 430 million to Granton Property Holding Ltd which is a company controlled by Eric Tan, Jho Low’s shadow. On the same day Granton transferred the whole of that sum to Tanore Finance also a company controlled by Eric Tan. Also, on the same day, that is to say, 21 March 2013, Devonshire transferred a sum of USD 210 million to Tanore Finance Corporation. Then, between 22 March 2013 and 25 March 2013, EEMF transferred USD 250 million to Tanore which therefore by that date had USD 890 million in its hands.

24. Between 21 March 2013 and 10 April 2013 Tanore transferred USD 681 million to the accused’s account. In terms of our currency this amounted to RM2,081,476,926. This sum forms the subject matter of the amended third charge.

25. Based on the evidence that the prosecution will adduce, the so-called joint venture never took off. There was no investment and there was no true joint venture. It was all a sham. This concludes the third phase.

26. The fourth phase concerns the purchase of the Aabar options by 1MDB. These are the options that were given to Aabar in 2012 as alleged part consideration for IPIC’s guarantee for the notes that raised USD 3.5 billion forming part of the second phase.

27. In May and August 2014, 1MDB through its subsidiary 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd obtained two loans totalling USD 1.225 billion from Deutsche Bank Singapore. The accused approved this transaction. The loans were secured by guarantees provided by 1MDB Energy and 1MDB Langat. There was a bridging loan of USD 250 million and a facility loan of USD 975 million. The first loan of USD 250 million was made available on 26 May 2014. From this amount a sum of USD 239,939,970 was paid into 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd’s account with Falcon Bank Hong Kong on 28 May 2014. Of this sum, Energy Holdings paid Aabar Investments PJS Ltd BVI USD 175 million to its account in BSI Lugano, Switzerland allegedly to part redeem the option given as additional security that was mentioned earlier when dealing with the second phase.

28. From the sum of USD 175 million a sum of USD 19 million was paid by Aabar to the account of a company called Affinity Equity International Partners Ltd. The payment was made on 18 June 2014. The account was held at DBS Bank Ltd Singapore. Affinity Equity is controlled by Eric Tan. Of the USD 19 million, a sum of USD 1.89 million was transferred to a company called Blackrock Commodities (Global) Ltd at its account held in DBS. Blackrock is a company controlled by Eric Tan. On 23 June 2014, a sum of GBP 750,000 was transferred to the accused’s account. This works out to RM 4,093,500.

29. I now turn to the second loan of USD 975 million which was made available on 1 September 2014. Of this sum USD 250 million was utilised to discharge the bridging loan. That left USD 725 million. On 3 September a sum of USD 223,333,000 was transferred to Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (incorporated in Seychelles) at its account with UBS Singapore. Then, on 30 September 2014, USD 457,984,607 was paid to Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (incorporated in Seychelles) at its account with UBS Singapore. Between 16 October 2014 and 17 November 2014 Aabar transferred a sum of USD 226 million to Aabar International Investment PJS Ltd to its account in Barbados. Between 16 October 2014 and 17 November 2014, Aabar Barbados transferred USD 225,500,000 to Vista Equity International Partners Ltd (Barbados), a company owned and controlled by Eric Tan. Between 23 October 2014 and 19 December 2014 Vista Equity through five tranches in sterling currency transferred a sum equivalent to RM 45,837,485.70 to the accused’s account. This sum together with the RM 4,093,500 earlier mentioned forms the subject of the fourth charge. It follows that part of the sum alleged to be used to redeem the option ended up in the accused’s account. So much for the fourth phase.

30. I now turn to the twenty-one charges for money laundering offences. These are the AMLA charges. The first nine charges relate to receiving of the RM2,081,476,926 which forms the subject matter of the amended third charge. The monies fell into the accused’s account ending 9694 with AmIslamic Bank. Between 2 August 2013 and 23 August 2013, the accused transferred a sum of RM2,034,350,000 to Tanore Singapore. Simultaneously, the accused used the balance of RM22,649,000 to pay four entities and one individual. The prosecution’s case is that all these payments benefitted the accused.

31. After making these payments, the accused transferred the balance into a new account ending 1880 with AmBank through two transfers amounting RM162,436,711.87. He closed his account ending 9694.

32. The tenth charge and charges sixteen to nineteen relate to the transfers made by the accused to Tanore involving RM2,034,350,000.

33. Charges eleven to fifteen concern the use by the accused of the funds earlier referred to through payments to the four entities and one individual. All these payments were made by cheques signed by the accused.

34. Charges twenty and twenty-one concern the transfer of funds from the 9694 account to the 1880 account.

35. In this latter part of the case, the prosecution will establish the AMLA charges through direct and circumstantial evidence. It will be proved that in all the circumstances of the case, the accused committed the offence of money laundering contrary to Section 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (“AMLATFA”).

36. After the 1MDB scandal broke in early July 2015, the accused with his mirror image Jho Low took steps to cover his tracks. Sham documents were produced to pretend a donation from an Arab Prince. Among these were letters and four cheques each for a sum of USD 25 million purportedly written out by a person said to be the Arab donor. But these cheques were never meant to be encashed and were never encashed.

37. The prosecution will also produce evidence to show that the accused took active steps to evade justice. He interfered with the course of investigation of this case which has come to be known as the 1MDB Scandal. He took active steps to effect a cover up of his criminal acts. The prosecution will rely on all this evidence to show that the accused had the requisite mens rea when the offences with which he is charged were committed.

*

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.

August 2019 was marked by important changes on frontlines in northwestern Syria.

The month started with a declaration by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani that his group, the most powerful faction in Idlib and formerly the official branch of al-Qaeda in the country, rejects the Idlib demilitarization zone agreement and would not withdraw a single fighter or weapon from the area “upon the wishes of the enemies or the friends”. Al-Julani declared that it’s the duty of the terrorist group to defend what he called “liberated areas”.

The withdrawal of radical militants [terrorists] and heavy equipment from the 20km-deep demilitarized zone agreed to in the Astana talk’s framework was the key demand of the September 2018 agreement aimed at de-escalating the situation at the contact line between the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the so-called opposition in northwestern Syria. Nonetheless, this agreement has never been honored by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, other al-Qaeda-linked groups, or even Turkish-backed formations. They saw the agreement, as well as the establishment of Turkish military posts observing the supposed ceasefire, as a kind of diplomatic shield -allowing them to attack the SAA and forbidding the SAA to respond. This turned the demilitarization agreement into a source of constant tensions and competing accusations.

Furthermore, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham used the gained lull in the battle with the SAA to consolidate its control of the Greater Idlib area. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, before the establishment of the Idlib demilitarized zone, terrorists had controlled 50% of its territory whereas, up until recently, 90% of Idlib’s territory was controlled by terrorists.

Watch the video here.

There were three ways to deal with this situation:

• First, and the most preferred by militants and their foreign supporters, the SAA stops responding to ceasefire violations and continues to silently take casualties;
• Second, implementation of the Idlib agreement whereby Radical militants and heavy weapons are withdraw from the demilitarized zone and the ceasefire regime obeyed, thus making an important step en route to de-escalattion of the situation in northwestern Syria;
• Third, the SAA resumes operations against radical militants, eliminates the threat, and imposes demilitarization by force.

These choices predetermined further developments in the area. In the period from April to July, the SAA and its allies made a series of limited advances in northwestern Hama and southern Idlib liberating Kafr Nabudah and several nearby villages. During the same period, the Damascus government, backed by Russia and Iran, proposed several ceasefires giving militants and their backers multiple chances to begin fulfilling the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups apparently interpreted these proposals as signs of weakness. They were wrong.

On August 7, government forces resumed offensive operations liberating the villages of Al-Zakah and Arbain in northern Hama. On August 8, the SAA liberated al-Sakhr, al-Jaysat and Tell Sakhar. Control of the important height of Tell Sakhar allowed government forces to increase pressure on militants in the town of Hobit and secure Hamamiat. By August 11, the SAA had liberated Hobit, as well as Sukayk, Tall Sukayk, and Mughar Al-Hamam.

Despite multiple reinforcements deployed by Turkish-backed groups from the coalition known as the National Front of Liberation, the militants’ defense started collapsing. By August 19, the SAA, the Tiger Forces, and the National Defense Forces had outflanked the militant stronghold of Khan Shaykhun from the northwestern direction by liberating Tal Nar and nearby villages. Militants even employed MANPADs to fend off the SAA offensive.  On August 15, they downed a Syrian Air Force Su-22 warplane over southern Idlib, but this was not enough.

In the period from August 15 to August 18, the SAA repelled several militant counter-attacks, involving suicide bombers, in the areas of Sukayk and Tal Nar, and reached the entrance of Khan Shaykhun.

On August 19, Turkey made a last fierce attempt to rescue militants in northern Hama. Ankara sent a large military convoy of at least 28 pieces of military equipment, including 7 battle tanks, towards Khan Shaykhun. Members of Turkish-backed militant groups accompanied the convoy. The plan was to establish an observation point near Khan Shaykhun and use Turkish troops as human shields to defend militants there. However, the convoy was prevented from reaching the target.

The SAA cut off the highway leading to Khan Shaykhun while the Syrian Air Force carried out several strikes along the path of the Turkish convoy near Heish -killing at least one militant field commander and destroying a machine gun-armed vehicle.

On August 21, government forces liberated Khan Shaykhun and fully encircled the positions of militants in northern Hama. On August 23, the SAA and its allies fully liberated the newly created pocket including al-Lataminah, Morek, and Kafr Zita. By that time,  most of the militants had already fled the area towards their positions north of Khan Shaykhun. The Syrian military fully liberated northern Hama.

Both sides provide highly overestimated numbers of their enemies’ casualties. For example, pro-militant sources claim that over 1,200 government troops were killed in the area. This number is not confirmed by any visual evidence. In their own turn, pro-SAA sources claim that over 1,000 militants were eliminated. This is also not realistic. However, photos and videos from the area show that about 2 dozens pieces of the militants’ military equipment were destroyed.

Khan Shaykhun became widely known around the globe in 2017 after the US leadership used the staged chemical provocation in the militant-held town to carry out a massive missile strike on the Syrian Air Force’s Shayrat Air Base.

Since then, the town had been a visible symbol of success of Western-backed propaganda organizations, first and foremost the White Helmets, operating in Syria and working to promote the regime-change agenda. Therefore, its liberation became an important symbolic victory of the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance.

From the military point of view, the SAA secured an important chunk of the M5 highway and expanded a buffer zone at the Hama-Idlib administrative border. Previously, militants actively used their positions in northern Hama to shell government-controlled areas. Mhrdah, Suqylibiyah, Qamhanah, and Salhab were among  the most frequent targets of shelling by militants, leading to dozens of civilian casualties during the last few months alone.

Besides these Hayat Tahrir al-Sham lost a large part of its defense infrastructure in the southern part of the Idlib zone. Khan Shaykhun, located directly on the M5 highway, was an important logistical hub allowing radical militant groups to re-supply their fighters at the frontline, while al-Lataminah, Murak, and Kafr Zita were important strong points.  Full of underground tunnels and weapons depots, these towns were the core fortifications of militants in the area. The command center of Jaysh al-Izza, the main Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ally in northern Hama, was also located there. The group, having now lost all of its areas, has turned into a kind of nomad tribe within the militant-held part of the Idlib zone.

The estimated pre-war population of the areas recently liberated by the SAA was around 140,000 people. Even taking into account displacements during the war, Idlib radicals lost a notable part of their potential forceful mobilization potential and targets for various informal fees imposed by militant groups across northwestern Syria.

In its own turn, the SAA and its allies demonstrated that they are capable of delivering a military blow to militants entrenched in Idlib and that the key reason of their patience in previous months was the multiple attempts to settle the conflict and de-escalate the situation through diplomatic means. The key factor opposing this scenario remains the same: the inability of the so-called moderate opposition, backed by Turkey, to separate from terrorists. These groups are too deeply integrated. If nothing changes in this regard, another round of hostilities in the Idlib zone is almost inevitable.

*

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.

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Morocco’s belief in the strength of pluralism has energized me and shown me that difference can serve as a strength for any country, whether it is religious or secular, large or small, developed or developing.

I was told that there are spiritual answers to the question, “Why Morocco?”—every person has a story to explain why they are in this country. The hospitality, emphasis on community, and religious practice are only a few of the reasons Moroccans and visitors have provided. While personal narratives and my own experience have intertwined to affirm this point, so do the tenants of community and participatory development that I have witnessed as an intern at the High Atlas Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to local initiatives that community beneficiaries determine and manage.

My first week in Morocco, after traveling toward the Amazigh village of Akrich, we stopped at a tree nursery. The seemingly small plot of pomegranate and fig saplings is the backdrop to a linkage of cultural cooperation. While Jewish pilgrims visit the mausoleum of Rabbi Raphael Hacohen year after year, a Muslim man, Abderrahim Beddah, serves as the caretaker of the land. This relationship helps the High Atlas Foundation engage a women’s cooperative in the neighboring village. Initiatives are interconnected.

Now these multicultural nurseries are receiving government support. The National Initiative for Human Development has provided land-assessments to monitor the viability of an organic fruit tree nursery near the mausoleum of Rabbi David-Ou-Moshe in the Ourzazate province. They will begin implementing a project that will generate more than one-million trees over five years.

Sustainable development was created through, and continues to depend on, interfaith partnerships. If Beddah did not share the story of Jews crying on the journey to visit their saint and express his deep appreciation for their faith, then this partnership would be unlikely. However, the investment Moroccans make when they support their neighbors is a testament to development that depends on pluralism.

This concept resurfaced in a new friendship. The Ministry in Charge of Moroccans Living Abroad and Migration Affairs – in cooperation with the Association of Friends of the Jewish Museum – fund to bring Jewish people with Moroccan heritage back to discover their roots, meet government and religious leaders, and encourage local investment.

The High Atlas Foundation interns were invited to attend a shabbat dinner during the program for these Moroccan-Jews, and it was at that dinner that my observations were confirmed. I met a woman who has grown up in France, but her parents were from Agadir, Morocco. This was the first time she traversed the site of her great-great-grandparents’ graves and engaged with her heritage. We got to talking about religious coexistence and respect. She put it quite simply—“in Morocco, Jews and Muslims are first Moroccan. They live well together because their identity is placed in the fact that they are neighbors.” She told me she believed that allegiance should be first to one’s country and then to religion, at least in how it is outwardly expressed. We both agreed that country needs to be respected…humanity needs to be respected.

Pluralism is a framework written into Morocco’s foundational documents. Development requires all parties, faiths, and populations of Morocco. I have seen this visiting a women’s cooperative where dialogue and decision making are priorities. I have seen this in visiting the grave of a venerated Jewish saint, guarded by a Muslim.  I have seen this in the logistical processes that allow for the purchasing of carbon credits and maintenance of olive, walnut, and carob farms.

In 2008, King Mohammed VI announced a vision for Morocco in which “culture serves as a driving force for development as well as a bridge for dialogue.” Moroccans are stepping up to the plate, imagining and wrestling to manifest this vision. The country’s potential should serve as an example. But we must not forget that there are villages still plagued by diarrhea, girls not in school, and trees left uplanted. These examples remind us that although potential is not lacking, resources are forever necessary. Volunteers should never back down in fear of not doing enough. Passion for understanding others, learning a new language, or living immersed in a beautiful expression of religion should be motivation to bring you to Morocco. Finding or supporting organizations like the High Atlas Foundation is integral to this vision.

My spiritual explanation to “Why Morocco?” has come to rest in my hope for this pluralistic and collaborative future of development. Creating cooperatives, living together, and working toward a common goal or vision is very “Moroccan.” But it is also very “human.” I wonder how life would look if other countries began to call for pluralistic-driven development in their constitutions, laws, policies, and institutions?

*

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.

Caroline Kirk is a third year student at the University of Virginia. She spent the summer of 2019 interning at the High Atlas Foundation, working on interfaith and multicultural initiatives.

Featured image is from HAF

Of the European Union’s 28 member states, it reveals much that 22 of these nations belong to NATO, the Pentagon-run military organization.

What is striking also is that, in the post-Soviet Union years, EU and NATO enlargement has moved eastwards almost in synchronization. Political figures in Brussels have committed the error in failing to detach crucial EU policies from that of Washington, leading to rising tensions with Russia.

The Kremlin is a significant trading partner of the EU, but commerce between Brussels and Moscow has declined continuously since 2012; largely because of European actions such as supporting the overthrow of a government in the Ukraine, bordering Russia, and instituting a Western-backed leader (Petro Poroshenko).

The EU thereafter consented to Washington’s orders in implementing sanctions on Russia, following Vladimir Putin‘s incorporation of the Crimea in March 2014 – a region that, like the Ukraine, has a generations-long history with Russia, and whose residents for the majority comprise of ethnic Russians.

Moscow’s takeover of the Crimea came as a response to the US-engineered ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in Kiev the month before, in February 2014. Yanukovych’s toppling enraged the Russian government, who have understandable concerns relating to what occurs along their frontiers. The Kremlin has reacted further with their own financial measures, costing the EU many billions of euro.

Over the previous generation in particular, NATO’s enduring existence has been a major concern for those in Russia, and with good reason. For example the NATO bombardment of Serbia, during the spring of 1999, was a pointed provocation of Russia, though this was barely recognized. The NATO attack came at a time when Russia as a nation was weak, still recovering from Soviet dissolution in late 1991. Serbian-Russian relations trace centuries into the past, and they remain as allies to present times.

Starting on 24 March 1999, NATO’s assault on Serbia was imposed as a demonstration of American power and credibility, in a territory that once lay comfortably within the USSR’s “backyard”. The Bill Clinton administration had moreover decided to initiate military action against Serbia, due to Belgrade’s disregarding of US demands by not accepting Washington-designed neoliberal programs. Serbia composed part of the last corner of Europe still a neoliberal free zone.

Western audiences were spared these cold facts. Propaganda prevailed eulogizing NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” in Serbia and surrounding Yugoslavia. The NATO barrage had nothing to do with concerns about human rights, or the plight of Kosovar Albanians, and everything to do with maintaining US prestige, power and strategic superiority.

NATO would commit war crimes during its almost 80 day assault on Yugoslavia – including killing hundreds of civilians through “surgical” air strikes, along with other acts such as blowing up the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and taking out the country’s public broadcaster, Radio Television of Serbia (RTS).

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese were irked by the bombing of their embassy which they believed to be deliberate. Three Chinese citizens lost their lives, provoking fury in Beijing. China’s ambassador to the UN, Qin Huasun, said of the bombing,

“NATO’s barbarian act is a violation of the UN Charter”.

NATO claimed they had mistaken the embassy for a “munitions storage facility”, adding to Chinese suspicions.

Of the 13 NATO states that officially partook in the bombing of Yugoslavia, nine of them consisted of EU members. The EU was therefore complicit in attacking Yugoslavia. Just over a decade later, 10 EU countries under the NATO banner participated in the intervention in Libya – which, as with the case of Serbia, left both countries in a far worse condition than they were prior to the NATO attacks.

One of the key reasons that NATO was formed in 1949, was so as to prevent Europe from pursuing a path independent of American foreign policy. In that regard, it has worked.

Over the past seven decades, European leaders have displayed a happy subservience in the face of overwhelming US financial and military power.

NATO and the EU are inextricably tied concerning one of the most critical issues: Nuclear weapons. The EU is headquartered in Brussels, capital of Belgium, which is a “founding member” of NATO. Belgium is also a de facto nuclear power. The Belgian state has been home to US nuclear weapons for almost 56 years, since November 1963, the same month that John F. Kennedy was assassinated. America’s nuclear cache was secreted into Belgium without notifying the Belgian parliament; nor indeed the country’s populace.

Situated a mere 60 miles north-east of Brussels are at least 20 American B-61 nuclear bombs, stored in vaults at Kleine Brogel Air Base. This installation jointly hosts squadrons of the US and Belgian air forces, ensuring that the important orders originate from Washington.

Belgian pilots come into contact with US nuclear weapons in Kleine Brogel, and are familiar with their design. The B-61 bombs are in addition “to be carried and delivered by the Belgian Air Force’s dwindling inventory of F-16 fighter jets”, according to the experienced American analyst and author, William M. Arkin.

A B-61 bomb contains a high yield of between 340 to 400 kilotons, reaching 20 times more powerful than the atomic weapon which destroyed much of Nagasaki in south-west Japan. Even half of that explosive force, 170-200 kilotons, would inflict multiple times the destruction in comparison to the “Fat Man” dropped on Nagasaki, and which held within it about 20 kilotons of explosive power.

Meanwhile, Belgium is also a top priority target for terrorist atrocities, as seen over preceding years. One can presume that an ISIS fighter would desire very much indeed to pilfer a nuclear bomb, and do untold damage with it. The possibility is very small, as special expertise and advanced technological capabilities are surely required to fire a nuclear weapon, but the chances are not zero.

Nor is the possibility zero that an unforeseen accident could occur with a nuclear weapon aboard an F-16 jet, such as at Kleine Brogel.

Incidents have materialized with F-16 aircraft in past years (and other jet types) that are cause for concern; like the fatal crash with a Greek F-16 jet that occurred in fellow NATO country Spain, during January 2015, that killed 11 people – at the time the plane had been involved in “a NATO exercise”; and earlier this summer when an F-16 “packed with weapons” lost control and “slammed into a warehouse” in California leaving “a gaping hole in the roof”. It was not reported that the jet in question was nuclear-armed, but any impact with such a weapon around the aircraft’s undercarriage could result in a partial or even full nuclear explosion.

In nuclear state Israel last October, an F-16 jet “almost collided with another aircraft and several ground crew members” when “the aircraft lost its braking capability”.

Regarding Belgium, the presence of nuclear weapons in the country “is neither confirmed nor denied” by the state’s politicians. Belgian governments are seemingly unable to confirm or deny what is perhaps the biggest immediate threat facing their country: a nuclear conflagration.

One can be sure the Kremlin is aware that Belgium constitutes in effect a nuclear power. As a result, Belgium may rank as high priority scope in Russian nuclear war planning. The B-61 bombs near Brussels are placed there of course with Russia in mind.

Germany, the EU’s dominant nation, is also a NATO power and de facto nuclear state. The now dissolved West Germany acceded to NATO in May 1955. Two months before, in March 1955, West Germany began stationing US nuclear weapons on its territory in preparation for NATO’s nuclear “sharing policy”.

Nuclear weapons have now been present on German soil for 64 years. Germany is holding 20 US B-61 bombs at Büchel Air Base in the country’s far-west, where separate squadrons of the German and US air forces are quartered. German security has been significantly compromised. Büchel Air Base is within comfortable driving distance of large western German cities like Cologne, Frankfurt and Stuttgart.

Demonstration for Gen Roger Brady, USAF, then-Commander of USAFE, of the disarming procedure of a B61 nuclear bomb on a “dummy” weapon shape in an underground Weapons Security and Storage System (WS3) vault at Volkel Air Base. These B61 nuclear weapons are shared by the United States and Germany. (Source: Public Domain)

Chancellor Angela Merkel professes that US militarism is protecting Germany and encompassing regions, when something like the opposite is the case, as these areas have been placed in clear danger. Once more, the Russians have little alternative but to take into account the presence of US nuclear bombs, particularly with NATO having expanded to its borders this century.

EU and NATO “founding member” Italy is home to at least 70 American B-61 bombs in two air bases – Ghedi and Aviano – in the north-east of the country. Both of Italy’s nuclear cargoes are located dangerously close to her biggest cities like Milan, Turin and Venice. Italy has been a de facto nuclear power since April 1957, over five years before the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Netherlands is yet another EU state, NATO founder and nuclear power in reality. For the past 59 years, the Dutch have held US nuclear weapons on their land, stretching to April 1960. Their US-made B-61 bombs are stored at Volkel Air base in the south, which is positioned well under 100 miles from Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the nation’s two largest cities. As with Belgian governments, their Dutch counterparts “neither confirm nor deny” that foreign-built nuclear weapons are in the country, as they have been for decades.

Turkey remains part of NATO, for now. Relations with Washington are far from harmonious; still, Turkey continues holding 50 US-produced B-61 bombs at Incirlik Air Base situated just five miles from Adana, Turkey’s fifth largest city. The nuclear weapons at Incirlik are positioned less than 200 miles from terrorist-infiltrated Idlib, where fighting rages with Russian-supported Syrian government forces. Turkey has held possession of US nuclear bombs since February 1959, a few weeks after Fidel Castro assumed power in Cuba.

Associations such as NATO “have been a major cause of wars throughout modern history”, as the American historian Gabriel Kolko noted. NATO may well be the most hazardous union of all, due to its standing as a nuclear-armed, heavily militarized organization which – in violation of verbal commitments – enlarged eastwards from 1990 and is now, as stated, resting upon the very boundaries of nuclear superpower Russia.

Altogether, there are presently around 150 US nuclear weapons dotted about in the above EU or NATO countries. That might seem like a sizeable total, yet there were approximately 2,500 American nuclear bombs spread across Europe in 1959. By 1966, that number had doubled to a peak of 5,000, as Europe literally brimmed with US nuclear devices, bolstered by the atomic powers of France and Britain.

Come the late 1970s, there were still over 4,000 US nuclear warheads on European soil. From therein, the numbers steadily declined. Ultimately, however, it does not matter if there are 5,000 or 150 American nuclear bombs in Europe as one explosion, even without retaliation, may be enough to precipitate the nuclear winter phenomenon. The means to deliver nuclear weapons have expanded in technological scope, led by US advancements, ensuring that the risks are heightened.

Since its founding 70 years ago, NATO has if anything destabilized the European continent, by ramping up distrust with Moscow. Respected US diplomats like George Kennan, who had a good understanding of Russia, predicted as much. Kennan was opposed to NATO’s formulation from the beginning, as he foresaw the dangers that lay ahead with an arms race unfolding – as the above-mentioned figures reveal.

The USSR, to be more exact, Russia, was compelled to follow suit in establishing its own organization in 1955 to rival NATO, the Warsaw Pact.

Today, NATO comprises of 29 states while the Warsaw Pact becomes a fading and distant memory. Twelve out of those 29 NATO nations have joined over the past two decades alone. Some of them consist of former Warsaw Pact countries once allied to Russia, which must be galling for Kremlin diplomats to witness.

NATO, that is Washington, has imminent plans to swell its ranks further and newly-named North Macedonia, a tiny Balkan state, is in the process of becoming a NATO vassal. At virtually the same time, North Macedonia has also been touted to join the EU.

Not unreasonably, the Kremlin associates EU membership with that of NATO. For years, Moscow has been alarmed at the Ukraine making moves towards EU membership, eventually paving the way for NATO accession, a most unacceptable outcome for the Russians.

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

This momentous decision will save countless elephants from being snatched from their families and natural environment, says Humane Society International at CITES CoP18 in Geneva

***

Wildlife experts from animal protection charity Humane Society International are celebrating a momentous win for elephants at the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), where delegates have just affirmed in plenary the decision to limit the controversial trade of wild-caught African elephants from Zimbabwe and Botswana to zoos.

The European Union presented a series of amendments to last week’s decision which would allow trade of wild-caught elephants from Zimbabwe and Botswana to zoos only if approved by the CITES Animals Committee, in consultation with the IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group, an expert group that has publicly stated it does not believe there to be conservation benefits to wild caught elephants being sent to captive facilities. The amended text was passed by a vote of 87 in favour, 29 opposing and 25 abstaining.

Notably, the United States opposed both the original and amended proposal.

Audrey Delsink, wildlife director at Humane Society International/Africa says:

“This is a momentous CITES decision for Africa’s elephants and despite compromised language being introduced by the EU, we are relieved by its passing. While it is disappointing that it is not an outright ban on trade in live elephants, the new language adds vital independent oversight and scrutiny. Speaking personally as an elephant field biologist I am jubilant that we have secured this victory for all the elephants who will now be spared the ordeal of being ripped away from their families. The capture of wild African elephants for export to zoos and other captive facilities is incredibly traumatizing for individual elephants as well as their social groups. Public sentiment is shifting, and people are increasingly outraged at the senseless and cruel practice of snatching baby elephants from the wild to live a life as a zoo exhibit.

“Countless elephant experts, animal lovers and celebrities from around the world urged countries to end this injustice by affirming the CITES ban, and we are so glad that our collective voices were heard. The definition of what is an appropriate destination is key, and the independent oversight by elephant specialists is critical, and so we will remain vigilant as that discussion develops, and fight against any attempts to justify or prolong trade in live baby elephants for captive purposes. We are extremely grateful to Kenya and the African Elephant Coalition for their efforts to protect wild African elephants.”

African elephants in Zimbabwe and Botswana are currently listed on Appendix II of CITES with an annotation that allows live elephants to be exported to “appropriate and acceptable” destinations. Under this definition, Zimbabwe has been capturing live baby African elephants in the wild and exporting them to zoos in China and elsewhere.

The practice has been highly controversial, drawing the condemnation of animal protection and conservation groups as well as elephant scientists who note that elephants are complex creatures who suffer both physically and psychologically as a result of captivity.

During the CITES conference, conservationist Dr Jane Goodall issued a statement of concern, and a host of celebrities such as Joanna Lumley, Ricky Gervais, Judi Dench, Pamela Anders and others submitted an open letter to European Union officials, calling on them not to oppose the CITES ban on trade in wild-caught baby African elephants ripped from their families and shipped off to foreign zoos.

*

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

Featured image is from HSI

It is an age-old question as to the extent art reflects the world we live in. Bertolt Brecht allegedly said to the contrary that art was “not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it.”

The Marxist German playwright devised theatrical methods designed to distance the audience from the staged drama while drawing self-reflexive attention to the contrived nature of the spectacle itself. The idea was that by estranging the spectator and encouraging critical examination, they would come to view society’s manmade injustices as similarly unnatural and be given agency to transform them in the real world.

One of the implications of Brecht’s notion was that art in its more conventional forms often functions as a tool of mass persuasion for those in power to reinforce those inequities. Marx and Engels themselves professed to have learned more about the contradictions of French society from the novels of Honoré de Balzac, which upheld the monarchy and the Church, than any historians or philosophers of their day. At its very worst, artistic mediums can be used by governments to manipulate a nation’s attitude towards other countries in order to justify war.

Brecht’s life and work coincided with the development of the film industry. However, most productions influenced by his ‘epic theatre’ were art-house and foreign films while commercial, mass-market Hollywood movies placed greater emphasis on appealing to the emotions over intellect. However, there were some exceptions such as Charlie Chaplin who not coincidentally was persecuted for his politics by the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) during the Red Scare.

In the Cold War, Tinseltown played an important role in the cultural battlefield against the USSR and anti-Soviet paranoia was an ever-present theme in American cinema for decades, from the McCarthy era until the Berlin Wall fell. Contemporaneously, a revival of geopolitical tensions between the United States and the Russian Federation — which many have dubbed a second Cold War — has seen the return of such tropes on the silver screen. Most recently, it has resurfaced in popular web television shows such as the third season of Netflix’s retro science fiction/horror series Stranger Things, as well as HBO’s miniseries Chernobyl, which dramatizes the 1986 nuclear accident in Soviet Ukraine.

John Williams has worked as a consulting economist since getting his BA and MA from Dartmouth college in New Hampshire in 1972. He now lives in California – these paragraphs are from his biography:

One of my early clients was a large manufacturer of commercial airplanes, who had developed an econometric model for predicting revenue passenger miles. The level of revenue passenger miles was their primary sales forecasting tool, and the model was heavily dependent on the GNP (now called the GDP) as reported by the Department of Commerce.  Suddenly, their model stopped working, and they asked me if I could fix it. I realized the GNP numbers were faulty, corrected them for my client…and the model worked again, at least for a while, until GNP methodological changes eventually made the underlying data worthless.

For a number of years I conducted surveys among business economists as to the quality of government statistics (the vast majority thought it was pretty bad), and my results led to front page stories in 1989 in the New York Times and Investors Daily (now Investors Business Daily). 

In 2004 he started Shadow Statistics and runs a blog with updates on what he calculates to be the real U.S. government statistics, you can subscribe for $175 a year. The government keeps statistics on many things; Williams focuses on only a few; unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, inflation, the value of the dollar and the money supply.

You may ask why the government would fudge the numbers. Williams found that between 1997 and 1999 the government understated inflation and as a result inflation indexed payments for social security didn’t escalate as they should have and the government saved millions. The effect is the same in many contracts where payments are inflation indexed; between retired people and pension funds, between corporations and labour unions. Lower inflation rates, real or fictitious, save many corporations money.

On his web site you can check what he says are the correct figures today; unemployment in the United States, which the government says is under 5%, he says is about 22%.  One reason for the big difference is that since the ‘60’s the government no longer counts as unemployed those who could not find work.

Inflation which the government says is about 2% is slightly over 5%. That seems right to me because the Shadow Statistics rate seems closer to what I’ve experienced.

It’s not just in the United States where numbers are being fudged. When I was writing my book, a friend in England sent a note saying that it was not just in the United States where government statistics were being fudged. “you can take if from me” he wrote “that inflation in the UK was at least twice what the Government was reporting.” He knew that because he had been keeping detailed records on their family spending.

Back in America economist Paul Craig Roberts has noted:

As I have reported on many occasions, John Williams of shadowstats.com has concluded that changes in the way that the government approaches the measurement of inflation has, in effect, defined inflation away.

Formerly, if a price of an item in an inflation measure rose, the inflation rate would rise by the price times the weight of the item in the index. Today, if a price of an item in an inflation measure rises, that item is removed from the index, and a lower cost item substituted in its place.

A second way that government has contrived in order to under-measure inflation is to declare price rises “quality improvements” and not count the higher price as inflation.

Using these methods, an 8% rate of inflation can, for example, be reduced to a 2% inflation rate.

And as Peter Kiekmeyer, a business writer with Sprott Money writes:

The sharply-dressed statisticians at the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Statistics Canada for their part talk a good game. However, Williams is asking questions that none have been able to convincingly refute.

Until that happens, we’ll regard this rumpled, amiable, Californian … as America’s most important statistician.

Williams’ current forecast for the US economy is not good. His data of United States Gross Domestic Product which officially has been reported at about 2% for the past many months he reports as being negative for several years now. A recession is defined as two quarters of reduction in the gross national product thus according to Shadow Stats, the US is in recession and has been for many months now. His economic forecast as of Aug 15th is:

The ShadowStats broad outlook in the weeks and months ahead remains for: (1) a rapidly intensifying U.S. economic downturn, reflected in (2) mounting selling pressure on the U.S. dollar, (3) flight to safety in precious metals, with upside pressures on gold and silver prices, and (4) increasingly high risk of extraordinarily heavy stock-market selling.

He’s not the only one in the market today raising warnings so be wary.

*

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 Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Tiger Forces are conducting active security operations in the recently liberated parts of northern Hama and southern Idlib. The goal of the effort is to remove mines and improvised explosive devices, uncover weapons depots, HQs and other infrastructure objects abandoned by militants and hunt down remaining cells of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other radical groups.

For example, the SAA seized a large HQ and a network of underground tunnels, which had belonged to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Jaish al-Izza in the vicinity of Khan Shaykhun.

Pro-government sources also released photos showing a decoy tank near Kafr Zita. A destroyed M-46 130mm artillery piece and a pick-up truck were spotted near. The decoy apparently did not help militants to avoid airstrikes.

Click here to watch.

Russian forces have started deployment near the Turkish observation post located near the town of Murak recently liberated by government forces. After the collapse of militants’ defense in the Khan Shaykhun countryside, Turkish troops at the Murak post found themselves encircled by the SAA. Most likely, the Russians came to rescue the Turks from warm greetings of the Syrian military that knows well about Ankara’s efforts to support radical militants in the area.

US and Turkish officials conducted the first joint reconnaissance flight, the Pentagon has said. This development followed establishment of the joint coordination center earlier in august, spokesman Sean Robertson said.

On August 26, President Tayyip Erdogan declared that the US and Turkey are slowly “making progress” to establish a safe zone there. He promised that Turkish troops will soon enter northwestern Syria, which is now controlled by US-backed Kurdish armed groups. If this happens, this will likely cause a local crisis and increase tensions in the area. Kurdish armed groups that rejected negotiations with Damascus hoped that the US will protect them from Turkey and help to create own state within Syria.

*

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

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

How the mainstream media reported an August 8 accident at a top-secret missile test facility in northern Russia should serve as a cautionary tale regarding the dangers of rushed judgments via institutional bias.

In the days following the initial report of the accident, the media exploded with speculation over both the nature of the device being tested at the Nenoksa State Central Marine Test Site and the Russian government’s muted response. Typical of the hysteria was the analysis of Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and editor of the blog “Arms Control Wonk.”

Lewis and his collaborators penned a breathless article for Foreign Policy that asked, “What Really Happened?” According to Lewis, the answer was clear:

“The reference to radiation was striking—tests of missile engines don’t involve radiation. Well, with one exception: Last year, Russia announced it had tested a cruise missile powered by a nuclear reactor. It calls this missile the 9M730 Burevestnik. NATO calls it the SSC-X-9 Skyfall.”

Lewis’s assessment was joined by President Trump’s, who tweeted,

“The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia…. The Russian ‘Skyfall’ explosion has people worried about the air around the facility, and far beyond. Not good!”

The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia. We have similar, though more advanced, technology. The Russian “Skyfall” explosion has people worried about the air around the facility, and far beyond. Not good!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2019

Trump’s tweet appeared to conform with the assessments of the intelligence community, which, according to The New York Times, also attributed the accident to a failed test of the Skyfall missile.

Former Obama administration national security analyst Samantha Vinograd tweeted:

“Possibly the worst nuclear accident in the region since Chernobyl + possibly a new kind of Russian missile = this is a big deal.”

The Washington Post editorial board joined Vinograd in invoking the imagery of Chernobyl:

“If this slow dribble of facts sounds familiar, it is — the same parade of misdirection happened during the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986.”

They’re all wrong. Here’s the real story of what actually happened at Nenoksa.

Liquid-fuel ballistic missiles are tricky things. Most Russian liquid-fueled missiles make use of hypergolic fuels, consisting of a fuel (in most cases asymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, or heptyl) and an oxidizer (nitrogen tetroxide), which, when combined, spontaneously combust. For this to happen efficiently, the fuel and oxidizer need to be maintained at “room temperature,” generally accepted as around 70 degrees Fahrenheit. For missiles stored in launch silos, or in launch canisters aboard submarines, temperature control is regulated by systems powered by the host—either a generator, if in a silo, or the submarine’s own power supply, if in a canister.

Likewise, the various valves, switches, and other components critical to the successful operation of a liquid-fuel ballistic missile, including onboard electronics and guidance and control systems, must be maintained in an equilibrium, or steady state, until launch. The electrical power required to accomplish this is not considerable, but it must be constant. Loss of power will disrupt the equilibrium of the missile system, detrimentally impacting its transient response at time of launch and leading to failure.

Russia has long been pursuing so-called “autonomous” weapons that can be decoupled from conventional means of delivery—a missile silo or a submarine—and instead installed in canisters that protect them from the environment. They would then be deployed on the floor of the ocean, lying in wait until remotely activated. One of the major obstacles confronting the Russians is the need for system equilibrium, including the onboard communications equipment, prior to activation. The power supply for any system must be constant, reliable, and capable of operating for extended periods of time without the prospect of fuel replenishment.

The solution for this power supply problem is found in so-called “nuclear batteries,” or radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG). An RTG generates electricity using thermocouples that convert the heat released by the decay of radioactive material. RTGs have long been used in support of operations in space. The Russians have long used them to provide power to remote unmanned facilities in the arctic and in mountainous terrain. Cesium-137, a byproduct of the fission of U-235, is considered an ideal radioisotope for military application RTGs.

On August 8, a joint team from the Ministry of Defense and the All-Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics, subordinated to the State Atomic Energy Corporation (ROSATOM), conducted a test of a liquid-fueled rocket engine, in which electric power from Cesium-137 “nuclear batteries” maintained its equilibrium state. The test was conducted at the Nenoksa State Central Marine Test Site (GTsMP), a secret Russian naval facility known as Military Unit 09703. It took place in the waters of the White Sea, off the coast of the Nenoksa facility, onboard a pair of pontoon platforms.

The test had been in the making for approximately a year. What exactly was being tested and why remain a secret, but the evaluation went on for approximately an hour. It did not involve the actual firing of the engine, but rather the non-destructive testing of the RTG power supply to the engine.

The test may have been a final system check—the Russian deputy defense minister, Pavel Popov, monitored events from the Nenoksa military base. Meanwhile, the deputy head of research and testing at the All-Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics, Vyasheslav Yanovsky, considered to be one of Russia’s most senior nuclear scientists, monitored events onboard the off-shore platform. Joining Yanovsky were seven other specialists from the institute, including Vyacheslav Lipshev, the head of the research and development team. They accompanied representatives from the Ministry of Defense, along with specialists from the design bureau responsible for the liquid-fuel engine.

When the actual testing finished, something went very wrong. According to a sailor from the nearby Severdvinsk naval base, the hypergolic fuels contained in the liquid engine (their presence suggests that temperature control was one of the functions being tested) somehow combined. This created an explosion that destroyed the liquid engine, sending an unknown amount of fuel and oxidizer into the water. At least one, and perhaps more, of the Cesium-137 RTGs burst open, contaminating equipment and personnel alike.

Four men—two Ministry of Defense personnel and two ROSATOM scientists—were killed immediately. Those who remained on the damaged platform were taken to the Nenoksa base and decontaminated, before being transported to a local military clinic that specializes in nuclear-related emergencies. Here, doctors in full protective gear oversaw their treatment and additional decontamination. All of them survived.

Three of the ROSATOM scientists were thrown by the explosion into the waters of the White Sea and were rescued only after a lengthy search. These men were transported to the Arkhangelsk hospital. Neither the paramedics who attended to the injured scientists, nor the hospital staff who received them, were informed that the victims had been exposed to Cesium-137, leading to the cross-contamination of the hospital staff and its premises.

The next day, all the personnel injured during the test were transported to Moscow for treatment at a facility that specializes in radiation exposure; two of the victims pulled from the water died en route. Medical personnel involved in treating the victims were likewise dispatched to Moscow for evaluation; one doctor was found to be contaminated with Cesium-137.

The classified nature of the test resulted in the Russian government taking precautions to control information concerning the accident. The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) seized all the medical records associated with the treatment of accident victims and had the doctors and medical personnel sign non-disclosure agreements.

The Russian Meteorological Service (Roshydromet) operates what’s known as the Automatic Radiation Monitoring System (ASKRO) in the city of Severdvinsk. ASKRO detected two “surges” in radiation, one involving Gamma particles, the other Beta particles. This is a pattern consistent with the characteristics of Cesium-137, which releases Gamma rays as it decays, creating Barium-137m, which is a Beta generator. The initial detection was reported on the Roshydromet website, though it was subsequently taken offline.

Specialized hazardous material teams scoured the region around Nenoksa, Archangesk, and Severdvinsk, taking air and environmental samples. All these tested normal, confirming that the contamination created by the destruction of the Cesium-137 batteries was limited to the area surrounding the accident. Due to the large amount of missile fuel that was spilled, special restrictions concerning fishing and swimming were imposed in the region’s waters — at least until the fuel was neutralized by the waters of the White Sea. The damage had been contained, and the threat was over.

The reality of what happened at Nenoksa is tragic. Seven men lost their lives and scores of others were injured. But there was no explosion of a “nuclear cruise missile,” and it wasn’t the second coming of Chernobyl. America’s intelligence community and the so-called experts got it wrong — again. The root cause of their error is their institutional bias against Russia, which leads them to view that country in the worst possible light, regardless of the facts.

At a time when the level of mutual mistrust between our two nuclear-armed nations is at an all-time high, this kind of irresponsible rush to judgement must be avoided at all costs.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War.

Featured image is from Pindyurin Vasily/creative commons

The spokesman of Al-Bunyan Al-Marsous coalition Mohammed Al-Ghasri confirmed in an interview to a Libyan media outlet “Ain Libiya” that U.S. African Command team arrived at Air Defense College airbase located in Libyan port city of Misurata on July 22.

He said that USAF aircraft carrying American military came to Libya in a framework of cooperation with the UN-backed Government of National Accord Presidential Council in field of combating the Islamic State.

“We welcome any kind of cooperation in this sphere,” added Mohamed Al-Ghasri.

Previous report also claims that the USAF C17-A Globemaster III, a large military transport aircraft (10-0222) callsign RCH157, left the Aqaba airport, Jordan, for Misurata.

This is the first statement made by officials of both Libya and the United States, concerning the return of U.S. troops to Libya since the AFRICOM announced last April a temporarily relocation of all security personnel from this country. The move caused by the “increase of unrest” subsequent to the launch of military operation to capture Tripoli by the Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar.

“The command is making the personnel adjustments in response to the evolving security situation. U.S. Africa Command will continue to monitor conditions on the ground in Libya, and assess the feasibility for renewed U.S. military presence, as appropriate,” the US AFRICOM said in an April statement.

Contradicting statements

Given the promises to re-establish the military presence in Libya, a report on the arrival of American military doesn’t come as a surprise.

However, on July 25 the U.S. AFRICOM spokeswoman Becky Farmer stirred things up by saying to the London-based Ashark Al-Awsat newspaper that no force was sent to Misurata.

Thus, the official version announced by the U.S. mouthpiece appeared to be completely at odds with what Mohammed Al-Ghasri stated. The Al-Bunyan Al-Marsous alliance – made up basically of armed groups and Islamist factions from Misurata – was formed in 2016 and took a leading part in cooperation with the US in eradicating the ISIS terrorists in the city of Sirte. Seems that this time they failed to coordinate moves.

Such discrepancies contained in those statements conveyed an impression that Washington still officially attempts to maintain a cautious position on Libya and was reluctant to help escalate confrontation between the Government of National Accord and the Libyan National Army led by commander Khalifa Haftar.

Many analysts consider that the United States has no clear and unified approach to resolving the long-standing conflict in North African country and continues to be confronted with the dilemma which of two warring parties they should support.

The U.S. shift to the Tripoli’s unity government and the city-state of Misurata

It’s important to point out that Misurata remains the main bastion of the anti-Haftar military forces, the bulk of them Islamist.

In this context, the decision to dispatch the U.S. troops namely to Misurata might have become a marker for a major shift in policies and modus operandi of the United States toward the oil-rich country. This shift can mean that Americans took a side of the GNA that has been long relying on a wide range of influential militias in domestic affairs, and on the backing of Qatar and Turkey in external.

In addition, it’s worth noting that to date no official response has been released neither on the AFRICOM website nor its Twitter. Neglecting these discrediting claims circulated by the GNA high-ranking military official seems suspicious as it used to pay close attention to the image of its military mission in Libya as well as the public perception of its tasks performed. AFRICOM also hardly worked on preventing its actions in Libya to be misinterpreted.

On this occasion, silence had precisely the opposite effect and put an apparently feeble attempt to obscure yet uncertain involvement of the American military in the Libyan conflict in the spotlight. If it’s true, this might jeopardize the reputation of the US as a neutral and “uniquely qualified external actor” capable of exerting influence on the rival parties and broker the peace.

Beyond that, any involvement in malicious activities in one of the pivotal countries in Northern Africa isn’t a good advertisement for the AFRICOM and its newly appointed commander U.S. Army General Stephen Townsend. On one hand the renewal of the American military presence in Libya could serve as an effective starting point for the career development of the new commander, who previously advocated for a more proactive role of the US in the region amid the growing foreign interference there. But on the other, Washington, in this case, will no longer be able to act as a neutral international mediator in the Libyan crisis.

*

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.

Alaeddin Saleh is editor of the Special Monitoring Mission to Libya (SMM Libya).

The Indian Ambassador to Russia was right when he said that his host nation increasingly views his homeland as a global player, an observation that’s becoming all the more significant after Moscow has shown that it’s willing to contradict China on key international issues and possibly even “balance” it abroad.

The ongoing liquidity crisis in India’s shadow banking sector is intensifying. The troubles that started with defaults by Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (IL&FS) last year are far from over as the sector continues to face a severe liquidity crisis. If tight liquidity conditions persist over the next three quarters, it may turn into a solvency issue for several shadow banks.

After the IL&FS collapse, the entire sector is facing a crisis of confidence as investors are shying away from investing in securities issued by shadow banks. Several shadow banks are finding it difficult to raise money from banks, mutual funds, and the rest of the financial system for either funding their growth or rollover of existing short-term debt. Some are resorting to asset monetization to meet their immediate repayment obligations. Leave aside those shadow banks that have weak financial profiles, even financially sound and better-governed entities are also facing a liquidity squeeze. Most private-sector shadow banks have reduced disbursement of loans to preserve liquidity.

After grown aggressively in the last three years, the credit disbursals by shadow banks have fallen almost by a third this year and consequently lending to housing, automobile, consumer durables, and small businesses has substantially reduced. Since shadow banks play a vital role in loan financing in the housing and automobile sectors, the reduced availability of funding has significantly contributed to the slowdown in these sectors.

The Liquidity Crisis Hits the Automobile Sector Hard

The automobile sector has been badly hit by the ongoing liquidity crisis as shadow banks were the leading financiers of commercial vehicles, passenger cars, and two-wheelers in India. Before the onset of the liquidity crisis, close to 40 percent of new auto loans were issued by shadow banks.

According to Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, passenger car sales declined by 26 percent in April-July 2019 over the same period last year. Close to 300 dealer showrooms of passenger vehicles have shut down across India in the last one year as shadow banks have stopped financing vehicle purchase, while automakers have either cut production or shut production plants temporarily to keep inventory in check. Analysts estimate that tens of thousands of jobs in India’s auto sector are at risk if the slump in the automobile sector continues.

Since commercial banks are still struggling with high levels of non-performing assets, they are not rushing in to fill the void left by the shadow banks. Rather, commercial banks may also like to reduce their exposure to stressed sectors such as automobile and housing to improve their balance sheets.

All these developments in the financial sector will have severe ramifications for the overall economy as the bulk of India’s economic growth is driven by domestic demand.

DHFL: The New Poster Boy of Liquidity Crisis

Since September 2018, hardly a week passes without more bad news about the cash-strapped Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL). On August 16, DHFL again defaulted on its repayment obligations worth Rs 15.7 billion on non-convertible debentures and commercial papers. Nothing new as the company has not been able to meet most of its debt repayment obligations since June 2019, but this was the largest default by the DHFL till date.

DHFL has a total debt liability of Rs 850 bn as of June 19, 2019 (see Table 1), out of which secured loans stood at Rs 749 bn while the rest is unsecured. The company posted a net loss of Rs 22 bn in the fourth quarter of 2018-2019.

Table 1: Key Liabilities of DHFL (as on June 19, 2019)

Source: Business Standard

The company’s lending business has virtually come to a standstill with no fresh disbursements of loans taken place in the last six months. The series of defaults have made it almost impossible for the company to raise new money from the financial markets.

In July, while announcing the fourth-quarter financial results, the company admitted that it is “undergoing substantial financial stress” and its ability to raise funds was “substantially impaired and the business has been brought to a standstill with there being minimal/virtually no disbursements… These developments may raise a significant doubt on the ability of the company to continue as a going concern.”

Of late, DHFL sold its stake in non-core businesses to meet some of its repayment obligations, but it has not been able to find suitable buyers for a majority equity stake in the company. So far, investors have only shown interest in buying portions of its asset portfolio.

Earlier this month, the company approached the consortium of lenders with a resolution plan that includes conversion of debt to equity, a moratorium on repayments, and new credit lines to start fresh lending. The bankers are currently discussing the resolution plan. At present, the Wadhawan family controls DHFL, with a 39.21 percent stake in the company. If the lenders accept the resolution plan, they may also demand to replace the company’s management because in January CobraPost (an online news portal) raised allegations that DHFL created shell companies to divert funds worth Rs 31 bn.

After the IL&FS collapse, DHFL is the second large-sized shadow bank on the verge of bankruptcy. With so much public money at stake, banks, mutual funds, pension funds, and insurance companies are all keen to avoid bankruptcy at debt-ridden DHFL.

A Belated Regulatory Response

In the past two months, several regulatory measures have been announced by the Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of India. Some of the regulatory measures were long overdue. For instance, returning the regulatory authority over the housing finance sector from National Housing Bank to the RBI is a welcome move, provided the staff strength of RBI is suitably increased to undertake both onsite inspections and off-site surveillance of housing finance companies that constitute a major segment of India’s shadow banking sector.

Another notable development is that the RBI is now empowered to remove any director and supersede the board of directors of shadow banks “in the public interest or to prevent the affairs of a nonbanking financial company being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the depositors or creditors, or financial stability or for securing the proper management of such company.”

Besides, the RBI has been given powers to remove or debar auditors if they fail to conduct their role correctly. The financial penalties are also enhanced if the shadow banks don’t implement the regulatory measures.

The RBI has recently canceled registrations of 1,851 shadow banks that could not raise even Rs 20 million to meet the minimum regulatory requirements. One wonders why such entities were permitted to run a shadow bank in the first place?

What about Carrots?

Both the Finance Ministry and the RBI have announced several policy measures to ease liquidity pressure in the shadow banking sector. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen. Amongst others, these include an increase in any bank’s single-exposure limit to a single shadow bank from the existing 15 percent to 20 percent of tier-1 capital; priority sector lending status for credit to shadow banks for on-lending to agriculture, SMEs and housing; and reduced risk-weights for consumer loans.

In her Union Budget speech on July 5, Nirmala Sitharaman, the finance minister, provided a one-time six months’ partial credit guarantee to public sector banks for the first loss of up to 10 percent to purchase high-rated pooled assets from financially sound shadow banks amounting to Rs 1 trillion. It is too early to assess the impact of this measure as its operational guidelines have been issued on August 13, but the fact remains that this one-time facility is only meant for “financially sound” shadow banks. In other words, the least risky shadow banks (such as HDFC and LIC Housing Finance) will benefit from this facility, not the cash-starved weaker entities such as DHFL and Reliance Capital.

On August 23, Finance Minister announced additional liquidity support of Rs 200 bn to housing finance companies to be provided by the National Housing Bank, as part of a stimulus package. The minister also announced that public sector banks (PSBs) would fast track collaborations with shadow banks for loans to SMEs, small traders, and microfinance institutions under the co-origination scheme introduced in last August by the RBI. Under this scheme, shadow banks will take a minimum of 20 percent of the credit risk by way of direct exposure while the co-originating PSB will take the rest of credit risk.

This scheme allows shadow banks to expand their business and thereby book profits with little investments while the PSBs can meet their priority sector targets of lending to such sectors, albeit with higher credit risks. At the time of writing, there is no information available about the volume of loans disbursed under the co-origination scheme. Since there are better and safer options available to the PSBs to achieve priority sector lending targets, they may not be willing to collaborate with ailing shadow banks and thereby accept higher credit risk, unless they are forced to do so by New Delhi.

The Risks of Forced Lending

This policy move begs the question: Why push public sector banks to increase lending to shadow banks? And particularly at a time when the capital-constrained PSBs already have considerable exposure to troubled shadow banks (such as DHFL and Reliance Capital) and are currently struggling to repair their balance sheets from the NPA crisis.

Despite recapitalization, the PSBs don’t have the appetite to take on higher credit risk by lending more to ailing shadow banking sector. Such policy moves would make public sector banks more vulnerable as the potential risks in the shadow banks could spillover to banks. The PSBs account for nearly 70 percent of India’s banking sector and therefore raises potential financial stability concerns.

Rather the strategy should be to ringfencing the current liquidity crisis in the shadow banking sector and thereby preventing the problems spilling over into the Indian banking sector.

In China and elsewhere, the authorities are trying to disentangle the interconnectedness between the shadow banks and commercial banks to ensure the contagion risks arising out a failure of large shadow banks in the banking sector are contained, and the overall financial stability is preserved.

To restore the investors’ confidence, the RBI should undertake the asset quality review of shadow banks to bring out all problems on the fore, similar to what the RBI conducted for commercial banks in 2015.

An inherent problem with the business model of shadow banks is their over-reliance on short-term funding to fund longer-term assets, which creates an asset-liability mismatch and a liquidity problem. To finance infrastructure and long-term industrial projects, New Delhi should set up specialized development finance institutions with explicit public policy mandates and higher standards of transparency and accountability.

*

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 Madhyam.

Featured image is from Madhyam

No nation may legally attack another state preemptively — what US-dominated NATO and Israel do time and again unaccountably.

It’s what aggression is all about — defined by UN General Assembly Res. 3314.

Calling it the “most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force,” the resolution defined aggression as “the (unjustifiable) use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”

The Nuremberg Tribunal called aggression the key offense committed by Nazi war criminals above all others — the supreme international crime.

At the same time, UN Charter Article 51 affirms the right of self-defense if attacked, stating:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

Last weekend, Israeli warplanes preemptively (without just cause) attacked targets in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon on the phony pretext of countering an Iranian threat that doesn’t exist and never did.

The Islamic Republic is the region’s leading peace and stability proponent, never attacking another nation preemptively throughout its history — threatening none except in self-defense if attacked, its legal right.

Last Sunday, Lebanon’s Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah warned of retaliation against Israeli aggression, saying:

“I say to the Israeli army on the border from tonight, stand guard. Wait for us one, two, three, four days.”

“Do not rest. Do not be reassured, and do not bet for a single moment that Hezbollah will allow…aggression of this kind.”

US-dominated NATO and Israel are waging endless regional wars without declaring them. The Netanyahu regime upped the stakes by striking targets in three countries last weekend.

Netanyahu responded to Nasrallah, saying

“I heard what (he) said. I suggest to Nasrallah to calm down. He knows well that Israel knows how to defend itself and to pay back its enemies” — a veiled threat of possible Israeli war on Lebanon, with full US support if occurs.

On Wednesday, unnamed Israeli sources said a crushing blow on Lebanon will follow any Hezbollah retaliation against IDF weekend attacks.

On Tuesday, Reuters claimed Hezbollah intends a “calculated strike” on Israel in response to its last weekend aggression.

An unnamed source was quoted, saying it’s “being arranged in a way which wouldn’t lead to a war that neither Hezbollah nor Israel wants,” adding:

“The direction now is for a calculated strike, but how matters develop, that’s another thing.”

On Tuesday, Lebanon’s Higher Defense Council (including its president, prime minister and army commander) said the nation’s ruling authorities have “the right to defend themselves against any attack.”

Lebanese President Michel Aoun called aggressive Israeli drone strikes on the country a “declaration of war.”

The Fatah Coalition in Iraq’s parliament said the Trump regime is responsible for IDF attacks on the country — “which we consider to be a declaration of war on Iraq and its people.”

Coalition members want all US (occupying) forces out of Iraq. Israel’s attack on the country was its first on its territory since striking Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor under construction in June 1981 near Baghdad.

Israel falsely considers Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Palestinian resistance groups threats to its security. Clearly it’s the other way around.

The US and Israel invent nonexistent threats to unjustifiably justify a state of undeclared war on their enemies.

Though Israel’s IDF capabilities greatly exceed Hezbollah’s military strength, its thousands of missiles and rockets can do considerable damage to Israeli targets if fired in enough numbers.

Nasrallah earlier said

“(t)he  purpose of our (missiles and) rockets (are) to deter Israel from attacking Lebanese civilians,” adding:

“The enemy fears that every time he confronts us, whenever there are victims in our ranks among Lebanese civilians, this will lead to a counter-barrage of our (missiles and) rockets, which he fears.”

With its advanced missiles, Hezbollah is much stronger militarily than during Israel’s 2006 aggression on Lebanon, embarrassing IDF ground forces at the time.

Israel’s aerial capabilities are another matter entirely — posing a major threat to targeted regional nations and two million Gazans, grievously harmed under longterm suffocating blockade, imposed for political reasons, a high crime unchallenged by the world community.

Will Hezbollah retaliate militarily against Israel for last weekend’s IDF attacks?

Despite hundreds of Israeli strikes on Syria, Damascus never retaliated, clearly not wanting greater war on the country than already.

Hezbollah wants regional peace, not war. It’s unclear whether it’ll strike back against last weekend’s Israeli aggression.

Chance for retaliation will be greater if further IDF attacks are launched.

Note: The US and Israel partner in regional aggression. The Trump regime fully supports preemptive IDF attacks on regional targets.

On Sunday, Pompeo and Netanyahu spoke by phone. The State Department said the secretary “expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself from threats posed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (sic) and to take action to prevent imminent attacks against Israeli assets in the region (sic).”

The US faced no geopolitical threats since WW II ended. Israel faced none since end of the October 1973 Yom Kippur war.

So both countries invent them to unjustifiably justify regional aggression.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: President Trump meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York on Sept. 18, 2017. (Screenshot from Whitehouse.gov)

“Cancelling Palestine (Palestinian Authority or Palestinian Territories) from the U.S. State Department’s list is not related to American national interests,” PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat said. 

***

Palestinian officials slammed the United States Sunday for removing it from its list of countries. The U.S. State Department removed the Palestinian Authority (PA) from its list of countries on its website.

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, spokesperson for the PA presidency said that the removal is  “consistent with the ideas of the Israeli extreme Right and an unprecedented descent in American foreign policy.”

He also said that the move by the U.S. “comes in the context of desperate attempts to wipe out the Palestinian cause and people.”

The Palestinians rejected and condemned the move which according to Rudaineh “shows that the US administration is biased in favor of the Israeli occupation.” and it “reflects the content of the so-called American Deal of the Century.”

He also warned that “there will be no peace, security, and stability in the region without the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital on the June 4, 1967 borders.”

The Palestinian Liberation Organization Secretary-General Saeb Erekat also condemned the move.

“Cancelling Palestine (Palestinian Authority or Palestinian Territories) from the U.S. State Department’s list is not related to American national interests,” he said. “The decision aims to support the schemes of the Israeli Council of Settlements.”

The PA severed its ties with the U.S. after President Donald Trump announced Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 2017 and moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018.

“The current US government implements the Israeli vision of destroying the two-state solution and escaping from its entitlements,” the PA Foreign Ministry said in a statement after the latest move by the U.S.

*

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

On August 25^th, 2019, Israel attacked Lebanon. It has done it again.

Just as it attacked Syria, the same night.

RT reported the same day:

“Israeli drone flights were “an open attack on Lebanese sovereignty” and an assault on UN Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, Hariri said on Sunday, just hours after reports of two Israeli UAV incidents in Beirut.

Hariri called the drone incursion a “threat to regional stability and an attempt to increase tensions.”

He said there’s a heavy presence of planes in the airspace over Beirut and its suburbs, adding he will consult with Lebanese President Michel Aoun on what could be done to repel the “new aggression.””

So, what? Really, we have been ‘here’ before, on so many occasions.

PM Hariri is fuming, but he is one of the closest allies of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in the region. In fact, he is a Saudi citizen. Is he going to do anything, like getting into a war with Israel? Never.

Can he actually do anything? No; nothing, even if he would want to. The truth is that practically, he can do absolutely nothing. Not he, nor Lebanon’s President Aoun, or even the Lebanese armed forces. Lebanon has no means with which to repel any Israeli attack. Absolutely no means! The country’s air force is pathetic, consisting of several flying toys, like modified Cessnas, old helicopters, and several A-29 Super Tucanos. That could hardly frighten some of the mightiest and well-trained squadrons in the world – those of the Jewish state.

The bitter and uncomfortable truth is, also, that Israel can basically do anything it desires, at least in this part of the world.

Just a few days ago, I dared to drive, again, from Beirut all the way down to Naqoura, and then, along the Blue Line (‘protected’ by the United Nations), east to Kfarkela.

Now, the repulsive Israeli wall which is scarring one of the most beautiful landscapes in the Middle East, has almost been completed, all along the border. One year ago, the Lebanese government protested, calling it almost an act of war. The Israelis did not care. As always, they did what they wanted. They came right towards the line, or more precisely, at least on several occasions, they crossed the line; and constructed their concrete monstrosity right in front of the eyes of the Lebanese soldiers and the UN personnel. “So, now, what are you going to do?” they were practically saying, without pronouncing it.

Nobody has done anything in retaliation. Zero! Now UNIFIL Indonesian soldiers are taking selfies right in front of the Blue Line, leaning against their armored vehicles, while Hezbollah flags are waving only few meters away from Israel. All this horror show is just some 10 kilometers from the Israeli occupied Syrian territory of the Golan Heights. You can see the Golan Heights easily from here. A few years ago I was there, in the Golan Heights; I ‘smuggled’ myself there, to write a damming report. I learned then, and I am getting more and more confirmation now: Israelis are really great experts at building the walls that are ruining and fragmenting the entire region!

But then and now, nothing that can stop them!

Whatever Israel bombs it gets away with it, no one dares to intervene.

Today as the Israel drones, full of explosives, flew into Lebanon, UN battle ships were docked in the harbor of Beirut. After an explosion rocked a Shi’a neighborhood, damaging the Hezbollah Media Center (which I visited some two years ago), the ships did not even change their position, let alone depart from the harbor in order to defend Lebanon!

So why are these ships there? No one knows. No one asks, obviously.

Here, it is always like that. I drive to a Hezbollah area. There is a private checkpoint. I photograph it. They stop me. A huge guy with a machinegun blocks my way. I jump out of the car, put my hands together: “Do you want to arrest me?” He gets insecure. I ignore him. I drive away. I am pissed off: why not better fight the Israelis and their constant invasions, with such a physique and weaponry?

A friend of mine, a top UN official from the Gulf who doesn’t want to be identified, just told me bitterly:

“There is no condemnation: there is complete silence from the United Nations and from the West.”

Hariri feels obliged to protest, as his nation was attacked. But is he really outraged? Hardly. He hates Syria, he hates Hezbollah.

Lebanon is only united by a few iconic dishes, culinary delights; not by politics.

Is the country ready to defend itself? Hardly. Those who have money are too busy racing their European cars, without mufflers, on potholed streets, or showing their legs in various five-star malls.

The poor people of Lebanon do not matter; they do not exist. Palestinians matter nothing, living and dying, cramped like sardines in repulsive camps with hardly any rights. This has been going on for long decades.

Many Lebanese Christians actually secretly cheer Israel. Or not so secretly… And they are so enamored with everything Western, that, as they told me on several occasions, they would love to be colonized by France, again.

Lebanon is so fragmented by race, religion, social status, that it cannot stand on its feet. Turkish powerplant platforms are providing energy. Infrastructure has collapsed. Filth is everywhere. Cynical corruption consumes everything. But exhibitionism and showing off never stop. Money is there only for hedonistic clubs and sojourns to Nice. Hezbollah is the only institution which cares about the welfare of all Lebanese people; the only force ready to defend the country against foreign interventions. Israel and the West know it. And they are doing all they can to destroy Hezbollah.

Lebanon has become a laughing stock in the region. Like this, it is very difficult to face one of the mightiest militaries on earth.

*

Just a few hours before Lebanon was hit, Israel admitted that its air force hit the Shi’ite militia and Iranian targets in Syria. It declared that it took out “killer drones” prepped by the Quds Force to carry out attacks in Israeli territory.

Israel justifies everything by its ‘defense’. Any outrageous attack, any bombing, is always ‘preventive’. The world has become used to it, by now. The world is doing nothing to stop it.

People die. Many do; annually. So, ‘the Israeli citizens can be safe’. So the West and its allies can control the region, indefinitely.

On August 25^th, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, described the ongoing situation in the Middle East as ‘very, very dangerous’:

“U.S. tries to revive Daesh in Iraq… U.S. helicopters are rescuing Daesh in Afghanistan… “

He spoke about the attack on Lebanon:

“The drones that entered the suburbs at dawn are military aircraft. The first aircraft was a reconnaissance aircraft flying at low altitude to get an accurate picture of the target. We did not shoot down the plane, but some young men threw stones at it before it fell. What happened last night was a suicide drone attack on a target in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Netanyahu would be mistaken if he thinks that this issue can go unnoticed. Lebanon will face a very dangerous situation if this incident goes unaddressed. The dawn suicide attack is the first act of aggression since 14 August 2006. The Lebanese State’s condemnation of what happened and referral of the matter to the Security Council is good, but these steps do not prevent the course of action to be taken. Since 2000, we have allowed Israeli drones for many reasons but no one moved. Israeli drones entering Lebanon are no longer collecting information, but assassinations. From now on, we will face the Israeli drones when they enter the skies of Lebanon and we will work to bring them down. I tell the Israelis that Netanyahu is running with your blood.”

The West and its allies are escalating tensions all over the Middle East. Some say, “war is possible”. Others say “it is imminent”. But it is not just a possibility. There is a war. Everywhere. In Afghanistan and Syria, in Yemen and Iraq. Wherever you look! Even in Lebanon.

*

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

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that penned a number of books, including China and Ecological Civilization. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” 

All images in this article are from NEO

So-called “environmental interventions” might become commonplace as global powers seek excuses to intervene in the domestic affairs of sovereign states in order to seize control of their natural resources.

The entire world has watched in horror over the past week as the Amazon rainforest burns worse than it’s ever done before, or at least that’s the narrative that the Mainstream Media wants the global audience to believe. The storyline is that ranchers have been emboldened by Brazilian President Bolsonaro’s rhetoric about developing the rainforest region and therefore decided to set more fires than ever in order to clear as much land as possible for future cattle ranching and settlement. It’s true that the country’s leader might have inspired some rogue ranchers, who he belatedly decided to blame after first suggesting that left-wing environmental groups were responsible, but that doesn’t explain the media firestorm that’s since commenced and the manipulation of international perceptions in favor of what can only be described as an “environmental intervention” by a select group of global powers.

It’s factually false to assert that these latest fires are unprecedented, as proven by the investigative reporting that Off Guardia’s Catte Black carried out, and Bolsonaro already called out French President Macron for jumping on the bandwagon and misleadingly sharing older photos purporting to be of the most recent fires just like a host of celebrities have done as well. The French leader has taken the lead in trying to assemble international support for putting out this blaze, though he and the rest of his ilk are silent about the much worse fires presently raging all across the Southern African country of Angola right now, strongly suggesting that there are ulterior motives behind their laser-focused interest in the resource-rich Amazon. Macron has already politically instrumentalized the crisis to blackmail Brazil by threatening to block a long-negotiated EU-Mercosur trade deal because of it, showing that he’s not afraid to exploit these fires for his own purposes.

Unwittingly, the possible collapse of EU-Mercosur trade talks would only help the US since it would make it much easier for Trump to clinch a similar pact with the bloc as part of his “Fortress America” vision of reestablishing the US’ hemispheric hegemony if it’s not institutionally tied to the EU. Macron’s EU allies must be aware of this possibility, which might be why Merkel commented that she didn’t think that this move would be an “appropriate response” to what’s happening, further exacerbating ongoing Franco-German divisions driven by the competition between those two countries for leadership of the EU. In any case, it’s clear that foreign powers are trying to take advantage of this crisis to increase their influence over the Amazon basin on the pretext that its forestry resources are much too important to mankind to be allowed to burn uncontrollably. That “publicly plausible” mission statement, for lack of a better word, is a dangerous precedent.

Russia’s vast Siberian region has recently struggled with large-scale fires as well, though mostly thought to be naturally occurring and not the result of rogue ranchers, and could one day become the target of similar “environmental interventions” by the G7 countries (even in the event that Russia returns to the organization). There’s no denying that the Amazonian rainforests and Siberian taiga greatly contribute to producing significant amounts of the world’s oxygen and reducing some of its carbon dioxide, but the question arises of how far other countries should go to ensure that these resources aren’t “naturally” destroyed. Furthermore, it’s fair to ask whether their “environmental interventions” are sincere or driven by ulterior motives, whether political (like with Macron and his Mercosur trade deal statement) or strategic (such as capturing control of these resources). Brazil and Russia are incomparable in terms of their national strength, but it’s possible that the former might be a test case for perfecting “environmental intervention” plots against the latter one day.

As it stands, there isn’t any credible chance that a large-scale “environmental intervention” on par with the “humanitarian interventions” before it is in the cards, but the possibility nevertheless exists for further foreign meddling in Brazil’s sovereign affairs on the pretext that the national government can’t ensure the safety of its globally significant forestry resources. This train of thought mirrors the exact same one utilized by proponents of “humanitarian interventions” whenever they purport that the targeted national government can’t ensure the safety of its civilians so the world therefore has a “Responsibility to Protect” them by whichever means necessary. The dawn of “environmental interventions” is therefore approaching, and they’ll probably be much more commonplace in the coming future as global powers compete for access to dwindling forestry and hydrological resources (both rivers and aquifers) and use whatever excuse they can come up with to rally support for their Machiavellian moves.

*

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.

Brazil has always been a land of superlatives. Yet nothing beats the current, perverse configuration: a world statesman lingers in jail while a clownish thug is in power, his antics now considered a threat to the whole planet.

In a wide-ranging, two-hour, world exclusive interview out of a prison room at the Federal Police building in Curitiba, southern Brazil, former president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva not only made the case to global public opinion for his innocence in the whole Car Wash corruption saga, confirmed by the bombshell leaks revealed by The Intercept, but also repositioned himself to resume his status as a global leader. Arguably sooner rather than later – depending on a fateful, upcoming decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court, for which Justice is not exactly blind.

The request for the interview was entered five months ago. Lula talked to journalists Mauro Lopes, Paulo Moreira Leite and myself, representing in all three cases the website Brasil247 and in my case Asia Times. A rough cut, with only one camera focusing on Lula, was released this past Thursday, the day of the interview. A full, edited version, with English subtitles, targeting global public opinion, should be released by the end of the week.

Asia Times writer Pepe Escobar, front left with scarf, meets Lula in prison. Photo: Editora Brazil 247

Lula is a visible embodiment of Nietzsche’s maxim: whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Fully fit (he hits the treadmill at least two hours a day), sharp, with plenty of time to read (his most recent was an essay on Alexander von Humboldt), he exhibited his trademark breadth, reach and command of multiple issues – sometimes rolled out as if part of a Garcia Marquez fantastic realism narrative.

The former president lives in a three-by-three-meter cell, with no bars, with the door open but always two Federal policemen outside, with no access to the internet or cable TV. One of his aides dutifully brings him a pen drive every day crammed with political news, and departs with myriad messages and letters.

The interview is even more astonishing when placed in the literally incendiary context of current Brazilian politics, actively flirting with a hybrid form of semi-dictatorship. While Lula talks essentials and is clearly recovering his voice, even in jail, President Jair Bolsonaro has framed himself as a target of global indignation, widely regarded as a threat to humanity that must be contained.

It’s all about the Day of Fire

Cut to the G7 in Biarritz: at best a sideshow, a talk-shop where the presumably liberal West basks in its lavish impotence to deal with serious global issues without the presence of leaders from the Global South.

And that brings us to the literally burning issue of Amazon forest fires. In our interview, Lula went straight to the point: by noting the absolute responsibility of Bolsonaro’s voter base.

The G7 did nothing but echo Lula’s words, with French President Emmanuel Macron stressing how NGOs and multiple judicial actors, for years, have been raising the question of defining an international statute for the Amazon – which Bolsonaro’s policies, single-handedly, have propelled to the top of the global agenda.

Yet the G7’s offer of an immediate $20 million aid package to help Amazon nations to fight wildfires and then launch a global initiative to protect the giant forest barely amounts to a raindrop.

[Brazil, after this article was written, rejected the proffered aid from G7 countries, with a top official telling France’s President Macron on Monday to take care of “his home and his colonies,” AFP reported. “Maybe those resources are more relevant to reforest Europe,” Onyx Lorenzoni, Bolsonaro’s chief of staff, told the G1 news website. “Macron cannot even avoid a foreseeable fire in a church that is a World Heritage site. What does he intend to teach our country?” He was referring to the fire in April that devastated the Notre-Dame Cathedral. “Brazil is a democratic, free nation that never had colonialist and imperialist practices, as perhaps is the objective of the Frenchman Macron,” Lorenzoni said. -eds.]

Significantly, US President Donald Trump did not even attend the G7 session that covered climate change, attacks on the biodiversity and oceans – and Amazon deforestation. No wonder Paris simply gave up issuing a joint statement at the end of the summit.

In our interview, Lula stressed his landmark role at the Conference of Parties (COP-15) climate change summit in Copenhagen in 2009. Not only that, he told the inside story of how the negotiations proceeded, and how he intervened to defend China from US accusations of being the world’s largest polluter.

At the time Lula said:

“It’s not necessary to fell a single tree in the Amazon to grow soybeans or for cattle grazing. If anyone is doing it, that is a crime – and a crime against the Brazilian economy.”

COP-15 was supposed to advance the targets established by the Kyoto Protocol, which were expiring in 2010. But the summit failed after the US – and the EU – refused to raise their projections of CO2 reduction while blaming Global South actors.

In a sharp contrast with Lula, Bolsonaro’s project actually amounts to a non-creative destruction of Brazilian assets such as the Amazon for the interests he represents.

Now the Bolsonaro clan is blaming the government’s own Cabinet of Institutional Security (GSI, in Portuguese) – the equivalent of the National Security Council – led by General Augusto Heleno, for failing to evaluate the scope and gravity of the current Amazon forest fires.

Heleno, incidentally, is on record defending a life sentence for Lula.

Still, that does not tell the whole story – even as Bolsonaro himself also kept blaming “NGOs” for the fires.

The real story confirms what Lula said in the interview. On August 10, a group of 70 wealthy farmers, all Bolsonaro voters, organized on WhatsApp a “Day of Fire” in the Altamira region in the vast state of Pará.

This happens to be the region with the highest number of wildfires in Brazil – infested with aggressive rural developers who are devoted to massive, hardcore deforestation; they’re invested in land occupation and a no-quarter war against landless peasants and small agricultural producers. “Day of Fire” was supposed to support Bolsonaro’s drive to finish off with official monitoring and erase fines over one of the “Bs” of the BBB lobby that elected him (Beef, Bullet, Bible).

Lula was evidently well informed:

“You just need to look at the satellite photos, know who’s the landowner and go after him to know who’s burning. If the landowner did not complain, did not go to the police to tell them his land was burning, that’s because he’s responsible.”

On the road with the Pope

A vicious, post-truth, hybrid-war strategy may be at play in Brazil. Two days after the Lula interview, a fateful paella took place in Brasilia at the vice-presidential palace, with Bolsonaro meeting all the top generals including Vice President Hamilton Mourao. Independent analysts are seriously considering a working hypothesis of the sell-out of Brazil using global concern about the Amazon, the whole process veiled by fake nationalist rhetoric.

That would fit the recent pattern of selling the national aviation champion Embraer, privatizing large blocks of pre-salt reserves and leasing the Alcantara satellite-launching base to the United States. Brazilian sovereignty over the Amazon is definitely hanging in the balance.

Considering the wealth of information in Lula’s interview, not to mention his storytelling of how the corridors of power really work, Asia Times will publish further specific stories featuring Pope Francis, the BRICS, Bush and Obama, Iran, the UN and global governance. This was Lula’s first interview in jail where he has felt relaxed enough to relish telling stories about international relations.

What was clear is that Lula is Brazil’s only possible factor of stability. He’s ready, has an agenda not only for the nation but the world. He said that as soon as he leaves, he’ll hit the streets – and cash in frequent flyer miles: he wants to embark alongside Pope Francis on a global campaign against hunger, neoliberal destruction and the rise of neo-fascism.

Now compare a true statesman in jail with an incendiary thug roaming his own labyrinth.

*

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 Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

It is possible that Abe’s Korea bashing is a part of his ambition of restoring the pre-1945 Japan where Shintoism ruled the body and the mind of the Japanese people.

Under Shintoism, the Japanese were united, or forced to be united in order to win “the holy war of liberating Asia from domination of the West.”

Shintoism along with Bushido is gaining its force and expands its influence in Japan.  

Shintoism is the ideological roots for the Association of Shinto and the “Japan Conference” which are the most conservative political forces in Japan trying to restore the Meiji era’s Shintoist military empire. 

This should not happen, because, if it happens, democracy will be gone in Japan and the dark clouds of war will cover once again the sky of Asia.

In this paper, I will first discuss the origin and the nature of Shintoism and then, I will examine the possibility of restoring it under the conservative governments. Finally, I will argue that Abe and his friends should not even dream of using Shintoism for their dangerous ambition to dominate East Asia either through military power or economic manipulation.

1. Origin and Nature of Shintoism 

The widely spread religion in Japan has been Shintoism which means “the way of god”. This is a folk belief practiced for centuries by the Japanese people. It is a sort of shamanism in which everything can be god: sky, moon, trees, rocks, flowers, rivers, mountains and so on.

However, Japanese shamanism has been much influenced by Daoism, Buddhism and Confucianism in such a way that it has been playing key roles in forming Japanese mentality and culture.

For instance, self-discipline, order and strictly vertical structure of human relationships are some of the influences of these three religions or philosophies which came from China and went to Japan through Korea.

Shintoism is practiced in Shinto shrines led by Shinto priests. Shinto congregation is organized as parish; the number of parish members can vary from shrine to shrine and from time to time. Also, in many cases, Shintoism is practiced at home through miniature shrine hanged on the wall or placed on the shelf.

God knows how many shrines there were before 1945, the year of the end of State Shinto. But in 2017, there were 80,000 Shinto shrines in cities, towns, villages, mountains and other places.

The most important Shinto shrine is the Ise Shrine where the goddess, Amaterasu is worshiped; it is the most sacred shrine in Japan.

The Japanese believe that the founder of Japan was Amaterasu Omikami meaning “the great (omi) goddess or god (kami). The Japanese people believe that the emperors are direct liner descendants of the goddess, Amaterasu.

The golden era of Japanese Shintoism was the era of the Meiji Restoration which began in 1867 with the crowning of Emperor Meiji and which ended in 1912 with his death.

Emperor Meiji was the most remarkable, powerful and successful Japanese emperor. It was Emperor Meiji (image on the right) who made Japan free from the rule of Shogunate which began in 1602 with Tokugawa Ieyasu, four years after the retreat of the defeated Toyotomi Hideyoshi‘s army from Korea.

Emperor Meiji was perhaps the only emperor who not only reigned but also ruled Japan for half a century; he was the emperor who transformed the feudal Japan into the most industrialized, the most modernized and the richest and the most militarily powerful in Asia.

The government of Meiji needed an absolute authority needed for the unity, discipline and the absolute loyalty of the Japanese people. Well, Shintoism provided the means to meet such needs. Japan needed a god that can rule all other gods; such god was the emperor.

The deity of the emperor meant two things in people’s mind. First, the emperor was god; so, the people must worship and obey him. Second, self sacrifice, especially the death for the emperor-god was the ultimate honour and even salvation of the people.

In short, Shintoism during the Meiji era and post-Meiji period until the end of WWII was a powerful religion.

One of the most productive policies undertaken by Emperor Meiji was the consolidation and integration of Shinto types into an official State Religion.

In 1871, Meiji established the Ministry of Rites which appointed Shinto priest as civil servants and divided Shinto shrines into many classes on the top of which was the Ise Shrine dedicated to goddess Amaterasu, symbol of divine legitimacy of the emperor.

In 1872, the Ministry of Rites was replaced by the Ministry of Religion.

In 1890, the Meiji government issued the Imperial Prescript on Education inspired by Shintoism; the students were required ritually recite the oaths: “offer myself to the State as well as to protect the imperial family.” This lasted until 1945.

From 1942 to 1945, I was a student at a Japanese Normal School which was a specialized school for future teachers of primary school. The school was located in the city of Chunchon, Korea.

We had to repeat every day the Shinto ritual, as did the students in Japan. Early in the morning every day, we had to go to a government-run Shinto shrine where we had to wash our hands and mouth before passing through the line beyond which the ground was sacred.

Inside the hall of prayer, we prayed for the glory of the emperor, the victory of Japan and pledged our lives to save Japan and the emperor.

Being well brainwashed, I almost believed, like many other young students in Korea and Japan that the emperor was a living god.

At school, we went through another kind of Shinto rituals. Every morning, there was a ceremony which consisted in the principal’s reading of a long declaration of the Pacific War justifying the sacred war.

Monday morning every week, we attended what was called “Sushin” class which was intended to glorify our sacrifice for the emperor and intensify our hatred against Americans.

We were taught that North Americans were uncivilized, they were cruel; they had no tears, they had no family life.

In short, the brainwashing process of Shintoism had the following psychological outcomes.

First, the State Shinto made Japanese people to believe in the beauty of dying for the emperor.

Second, it made them feel superior to all others races for the reason of being the people of emperor-god. Here we see the origin of Japan’s unhealthy racism.

In fact, I remember how Japan classified the world population. Japan made a long list of races and peoples in a vertical hierarchy in terms of importance and quality.

On the top of the list were, of course, the Japanese; the rest were servants serving the Japanese; Koreans were supposed to be number one servants”.

Third, since the western powers being the enemy of the emperor, they deserved Japanese people’s hatred.

Shintoism has greatly contributed to the whole mobilization of body and mind of the Japanese people not only for the preparation but also the conduct of Japan’s annexation of Korea, its conquest of Manchuria, its invasion of China and its attack against Pearl Harbour.

There was another quasi-religious culture which even strengthened Shintoism, namely the tradition of Bushido (the code of Samurai) There were several codes, but the most important code was the total sacrifice of oneself for the glory of the master, the emperor.

Bushido has transformed Shintoism into a weapon more powerful than any other military weapons.

For instance, the “glorious sacrifice” of the kami-kazé pilots was regarded by the Japanese as the ultimate Shintoist gesture.

Then, there was the notion of “Hakko-Ichiu” (see Joseph H. Chung. Korea-Japan Trade Plus War: Where Are You Going Mr. Shinzo Abe? Global Research, July 18, 2019)

This expression means eight continents (Hakko) under one roof (Ichiu). The roof is Japan. This implies that the whole world should be under the domination of one nation, which is, obviously, Japan.

We can imagine easily what can come out of the combination of Shintoism and Hakko-Ichiu.

Image below: Japanese pilots who gathered under the flag of Hakkō ichiu during the Pacific War (Source: Public Domain)

The wars conducted by Japan before 1945 were the Hakko-Ichiu holy wars of “liberating Asia from the domination of the West.” At least, this was what the war-time Japanese leaders seemed to believe; even some of the contemporary conservative leaders led by Abe seem to share the same view.

In fact, the Tanaka Memorial of 1927 and the concept of the East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of 1940 were the concrete manifestation of Hakko-Ichiu war.

According to this Tanaka Memorial, Japan’s world conquest should proceed in steps.

First target was Korea which was important for Japan; Korea was the bridge to Manchuria and China, even to Russia; Korea was a buffer zone offering to Japan defensive advantages.

In fact, Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s army attacked Korea in the period, 1592-1598, because Korea refused to be used as the bridge for the Japanese army’s plan to invade China.

South Korea played well the role of Japan’s buffer zone in the 1950s preventing the spread of communism before the Korea War.

The second target was Manchuria. In 1931, units of Japanese army disguised as Chinese soldiers exploded a part of railway near Mukden City in Manchuria in order to justify the invasion of undefended Manchuria.

The third target of the Hakko-Ichiu war was China. In 1937, near the Bridge Marco Polo not far from the city of Nanjing, the powerful Japanese army attacked a small Chinese army unit under the pretext of saving a Japanese soldier who was enjoying himself somewhere near the bridge. The Japanese army justified its attack accusing the Chinese unit for alleged kidnapping of the Japanese soldier

The fourth target of the holy war was the brutal attack in 1941 against Pearl Harbour without a declaration of war.

The Tanaka Plan failed.

But we can imagine, with shiver, how the Shintoism-inspired holy war of Hakko-Ichiu could have enslaved Asia, if Japan did win the Pacific war. 

In short, Shintoism along with Japan’s faith in Hakko-Ichiu has led Japan to engage in wars for half a century during which the Japanese people had to go through physical suffering including inhuman starvation and constant psychological trauma of the war.

The Hakko-Ichiu holy war that was inspired and guided by Shintoism ended in 1945.

Because of this war, tens of millions of human beings were killed; countless innocent women including teenage fragile girls were raped; civilizations built for centuries were destroyed and the worst kind of violation of human rights was committed.

For whom was this holy war? Surely it was not for the Japanese people.

The war was for a few who benefited from the war including some political leaders misguided by wrong perceptions of Japan’s destiny, some military leaders who sought for glory in the battle ground and some greedy corporations which wanted to make money by producing murderous weapons..

The Japanese people have not forgotten the misery of this war; they want to never see again the Hakko-Ichiu war; they want peace; they may never obey again the war-loving misleading leaders.

2. Abe’s Plan for the Restoration of Shintoism-Inspired Imperial Japan

Yet, a group of ultraconservative political leaders led by Shinzo Abe have been trying to restore Shintoism and Bushido.

There is the Shinto Association of Spiritual Leadership (Shinto Seiji Renmei) founded in 1969; it is becoming more and more visible and influential.

Most of the ultraconservative politicians are members of this Association.

Abe visits every year the Ise Shinto Shrine which is dedicated to the goddess Amaterasu. He hosted in 2016 the G7 meeting near the Shrine. Abe held one of his cabinet meetings at the same Shrine.

Keiji Furuya, one of the most outspoken ultraconservatives in Japan joined the Association, so did Abe. More than 300 members of the Japanese parliament are member of the Shinto Association.

The Shinto Association is one of the most powerful political lobby groups in favour of the revival of the Shintoism-dominated military empire of Japan.

The members of the Shinto Association are also members of the Japan Conference (Nippon Kaigi). The Japan Conference is a terribly powerful ultraconservative political organization fighting for the restoration of the Meiji era. More than 80% of Abe’s ministers are its members.

Just imagine how the combined forces of the Shinto Association and the Japan Conference can easily change the destiny of Japan.

Former director of the Shino Association was quoted to have said: he was claiming for the restoration of the divinity of the emperor.

“In Japan, policies were adapted weakening the relationship between the imperial household and the people and the fundamental elements of Japanese history were not taught at schools.” (Michael Holtz, Christian Science Monitor, October 5, 2015)

Another alarming sign is the return of Bushido. The book by Masahiko Fujiwara, “Dignity of a Nation”, one of the bestsellers advocates the revival of Bushido (Way of Samurai).

Bushido has had a long process of evolution, but the Bushido since the Meiji era until the end of WWII, has meant absolute loyalty to the emperor, the belief in the glory of death for the emperor and even suicide in the form of “harakiri” or “seppuku”, one of the most brutal and torturing way of killing oneself; harakiri is a ritual suicide to punish oneself for the failure of performing the given duty.

A friend of mine told me about the collective harakiri of a whole company of the defeated Japanese army in Shanghai in 1946; they knelt toward the imperial palace in Tokyo and cut opened their belly and died for their responsibility of losing the war.

In fact, Bushido is a part of Shintoism; the kind of Shintoism which Abe might have in mind could be the culture of “banzai suicide attack” (banzai means long live emperor) which the world saw with horror time after time during WWII. What Bushido does is to make Shintoism more militant and more aggressive. A Bushido-man would say:

“It is shameful for man to die without risking his life in battle!”

3. Feasibility of Abe’s Plan for the Restoration of Shintoism-Inspired Imperial Japan 

All indicate that Shintoism is coming back. The interesting question is whether the return of Shintoism will remain as cultural and religious phenomenon or lead to the restoration of the Shintoist military imperial Japan.

It seems to be more than possible that Abe and his friends dream for the restoration of the Shintoist military imperial empire.

However, to restore the Shintoist military imperial regime, Abe must amend the Peace Constitution.

To do so, he must do the following:

• First Abe’s LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) must have permanent control of political power.
• Second, LDP needs two-third of votes in both houses of the Diet in favour of the constitutional amendment.
• Third, at the popular referendum, LDP must get a majority votes in favour of constitutional amendment.

Abe’s LDP is sure of keeping power for good. There are several factors which allow LDP to remain in power for more than 60 years including the tripartite collusion of politics-business-civil service, corruption deriving from such collusion, rural biased electoral system and the proliferation of small political parties.

And the local private political support group (Koenkai) is perhaps one of the most effective factors responsible for the permanent ruling of Abe’s friends.

Through this system, the electoral campaign never stops. The trouble is that the management of Koenkai is expensive, but the ultra-conservatives never lack money because of their collusion with rich business friends.

The amendment of the Peace Constitution is like to be achieved eventually. If needed, Abe’s group can buy the votes in the upper house.

To get the majority of referendum votes, LDP will continue to silence the opposition voices, intensify Korea bashing in order to intensify anti-Korea culture in Japan and create a climate of fear making easier to convince the people of the need for militarily strong Japan.

On the other hand, there are factors for the possible failure of Abe’s dream.

It is true that the Japanese people are well known to be docile and respect authority. But, they are likely to reject Abe’s leadership for two reasons.

To begin with, the Japanese people will not tolerate Japan getting into once again into the folly of making wars; they suffered so much and so long from the holy war of Shintoist Japan.

Moreover, the Japanese people are not happy with Abenomics. In fact, according to a NHK survey in 2016, more hat 75% of them say that they have not benefited from Abenomics.

In other words, because of the Japanese people’s hatred for war and disappointment with Abe’s economic policy, LDP might have some difficulty of having the majority vote for the constitutional amendment at the referendum.

But what will happen, if Abe will get the majority votes at the referendum and gets the right to invade other countries?

It is not impossible that Abe might have the ambition of following the Tanaka memorial of 1927. If this happens, East Asia might once again go through the nightmare of war and destruction

But I hope that the Abe and his ultraconservative friends wake up from their out-of-date dream, think for the welfare of the ordinary people in Japan, remain peaceful country and work together with Korea, ASEAN countries and China for the security and the prosperity of the region and the world.

*

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

Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co-director of the East Asia Observatory (OAE) of the Study Center for Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Throughout Israel’s history, its ruling authorities have been responsible for virtually every form of indignity, degradation, barbarity, and other high crimes of war and against humanity imaginable.

Palestinians suffered most from the theft of 78% of their historic homeland in 1948, the remainder in June 1967 — living under brutalizing military occupation since that time, their fundamental rights lost under apartheid ruthlessness.

Supporters of peace, equity, and justice accused Israel of daily high crimes against the Palestinian people, including cold-blooded murder and other forms of state terror.

Israel gets away with mass murder and much more because the world community fails to hold it accountable, the US most of all — both countries partnering in each other’s high crimes.

Last week, Alison Weir’s If Americans Knew blog explained that surviving veterans of the USS Liberty June 1967 attack by Israel are banned from attending an American Legion National Convention.

Its website claims it’s committed “to helping our fellow veterans, service members and their families.”

No mention was made of blackballed USS Liberty vets — “the most decorated (ones) since World War II, (because of their) extraordinary record of heroism, Weir explained, adding:

“Legion personnel have repeatedly treated Liberty veterans, their families, and their friends with arrogance, disrespect, and even disdain that many feel demeans these American servicemen, their ship, their service to their country, and the memory of their 34 fellow crewmembers who never returned.”

On June 8, 1967, during Israel’s preemptive Six-Day War, an act of aggression, against regional Arab states planned years in advance, IDF pilots and navy attack boats provocatively struck the USS Liberty intelligence gathering ship, about 25.5 nautical miles northwest of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula in international waters.

The incident took 34 US lives, another 171 wounded, the vessel severely damaged, lucky to stay afloat.

It was deployed to monitor belligerents’ communications in response to Israeli aggression on Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq – not the other way around.

Israeli leaders and generals explained long after the fact that the Jewish state was unthreatened at the time.

In 1972, IDF chief General Haim Barlev said:

“We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”

In 1978, IDF air force General Mordechai Hod said:

“Sixteen years of planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan. We slept on the plan. We ate the plan.  Constantly we perfected it.”

Knowing it faced no regional threats, Israel preemptively and aggressively attacked four nonbelligerent Arab states and its key US ally without just cause.

It was no accidental IDF attack on the USS Liberty. Israel knew the ship’s identity, its US flag clearly visible. Good weather conditions made it easy to spot.

Israeli warplanes circled overhead before attacking, at times low enough for US sailors to wave to its pilots.

They waved back before opening fire with rockets, machine guns, and napalm terror-bombs against the lightly armed vessel.

Parts of the deck were set ablaze. Torpedoes launched from IDF boats caused a 40-foot-wide hole in its hull, flooding lower compartments, causing the ship to list 10 degrees, a defenseless smoking hulk, lucky to avoid sinking.

The ship’s radio frequencies were jammed to prevent a distress call for help. When finally able to communicate, it was too late. The damage was done, the human toll testimony to Israeli viciousness.

Israel willfully attacked the US with impunity to this day, the incident officially buried down what Orwell called the “Memory Hole.”

USS Liberty survivors are treated like nonperson enemies of state by the American Legion and US war department. They were supposed to die, not live, to silence them.

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Thomas Moorer minced no words, saying:

“Those men were…betrayed and left to die by our own government.”

US navy signalman on the vessel Joe Meadors posted the following on the USS Liberty Veterans’ Association blog on what its survivors were told, saying:

“You will not discuss the attack with anyone. Once the Court of Inquiry findings are released you will not contradict them.”

“This order will remain in effect after you are discharged from the Navy. If you violate this order you will be prosecuted and will spend a considerable amount of time in a Federal Prison.”

“This order was repeated every day at quarters while we were in drydock in Malta.”

“If anyone tells of witnessing the deliberate machine gunning of our life rafts in the water, he runs the risk of doing time in a Federal prison.”

“If anyone tells of witnessing the use of unmarked aircraft or of the jamming of our radios on both US Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies, he runs the risk of doing time in a Federal prison.”

“We cannot talk about this among ourselves. We cannot talk about this with our family. We cannot talk about this with any counselor. We cannot talk about this at a meeting of any veterans group we may become involved with.”

“We cannot talk about this with our Congressional Delegation. We cannot talk about this at The American Legion National Convention.”

“We cannot talk about this with anyone. If we do, we risk Federal prison.”

“But we defy the Federal Government and speak about the attack anywhere we can.”

“But now we cannot talk about it at The American Legion National Convention.”

The organization “has a long record of trying to stifle USS Liberty survivors in our effort to tell the story of what happened on a US Navy ship.”

Alison Weir’s If Americans Knew and others on the right side of history won’t let this story die.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Does anyone remember what the Mueller investigation was all about? It was to determine whether the team surrounding candidate and then president-elect Donald Trump had colluded with a foreign power, presumed to be Russia.

It did not discover any such collaboration to get Trump elected president, but it did discover a foreign nation that had directly intervened with key players surrounding president-elect Trump to get them to do it a favor. That country was Israel, but somehow the media never quite managed to pull it all together even if leading public intellectual Noam Chomsky was able to, saying

“…if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies…”

This is how Jewish power works on behalf of the Jewish state. It is done right out in the open, at least if one knows where to look, and it operates by what the intelligence community would refer to as misdirection. That means that you never talk about Israel itself, except in a positive, laudatory fashion, you never mention Jewish power in America, and, finally, you have in reserve some fabricated threats that can be surfaced to dominate discussion and render Israel’s malign activity invisible.

Currently, the Russian threat is the enemy du jour. Even though we now know that “Russiagate” never existed in any serious form, it continues to be hyped by both the Democratic Party and by the accommodating media as the over-the-horizon threat to American democracy. It is now being claimed, minus any real evidence, that the Kremlin has a plan to ruin the upcoming 2020 election by way of nationwide tampering with the voting machines and the electronic tallying procedures. Oddly enough, the states, where the voting actually takes place, have not noticed any attempted Russian interference. As the story goes, if the Russians are successful, no one will have any confidence in the results and the American republican experiment will collapse in ruins.

No one is, of course, asking why Moscow would want to change a United States that, for all its power, is so politically inept and corrupt from top to bottom that it found itself unable to stage a coup in Venezuela. If the U.S. government collapses, it might well be replaced by something more authoritarian and, dare I say, more efficient, that would certainly pose a greater threat to Russia, so why would Putin want that?

Nevertheless, many people who should know better are hyping the threat. I sometimes peruse the Defense One website, a warmhearted place funded by defense contractors where all those people who want to blow up the world can share bon mots and grin about all the money they are making.

Last week I noted a particularly loathesome article on the site “Here’s what foreign interference will look like in 2020,” written by one Uri Friedman, who I presume to be – inevitably – an Israeli. Uri is very upset about all those evil countries that will be/might be interfering in the election, to include Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea and the United Arab Emirates – though he does exclude the one country that is most likely to interfere, which is, of course, Israel. Uri is described as a “a senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the Global Channel.” The Atlantic is in fact a media black hole, where all semi-literate journos of a globalist persuasion go to die.

Uri begins with the sub-headline,

“The incentives for foreign countries to meddle are much greater than in 2016, and the tactics could look dramatically different”

followed by:

“Russia is ‘doing it as we sit here.’ This stray line, buried in seven hours of testimony on Capitol Hill, wasn’t just Robert Mueller’s way of rebutting the charge that his investigation into the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 presidential election amounted to a two-year, $32 million witch hunt. It was also a blunt message to the lawmakers arrayed before him, the journalists hunting for a bombshell, and the millions of Americans monitoring the proceedings: We’re all here fighting the last war, when we really should be bracing ourselves for the coming one. The Russians ‘expect to do it during the next campaign,’ the special counsel continued, and ‘many more countries are developing capability to replicate’ Moscow’s model.”

Friedman states that “It’s unclear whether the Russian government will reprise most infamous and innovative act in 2016: the hacking and leaking of emails from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign” before moving on to the details of Moscow’s alleged subversion. He considers all allegations about Russia to be truthful even when they were never proven. The Democratic National Committee never cooperated with the FBI after their supposed hack, but instead used their own very suspect firm to do the investigation. And the Mueller investigation took that report at face value in spite of the company’s very clear conflict of interest.

That about sums up Friedman’s rather lengthy and convoluted argument, though he does omit any consideration of how many foreign elections the United States government acting through its intelligence agencies interferes in each year. Or indeed how much CIA Director John Brennan and the FBI’s James Comey themselves interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton. But he does speculate that

“This is the shoe that didn’t drop in 2016. A Senate Intelligence Committee report released in July found that while there’s no evidence that votes were altered or vote tallies manipulated during the past U.S. presidential election, the Russians likely targeted election systems in all 50 U.S. states, including research on ‘election-related web pages, voter ID information, election system software, and election service companies.’ In a couple of cases, the Russians succeeded in breaching state election infrastructure. Among the theories aired in the report about Moscow’s motivations is that it was cataloging ‘options or clandestine actions, holding them for use at a later date.’”

In other words, Friedman actually concedes that Russia didn’t do anything and the evidence that it is planning an attack for 2020 is thin to non-existent. But here in the United States, other foreign agents are hard at work to remove the two Muslim women elected to the House of Representatives in 2018 “for Jewish reasons.”

Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss reports how the tale of powerful Detroit region-based Jews raising money and pulling in political markers to try to defeat Rep. Rashida Tlaib has been circulating on the web. Per Weiss, Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported on a gathering of Jewish power brokers in Detroit three weeks ago, arranged by a leading Jewish organization, at which they vowed to raise money to get rid of Tlaib because she supports a boycott of Israel. Tlaib is a Muslim woman and is a U.S. born and raised Palestinian-American.

Tlaib responded to the story on twitter:

“This type of hate never succeeds when the truth is on our side. Palestinians *are* dehumanized. Those who want to suppress the truth by trying to discredit me can #bringit. My sidy [grandmother in Palestine] taught me of the days where everyone lived side by side in peace & that is what I will fight for.”

This type of hate never succeeds when the truth is on our side. Palestinians *are* dehumanized. Those who want to suppress the truth by trying to discredit me can #bringit. My sidy taught me of the days where everyone lived side by side in peace & that is what I will fight for. https://t.co/7ff94O9VmH

— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) August 8, 2019

The meeting was held at Bloomfield Hills Michigan branch office of the Jewish Federation, the largest Jewish group in the United States. It included many local Jewish leaders and potential political donors who are clearly not bothered by dual loyalty, but it did not appear to include anyone who actually lives in Tlaib’s district. Nevertheless, consensus was quickly established that “the Palestinian-American freshman in the 13th District [Tlaib] has got to go.”

One participant declared “We in this community will go against Rashida Tlaib” while another described how there had already been an approach to Brenda Jones, the Detroit City Council president, who had been defeated in 2018 by Tlaib. Money was being raised for her campaign, according to another participant.

The thinking in the room was that the African-American community in the 13th Congressional District would support a single black candidate — likely Jones — and that candidate would also be able to draw on considerable pro-Israel support for funding and favorable media coverage.

There was some pushback, with a rabbi telling Kampeas that a Jewish organized effort to remove Tlaib would be “catastrophic.” He observed that it would be such an open and blatant demonstration of Jewish power that it would be a major setback to the effort to keep younger, more liberal Jews, who are suspicious of power politics, engaged.

The rabbi was being naïve. Removing politicians who are not fully on board with the Israel agenda is normal practice and has been for many years. Just ask Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy or Congressmen Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, and Cynthia McKinney. Criticizing Israel means not being reelected to Congress next time around, and it is not because Israel is greatly loved by voters. It is because Jewish-American citizens who are protective of Israel are willing to organize and collect money to support alternative candidates in any congressional district in the country, even where they do not reside, just as they plan on doing to Tlaib. Their goal is to defeat anyone who dares to say anything against Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang of war criminals or, even worse, suggest that Palestinians just might be human beings and might actually have rights.

Israel has the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington but it operates as freely as it does by pretending that it has no power at all, that American involvement in the Middle East is driven by U.S. interests. That is complete nonsense and has been so for over fifty years as the Lobby has tightened its grip. Until more congressmen like Rashida Tlaib get elected and begin to speak out, the corrupt status quo will, unfortunately, continue to prevail.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

In their hunger for US funding, Nicaraguan “human rights” NGO’s inflated the death toll during last year’s coup. Today, these groups are in a state of complete disarray.

***

When political conflict results in people being killed – especially at the hands of a government – the deaths are not just personal tragedies, they become fodder for that government’s foes. This dynamic unfolded during last year’s attempted coup in Nicaragua, when the opposition tried and failed to bring down the elected government of President Daniel Ortega through a nationwide campaign of protest and violent sabotage.

When the regime change attempt was finally halted in July 2018, the opposition alleged through a triad of “human rights” NGO’s that the government had killed anywhere from 325 to 500 protesters.

This death toll was repeated in practically every international media report, on the floor of the US Congress, and in the halls of the Organization of American States, all to drum up support for sanctioning the Nicaraguan government.

The Guardian was among papers that reported now-discredited death counts without a shred of skepticism.

But a year later, the ‘human rights’ outfits whose reports generated these numbers have started to fall apart. And as their US funding dries up, their former staffers have begun to reveal the truth about their dubious data.

The Grayzone reported last month on the dramatic break-up of the Nicaragua Association for Human Rights (ANPDH), an opposition NGO whose board of directors confessed to exaggerating the death toll in order to rake in more US government money.

In a press conference this July that was totally ignored by corporate media, ANPDH ex-director Gustavo Bermúdez accused his former boss, Álvaro Leiva, of having “inflated the death toll.” Bermúdez said,

“We personally asked him where you got that figure; a friend called me saying to please get his grandmother who died of a heart attack off the list of people who were supposedly victims of the repression.”

But ANPDH group is only one part of a sizable human rights industry in Nicaragua that has functioned as a weapon of regime-change, putting politics over professionalism in order to secure their maximalist goals. And now that the coup they participated in has failed, their network is collapsing and their directors are positioned in a circular firing squad.

The opposition’s propaganda machine

Until recently, three local bodies claimed to monitor human rights, all doing so with foreign funding. Their work complimented regular reports by international bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW), and frequent interventions by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the UN Commission for Human Rights (UNCHR). Meanwhile, the Nicaraguan government operated own human rights office. Though the international bodies have enormous resources, the three small local bodies have had a disproportionate influence on them.

The oldest local NGO, the Permanent Commission on Human Rights (CPDH for its initials in Spanish) dates from before Nicaragua’s 1979 revolution, and receives funding from the US regime-change outfit, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). For its part, the Nicaragua Association for Human Rights (ANPDH) was set up in Miami with $3 million from the Reagan administration in the 1980s, with the aim of whitewashing the violence of the US-backed ‘Contra’ forces that were attempting to overthrow the Sandinista government. The third of these opposition NGO’s is CENIDH, or the Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights. This group was set up with European funding in 1990, and is headed by an ex-FSLN member, Vilma Nuñez de Escorcia, who is one of the founders of the opposition MRS party.

None of these three bodies have made any attempt at political neutrality. Indeed, all were opposed to the Sandinista government well before last year’s coup attempt. But when the overthrow attempt began last April, they became a key part of the opposition’s propaganda machine.

CENIDH and ANPDH, in particular, published regular reports whose bias is made obvious by the language: CENIDH, for example, referred to the Nicaraguan government, elected in 2016, as the ‘dictatorial regime’ of Daniel Ortega and (vice-president) Rosario Murillo. This group’s initial report, issued on May 4, immediately exaggerated the numbers of deaths by recording six fatalities on the first day of the violence (April 19), all but one attributed to the government, when in fact there were only three: a police officer, a Sandinista defending a town hall from attack, and an uninvolved bystander. By late July, CENIDH’s fifth report logged 302 deaths, all attributed to “state terrorism.”

By the same date, ANPDH was reporting no less than 448 deaths in ‘civic protests’, a figure repeated by the BBC, MSN, news sources across the West and the United Nations Human Rights Council. By early September, ANPDH’s death count had reached 481, of which 455 were listed as “homicides.” 

ANPDH director Álvaro Leiva categorized the deaths with remarkable confidence and specificity: 152 died in “random executions,” Leiva claimed, while 116 were killed in “planned executions,” 86 in “disproportionate” clashes between government forces and civilians, 57 in “selective executions,” 36 deaths “appear to be planned and executed by hooded and armed paramilitaries,” and only eight were unexplained. By the end of the same month in which there was very little violence, ANPDH’s death toll – all blamed on the government – had reached 512. According to ANPDH, a further 1,300 people had “disappeared.”

By early July last year, the accounts published by the ‘human rights’ bodies had already started to unravel. Enrique Hendrix, a resident of Managua, went systematically through the death counts to produce a report he called Monopolizing death: Or how to frame a government by inflating a list of the dead.

By identifying each victim, he was able to spot double-counting and in most cases, determine the real cause of death. Hendrix found, for example, that CENIDH’s list included a suicide, traffic accidents and various duplications or unexplained deaths. Of the 167 deaths included in their early reports, just 31% (51 people) were actually protesters who had died in the conflict. In the case of ANPDH, which by that stage had logged 285 deaths, only 20% (58) were confirmed as protesters. A report released weeks later by the Nicaraguan National Assembly’s Truth Commission also found a huge gap between ANPDH’s figures and the real number of deaths arising from the conflict.

International “human rights” bodies echo opposition disinformation

Following the publication of Amnesty International’s unbalanced and poorly researched investigations of last year’s violence, a group of local researchers responded with a report called Dismissing the Truth. This paper examined in detail the casualty lists produced by the ‘human rights’ bodies relating to the central zone of Nicaragua, where considerable violence occurred in and around the roadblocks set up by the opposition and guarded by people with weapons.

Through a case-by-case examination, the researchers found that of the 16 reported deaths that were confirmed as conflict-related, 15 were killed as the result of opposition action (the victims consisted of five police officers, six government supporters or workers, and five unaffiliated citizens). For the 16th and final conflict-related death, responsibility was undetermined, and possibly was the result of crossfire.

In addition to these 16 deaths, ANPDH reported another 18 which, on investigation, were clearly not a result of the conflict. Causes of death included fights between armed opposition activists at roadblocks (e.g. over money), robberies, a road accident and two cases where names were duplicated. In other words, more than half the deaths recorded by ANPDH were wrongly attributed to the conflict. Nevertheless, ANPDH gave the impression that all 34 deaths resulted from government violence, when the evidence showed that only one possibly did so.

Shockingly, evidence of malpractice and outright mendacity by by local “human rights” bodies was largely ignored by the international bodies monitoring the casualties from last year’s conflict. The first report by the Organization of American States’ Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) listed 212 deaths, but Hendrix found only 25% of those (52 deaths) were actual protesters. Nor did IACHR identify deaths which were opposition killings, thus giving the same impression as the local bodies that all, or most, of the deaths it counted were attributable to government repression.

By September, Amnesty International had pushed the death toll to 322, claiming that “most [occurred] at the hands of state agents.” It based its allegation on the counts by IACHR and the local bodies. Amnesty’s second report on the conflict absurdly condemned the government for “challenging the information put forward by human rights organizations,” as if they were above criticism and their casualty lists should have been accepted without a hint of skepticism.

Of course, the whole point of examining and challenging the lists was precisely because they were part of the propaganda drive against the Ortega government, referred to in practically every international media report on the crisis and cited as authoritative by international bodies, including detailed references to ANPDH by the UN Commission for Human Rights in its 2018 report on Nicaragua.

As late as last December, when the violence was months in the past, the IACHR’s secretary general Paulo Abrão was still denouncing Nicaragua as a “police state.” In a session attended by all three local opposition bodies (CPDH, CENIDH and ANPDH), he said that “not a day goes by” when the IAHCR fails to receive a report of a human rights abuse from the country, presumably via those organizations.

Yet by February 2019, the Truth Commission was able to issue a final report on the death toll from the attempted coup which, after exhaustive analysis of the different sources, confirmed the total number of conflict-related deaths as 253 – less than half that claimed by ANPDH six months before. Those deaths consisted of 31 known supporters of the opposition, 48 probable or actual Sandinista supporters, 22 police and the remainder (152) of unknown affiliation.

Things fall apart

Image on the right: ANPDH board member and anti-Ortega activist Gustavo Bermúdez accused his group’s director, Álvaro Leiva, of embezzlement and fraud on a massive scale

But 2019 has turned out to be a bad year for the three ‘human rights’ bodies. ANPDH and CENIDH were found by the government to have violated their own statutes and their registration as NGOs was terminated. Some of their functionaries fled to Costa Rica. CPDH continues, but its lawyer, María Oviedo, was arrested recently when, in a visit to a police station in support of a leading opposition member who had been found to have an unregistered firearm, she slapped a police officer. The officials of the other two bodies are fighting among themselves. When CENIDH director Gonzalo Carrión tried to open a new NGO in Costa Rica, he was denied support by ex-colleagues who feared he would pocket the foreign donations and use them for his own purposes.

The fate of the former staff members of ANPDH is most disturbing, however. The former general secretary, Álvaro Leiva, was given asylum in Costa Rica last October, a move welcomed by the IAHCR’s Paulo Abrão, who awarded him “protective measures” this June.

However, as The Grayzone reported, when Leiva attempted to open a new NGO in Costa Rica, his former colleagues angrily accused him of appropriating funds supplied by US bodies such as the NED. More importantly, they revealed that Leiva personally ordered them to inflate ANPDH’s casualty counts last year because he believed padding the death tolls would help secure extra funding from the US. ANPDH director Gustavo Bermúdez, in a press conference ignored by corporate media, said:

“Álvaro Leiva inflated the death toll. We personally asked him where you got that figure; a friend called me saying to please get his grandmother who died of a heart attack off the list of people who were supposedly victims of the repression.”

ANPDH received over $88,000 from the NED, and $348,000 from other US sources last year. CPDH received $180,000 from the NED in 2018 alone, out of NED spending of $1.8 million spent that year to promote Nicaragua’s opposition bodies.

Today I asked USAID’s Mark Green about the lethal violence of the opposition his agency backs in Nicaragua and the proximity of one the favorite US grantees, Felix Maradiaga, to armed elements. As expected, he totally ducked the question. #NicaraguaQuierePaz pic.twitter.com/Oc2UEYcLpB

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) August 8, 2018

The NED and USAID clearly viewed Nicaraguan organizations working in the human rights field as one of the most crucial elements of Washington’s regime-change agenda. By incentivizing NGO’s to produce anti-government disinformation, the US set the stage for their public collapse of their credibility.

Critics of the Contras transform into soft coup supporters

Allen Weinstein, a founding member of the NED told the Washington Post in 1991, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly twenty-five years ago by the CIA.” It is therefore hardly surprising that among the biggest recipients of NED funding in Latin America have been NGO’s operating in nations that John Bolton has labelled the “troika of tyranny”: Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela.

And while the NED dumped US money into supposedly neutral human rights bodies that functioned as regime-change weapons, the international media provided them with an uncritical platform for disseminating their propaganda without ever mentioning the source of their funding.

It was not always this way, however. Back in 1989, Human Rights Watch slammed ANPDH as “for all intents and purposes a US State Department funded arm of the Nicaraguan Resistance,” referring to the CIA-backed Contra forces fighting the Sandinista government. The left-leaning political magazine Envío was also highly critical of both CPDH and ANPDH in the 1980s. It described Lino Hernández, then director of the CPDH, as coming from a “far right” background. Commenting on the $3 million ANPDH received from the US government, the magazine asked

“What kind of human rights watchdogging has the ANPDH done with all this money? Hardly a whimper, much less a bark.”

A NGO prominent at the time, the Catholic Institute for International Relations, pointed out that ANPDH did not even set up a Nicaragua office until after the Sandinistas left power in 1990. In its report on a Contra attack in which women and a baby had its throat slit, ANPDH exonerated the Contra forces involved. Paul Laverty, a Nicaragua-based human rights lawyer, also strongly criticised CPDH for ignoring atrocities by the Contras.

Skepticism was not only reserved for the local “human rights” bodies. Envío was critical of Human Rights Watch and, even more so, of Amnesty International, accusing both of a “lack of thoroughness” and criticizing Amnesty for its “extremely sloppy investigation” and “unquestioning reliance” on reports from biased organizations like CPDH. While working for Scottish Medical Aid for Nicaragua, Laverty published a damning critique of Amnesty’s assessment of human rights under the 1979-1990 Sandinista government, concluding that their accusations of harsh treatment of political prisoners were exaggerated or, at worst, entirely unfounded.

Thirty years later, critical thinking about the real role of Nicaraguan “human rights” NGO’s in stirring up regime-change is practically off limits. When ANPDH and CENIDH lost their NGO registration last year, HRW complained that,

“Public officials repeatedly made stigmatizing statements to undermine the credibility of [human rights] defenders.”

As noted earlier, Amnesty does not even accept the Nicaraguan government’s right to analyze the death counts produced by human rights bodies. Envío magazine, meanwhile, has become an unflinching critic of the Ortega government and supporter of CENIDH; Paul Laverty, now a screenwriter famous for his work with Ken Loach, has lent support to opposition members touring Europe to promote their anti-Sandinista message.

Raking in millions to advance empire

Meanwhile, human rights has become a lucrative and glitzy business. HRW, for example, has 450 staff members and a budget of over $90 million, while Amnesty’s global budget reaches almost $300 million. While HRW relies heavily on the fortune of anti-communist billionaire George Soros, Amnesty gains much of its budget from small donations, and its need to maintain its profile has brought multiple criticisms of its “toxic” working culture.

Both organizations have been criticized for their alignment with US government policy in Latin America, where their attention focuses particularly on the countries in Bolton’s “troika of tyranny” while downplaying or ignoring the huge damage caused to people in those countries by US intervention. (AI’s most recent, 56-page report on Venezuela, Hunger for Justice, only has the briefest reference to US sanctions).

After this meeting, Amnesty issued a denunciatory report ignoring the US economic war on Venezuela and a statement supporting Trump's interventionist "aid" sham. No surprise to seem them pumping up another R2P extravaganza against a regime change target. https://t.co/4hgayBhcPI https://t.co/mAfwqCzeM7

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) February 21, 2019

In the case of Nicaragua, the local ‘human rights’ bodies provided HRW and AI with evidence that fit their own prejudices about the Ortega government. While these local bodies depended on publicity from HRW and AI to maintain credibility, they also needed to demonstrate to US government organizations like the NED that they were useful regime-change weapons.

Thanks to this toxic dynamic, CDPH, ANPDH and CENIDH are in complete disarray, and their former staffers are spilling the beans about the bogus death tolls they spun out to justify US funding. A year after they helped stoke a coup, the only regime that is changing is their own.

*

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

John Perry is a writer based in Masaya, Nicaragua whose work has appeared in the Nation, the London Review of Books, and many other publications.

All images in this article are from The Grayzone unless otherwise stated

The Hong Kong protests are escalating, just as the US-China trade war is also escalating. None of this is out of the blue. For quite some time now, the US has been shifting the focus of its hegemonic and imperial ambitions towards China, recognizing it – even more than Russia – as its main rival superpower. Author Graham Allen published his 2017 book entitled Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? addressing growing US-China tension and the potential for a future US-China war. James Corbett also offered his analysis.

The term Thucydides trap is derived from ancient Greece to describe a situation when a rising power gains enough strength to challenge and disturb the existing ruling power. With this phenomenon in mind, let’s take a look at the background to the current US-China trade war (which is becoming more bitter and intense by the week) and the Hong Kong Protests.

Step 1: Identifying the Enemy

Quotes from top US officials, military and non-military alike, show that China has gradually been replacing Russia as the #1 enemy, although this is not clear cut; there is still a lot of hatred towards and fear of Russia. In 2018, the USA changed its official defense strategy. Terrorism was no longer the #1 threat and was replaced by Russia and China. The DoD report accused China of wielding predatory economics and building fake islands in the South China Sea to intimidate nearby countries. Admiral Harry Harris, former commander of the US Pacific Command, said this about China in 2018:

“China remains our biggest long-term challenge. Without focused involvement and engagement by the United States, and our allies and partners, China will realize its dream of hegemony in Asia.”

He also said this:

“China’s intent is crystal clear. We ignore it at our peril. I’m concerned China will now work to undermine the international rules-based order … China’s impressive military build-up could soon challenge the United States across almost every domain.”

Earlier this year, DNI (Director of National Intelligence) Dan Coats said:

“[The] rule of law, international norms, and fairness in trade and international engagements is not the Chinese model … Chinese leaders will increasingly seek to assert China’s model of authoritarian capitalism as an alternative—and implicitly superior—development path abroad, exacerbating great-power competition that could threaten international support for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.”

Previously in 2018 Coats had followed Trump’s lead by blaming China for interfering in US elections (where have I heard that one before?). He stated:

“[China is targeting] state and local governments and officials … It is trying to exploit any divisions between federal and local levels on policy, and uses investments and other incentives to expand its influence.”

All this rhetoric comes against a backdrop of intertwined economies, where many US companies have outsourced and offshored their labor to China. The arrangement seems to have been working pretty well for the Chinese factory owners, US companies and US consumers; it seems the real loser is the Chinese laborer who has to work incredibly long hours each week in horrible conditions, sometimes in factories with ‘suicide nets’ to prevent people from killing themselves when they jump.

Step 2: The Pivot to Asia

Militarily, the first stage of realigning US forces towards tackling China was the Obama’s Pivot to Asia which I discussed in this 2015 article Pivot to Asia: Ongoing US Militarization of Pacific An Alarming Trend. This involved the massive shift of US forces to the Pacific – 60% of US Air Force and Navy resources were moved from the Middle East to the Pacific.

Step 3: Claiming ‘Freedom of Navigation’ as a Pretext for Provocation

On multiple occasions, the US has made a point of sailing its ships through Chinese waters (or disputed waters near China) and then trying to claim that it was innocently sailing there due to freedom of navigation. To free thinkers, it’s transparently obvious that these stunts are not about navigation but rather provocation. Just last Friday (August 23rd), the USS Green Bay, an amphibious transport dock ship, sailed through the Taiwan Strait that separates China from the island of Taiwan. Like Hong Kong, Taiwan is an island which is part of China through retains some autonomy in the way it rules. The US has likewise sailed its warships many times (September 2018, May 2019) near the Spratly Islands, which China claims it owns but which are still under international dispute. On the earlier occasion, the guided-missile destroyer Decatur nearly collided with an oncoming Chinese warship.

Step 4: Targeting Chinese Institutions, Initiatives and Projects

The US has taken a dim view of practically every Chinese effort to develop itself in the last decade. The US has opposed China’s gigantic OBR (One Belt, One Road) Initiative which has been dubbed the New Silk Road. The US has directed propaganda against BRICS, China’s SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), its development bank and many other trade initiatives. The US accuses China of trying to control the world, yet such accusations must be difficult to receive with a straight face given that the US routinely threatens both its allies and enemies with economic warfare, sanctions, trade wars, governmental overthrow, invasion or even nuclear annihilation if they don’t toe the line.

Step 5: Funding and Training Muslim Uyghurs – Sometimes as Part of ISIS

You may not have heard of them, but there is a Chinese minority group known as the Uyghurs or Uighurs. Many are Muslim and of Turkic ethnicity. They live in the semi-autonomous region of north-west China in a province called Xinjiang. Well, guess what? The USG has been funding them for various reasons. Marco Rubio, Zionist neocon and warhawk, sponsored this 2018 bill pushing the US to get involved. Rubio, for those who don’t recall, was the very same guy itching for war with Venezuela earlier this year in 2019. He was also the one who mysteriously happened to find out before almost anyone else that Venezuelans’ power grid has been taken down. Hmmm. However, much of the funding is done under-the-table by the soft power network of NGOs, illustrious among them the National Endowment for Democracy of NWO (New World Order) insider George Soros. The UHRP (Uyghur Human Rights Project) admits on its website that it was “founded by the Uyghur American Association (UAA) in 2004 with a supporting grant from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).”

Since when does the USG deeply care about oppressed minorities in other nations? It’s a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it this time: if – and only if – US interests are aligned with that minority, and for the (usually short) time period the interests are aligned.

In his article Turkish-Uyghur Terror Inc. – America’s Other Al Qaeda, geopolitical author Tony Cartalucci writes:

“The alleged “struggle” by the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, referred to by the terrorists and their foreign sponsors as “East Turkistan,” consists of two essential components – a foreign harbored political front including the Washington D.C. and Munich-based World Uyghur Congress (WUC) and a militant front clearly backed by the US and NATO through intermediary groups like Turkey’s Grey Wolves … Encouraging separatism in China’s western Xinjiang region, if successful, would carve off a substantial amount of territory. In conjunction with US-backed separatism in China’s Tibet region, an immense buffer region stands to be created that would virtually isolate China from Central Asia.”

So, just as the US funded and trained Operation Gladio warriors to fight communism in Europe, Mujahideen fighters to battle the USSR, ISIS to battle Syria, it is also preparing for war with China by funding and training the ‘separatists’, whoever they may be, in this case the Uyghurs. In another article, all the way back in 2014, Cartalucci quoted a Reuters article that admitted that ISIS was training the Uyghurs:

“Chinese militants from the western region of Xinjiang have fled from the country to get “terrorist training” from Islamic State group fighters for attacks at home, state media reported on Monday.”

Step 6: Initiating a Trade War

There is no doubt that it was the US under Trump who initiated the US-China trade war. Even before he took office, Trump took to twitter bashing China for its supposed economic exploitation of the US. Trump says the objective is a better trade deal with China to benefit all Americans, but this trade war is producing a massive fallout and host of negative effects for American consumers, farmers and manufacturers. Chris Kanthan writes:

“How about China’s economy? Are Trump’s tariffs crushing the Chinese economy? Not really. During Jan-May 2019, China’s exports to the US fell about 5%, but China’s exports to the EU rose more than 14%. And, guess what, EU is China’s #1 trading partner (and ASEAN is the #2 trade partner), while the US is #3. So, China keeps growing at a healthy pace — even the IMF predicts a healthy 6.2% real GDP growth for China this year!

But here’s the kicker. While China’s exports to the US fell 4.8%, the reverse — US exports to China — fell by a whopping 24% (for the first five months of 2019). So, US exporters and farmers are hurting real bad. And Trump cannot win re-election without the support of those “great soybean/corn/pork farmers.””

Step 7: Attacking Huawei, China’s Leading Cell Phone/Wireless Company

The Trump Admin has come out with all guns blazing against Huawei, China’s telecommunications giant, which is now the 2nd biggest smartphone producer in the world, second only to Apple and within striking distance of them.  The USG has accused Huawei of assisting Chinese Intelligence by placing backdoors in its software and hardware that allow surveillance by Chinese authorities. Trump has even pressured allies like the UK to stop using Huawei altogether, despite the fact that Britain relies heavily of Huawei for its infrastructure. The attacks against Huawei escalated on December 1st 2018, when the US orchestrated a totally illegal kidnapping and illegal detention of Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s CFO (Chief Financial Officer). Wanzhou is still being held against her will in Canada on US orders.

Step 8: Approving $8 Billion Deal to Sell F-16 Fighter Jets to Taiwan

Whether its Xinjiang (Uyghurs), Taiwan or Hong Kong, the US is an expert at destabilizing a country by targeting areas where there is dissent. Recently on August 20th, 2019, the USG announced its intentionto sell Taiwan 66 F-16 C/D Block 70 aircraft, related equipment and support for an estimated $8 billion. This move infuriated China which considers Taiwan a Chinese region or states, not a separate nation.

Step 9: Instigating a Color Revolution by way of the Hong Kong Protests

One of the most significant examples of US aggression against China is the instigation of a color protest or color revolution in Hong Kong. The aim is to provoke China into reacting harshly and violently, which would reinforce the Western perception that China is heavy-handed, tyrannical and totalitarian. China has already moved troops to its southern mainland border, just across the water from Hong Kong. It is possible that another US objective is to push the protestors into declaring Hong Kong independent of China. There are some who say the Hong Kong protests are a grassroots affair. There is usually a grassroots element to many of these protests, but almost always the bigger factor in the shadows is US interference (or US-UK, or US-UK-Israeli, interference). Here is a very telling comment about the Hong Kong protests found under the article Violent Protests In Hong Kong Reach Their Last Stage on the MoonOfAlabama.org website:

“The Extradition Law revision that started this was only a convenient proxy for those wanting chaos in HK to create chaos. The instigators behind the initial protest march are the same ones who started Occupy Central five years ago. They are the ones who huddle with operatives from US/UK Consulates, who travelled to the Washington/London/Brussel/Taipei, etc. to see politicians and plot strategies, to arrange for funding, and to recruit dare devils for the carnage. Lucky for them that HK was ripe for such shenanigans because HKers in general are sullen over their loss of superiority complex against mainland Chinese, brainwashed subconsciously through schools and churches about CCP wickedness, and desperately stressed under HK’s economic realities. Most of the protesters don’t even know what the Extradition Law is all about …”

“The instigators, however, are well versed in all the intricacies. They know who they can easily recruit and order to do violence … they know the fifth column within the government and business … If large casualties result what do they care? … [T]hey know their foreign backers are only too glad to see Chinese killing Chinese …”

“By the way, the US Consulate in HK has over 1,000 on payroll (an estimated 200 CIA agents), UK’s is over 500 (among them MI6 agents). That size of consulate in a city of less than 400 sq. miles of land (over half of which mountainous) is a laughable anomaly, wouldn’t you think? What are they all there for?”

And yes, there is proof. The senior US consulate member Julie Eadeh was photographed secretly meeting with the top 2 leaders of the Hong Kong protests, Joshua Wong and Nathan Law.

Remember – the NED now does overtly what the CIA did covertly decades ago. Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of NED, confessed that “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

Conclusion: Fomenting the US-China War

China is hardly a bastion of freedom. The extent of government surveillance, censorship and control is extreme and tyrannical. It is not surprising that NWO insiders such as the late David Rockefeller extolled China as a paradigm for society; it’s the kind of hierarchical, dictatorial example the NWO controllers want for a world government. This article is by no means praising China, but rather to point out that, right now, it is the victim of US aggression. The very same tactics of subversion the US has been using for decades on all sorts of countries – Russia, Iran, Guatemala, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. – it is now using against China with the Hong Kong protests. Are some of the protestors genuine? Surely. The truth is never black-and-white, but always shades of gray. However, the Hong Kong protests can be seen as a color protest and part of the bigger US geopolitical strategy to encircle and target China, to ward off a rising power and to prepare itself for a possible WW3 scenario.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, The Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

Sources

*https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-320-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/

*https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf

*https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/politics/harry-harris-pacific-command-north-korea-china-intl/index.html

*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/16/admiral-warns-us-must-prepare-for-possibility-of-war-with-china

*https://freebeacon.com/national-security/dni-beijing-set-for-ideological-battle-with-u-s/

*https://www.rt.com/usa/440236-china-next-enemy-america/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/pivot-to-asia-militarization-of-pacific/

*https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-military/two-us-warships-sail-in-disputed-south-china-sea-idUSKCN1SC085

*https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/02/11/two-navy-warships-sailed-through-disputed-south-china-sea-waters-on-monday/

*https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/1045ec83-597c-4418-9299-cb5973dd24c8/997C1A8CB02CAABCEB7A415B11E8A6A2.dav18g88.pdf

*https://uhrp.org/about

*https://journal-neo.org/2015/09/23/turkish-uyghur-terror-inc-americas-other-al-qaeda/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/top-10-proofs-isis-us-israeli-creation/

*https://journal-neo.org/2014/10/21/turmoil-in-hong-kong-terrorism-in-xinjiang-america-s-covert-war-on-china/

*https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/07/01/how-and-why-trump-folded-in-the-trade-war-with-china/

*https://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/taipei-economic-and-cultural-representative-office-united-states-tecro-f-16cd-block

*https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/08/violent-protests-in-hong-kong-reach-their-last-stage.html

*https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/09/22/innocence-abroad-the-new-world-of-spyless-coups/92bb989a-de6e-4bb8-99b9-462c76b59a16/

*https://thefreedomarticles.com/sesame-credit-gamification-control/

All images in this article are from the author

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”.

.

.

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Nestlé and the Privatization of Water

By Franklin Frederick, August 27, 2019

Last February, the Government of Switzerland announced the creation of a Foundation in Geneva, under the name ‘Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator’ (GSDA). The purpose of this new foundation is to regulate new technologies, from drones and automatic cars to genetic engineering, which are examples mentioned by the Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis at the public launch of this initiative.

Are Sanders and Warren Throwing a Lifeline to the Military-Industrial Complex?

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, August 27, 2019

Among the frontrunners in the Democratic Party presidential primary, Senators Warren and Sanders not only have the most progressive domestic agenda, but also the most anti-war, pro-diplomacy foreign policy agenda. The sharpest distinction between them is that Sanders has voted against over 80% of recent record military spending bills in the Senate, while Warren has voted for two thirds of them. 

Globalization and Women’s Rights: Economic Restructuring, Women’s Experiences and Responses to “Neoliberal Shocks”

By Tina Renier, August 27, 2019

There is a critical nexus between colonial development and economic re-structuring processes in the Third world whereby globalization is an ideological weapon that extends imperial control over ex-colonies through persistent poverty and underdevelopment.

Tinderbox Earth: The Significance of the Amazon and Siberian Fires

By Dr. Andrew Glikson, August 27, 2019

As fires rage across tens of thousands square km the Amazon forest, dubbed the Planet’s lungs, producing some 20 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere, with some 72,843 fires in Brazil this year, where fires on such a scale are uncommon, as well as through Siberia, Alaska, Greenland,  southern Europe and elsewhere, they herald a world where increasing temperatures and droughts overwhelm original habitats, flora and fauna.

World Extreme Weather: Is it Man or Something Else?

By F. William Engdahl, August 27, 2019

Our planet seems to be in a growing crisis in terms of agriculture and crop production related to unusual weather shifts. Many reports in recent months use the term “extreme weather” to describe record heat across Europe this summer, record flooding in US Midwest farm states, or record drought across India and major parts of Africa and China.

America’s Authoritarian Use of the Word “Authoritarianism”

By Dr. Dennis Etler, August 27, 2019

We see the word “authoritarianism” all over the US media, a blanket term employed to describe countries that the United States government currently considers as threats to its interests.

The West Is Spinning the “Cultural Genocide” of Macedonians

By Bill Nicholov, August 26, 2019

What they could be doing, instead, is preventing the forced name and identity change on Macedonia and Macedonians. Yes, the one initiated by Greece, and executed by the West.

*

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 Amazon Rainforest biome has an extension of about 6.7 million square kilometers shared between Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam and the French Guyana. Some 62% of it is in Brazil, where 84% of its original area at the time of the arrival of the Portuguese in 1500 A.D. are preserved. This mostly untouched area is about the size of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Holland, Italy, Spain and Portugal together; if it were a country, it would be the world seventh in extension, larger than India.

The Amazon Rainforest must not be confused with the Legal Amazon (Amazônia Legal), a geographical region delimited for the purpose of establishing special tax regimes in order to encourage economic activities in the nine Northern Brazilian states. These states comprise 61% of the national territory but harbor less than 13% of the country’s population, and account for less than 8% of Brazil’s GDP. Their low living standards can be assessed by the fact that only 13% of its urban inhabitants have access to sewage systems; a great part of the 4 million Brazilians who do not have a simple toilet at home live there. The region also holds significant parts of two other Brazilian biomes, the Cerrado (savannah) and the Pantanal (wetlands). The Legal Amazon covers 5.1 million sq.km; the Brazilian part of the Rainforest, 4.2 million sq.km.

The Rainforest is not the “lungs of the world”; its vegetal and animal biotas consume all the photosynthesis-generated oxygen in their process of respiration (yes, plants do breathe), so the net budget is near zero. (And after all, lungs do not produce oxygen.)

It is not a functional “carbon sink” either, because as a stable climax ecosystem its net carbon budget is also close to zero (except when it burns). Anyway, if people are worried about carbon, they should support the clearing of the forest and its replacement by the secondary regeneration vegetation (called “capoeira”) instead, that captures the atmospheric carbon during its growth, indeed. By the way, between 2008 and 2012, the area of “capoeiras” increased two and a half faster than the area of cleared forest (there isn’t more recent data). (Disclaimer: I’m not suggesting this course of action.)

The Rainforest is obviously relevant for the biogeochemical cycles of the biosphere but it does not have any significant impact upon the world climate. Its chief contribution for the atmospheric dynamics is to recycle half of the rainwater coming westwards from the Atlantic Ocean back to the atmosphere by means of evapotranspiration, forming a water vapor flow that is partly re-directed southward. This process is important for the Rainforest itself and its surroundings but its influence can hardly be regarded as being global.

The much-ballyhooed projections about a feared “tipping point” of deforestation beyond which the Rainforest would supposedly suffer an irreversible “dieback” are just products of mathematical models without factual evidence. These models may be useful as academic drills but should not be the turf of policymaking. If other biomes are useful for comparison, the Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlântica), with a biodiversity similar to the Rainforest, covered 1.3 million sq.km of the Brazilian territory along the coast in the 16^th century, and has lost over 80% of its original area since but it has not suffered such a “dieback” so far. The hypothetical deforestation “tipping point” for the rainforest is 20%, a number that grants appealing apocalyptic forecasts and shocking media headlines but does not fit with the hard facts and common sense.

The annual deforestation rates in the Legal Amazon have been decreasing steadily since the last decade, and are now well under 10,000 sq.km a year. Taking into account that much of this deforestation occurs in the Cerrado, a hypothetical linear projection using such rates suggests that it would take well over 400 years to clear the Rainforest entirely – an absurd scenario that is unimaginable by anyone in their right mind except some delusional and uninformed radical environmentalists, anyway.

Much of the deforestation occurs in private properties and government-sponsored settlement areas for small family farmers, meaning that it is legal. The Brazilian 2012 Forest Code allows that 20% of the property areas in the Rainforest and 50% in the Cerrado be cleared for economic use. Unfortunately, the deforestation rates regularly trumpeted in the media do not make this needed distinction.

The number of fires in the Legal Amazon (including the Cerrado) has also been falling since the record years of 2004-05; the projections for 2019 indicate that they will reach half or so the numbers of those years. A good deal of such fires occur in private properties where people have been using fire as a method of cleaning the terrain for centuries; it’s not the best method but it is what they have access to. It’s relevant to notice that most of the fires are not located in the Rainforest itself but in its Southern transition zone to the Cerrado and in the Cerrado itself, as can be seen in the Fire Information for Resource Management System website (See this – the Rainforest is roughly delimited by the huge dark green and light green area north of parallel 15^oS). Incidentally, one can also observe that Brazil is far from being alone in the current worldwide fire season.

There are over 25 million people living in the Legal Amazon, most of them in precarious socio-economic conditions. The vast majority of people who cut trees or make use of fire are not criminals but do it because they need to eke out a living somehow (of course, there are criminals that manage to avoid the law enforcement and the due punishment, like everywhere else). Keeping in mind the respective proportions, nobody but some stubborn environmentalists is regarding the Germans as environmental criminals because the remnants of the Hambach Forest near Köln are intended to be felled by the RWE energy company, in order to get the lignite in the subsoil needed to fuel thermoelectric plants, after chancellor Angela Merkel ordered the closing of several of the country’s nuclear plants for purely political reasons.

Brazil is a developing country and is still struggling to find its way towards the full development of its human and natural resources. For the Amazon region, the path is not “preserving” it as a gigantic combo of botanic garden and zoo, as many people seem to think naively. It must begin with the long overdue tasks of land rights regularization, ecological-economic zoning, adding value to the local productions and resources with the best techniques available, improving and expanding the infrastructure needed to enable quality of life gains for the local populations and a massive effort of research and development of its vast biodiversity resources, combining research institutions, private enterprises and the precious traditional knowledge of its inhabitants. In short, a kind of an Industrial Amazon 4.0, an impulse capable of bringing most of its inhabitants to the levels of wellbeing permitted by the 21^st century knowledge. All this can and must be done with the needed care for the environment and, hopefully, we will be able to put this rational agenda in practice but a fundamental prerequisite for this is to dispel the myths and hysteria about the region and its development.

So, people, including foreign leaders and personalities, should inform themselves better before ridiculously blaming Brazil of “threatening the world climate”, or asking for sanctions against the country (mostly motivated by political and economical reasons). And the same goes for many Brazilians who are always willing to reverberate any criticisms against the country coming from abroad, regardless of their seriousness or lack thereof.

*

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.

Geraldo Luís Lino is a Brazilian geologist, former environmental consultant and co-founder and director of the Ibero-American Solidarity Movement (MSIa – www.msiainforma.org); e-mail: [email protected]. 

Last February, the Government of Switzerland announced the creation of a Foundation in Geneva, under the name ‘Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator’ (GSDA). The purpose of this new foundation is to regulate new technologies, from drones and automatic cars to genetic engineering, which are examples mentioned by the Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis at the public launch of this initiative. According to Cassis, new technologies are developing very fast and this Foundation must ‘anticipate’ the consequences of these advances for society and politics. The Foundation will also be a bridge between the scientific and diplomatic communities, hence its strategic placement in Geneva, which houses several international organizations, from the UN to the World Trade Organization.

The Swiss Foreign Ministry will contribute 3 million Swiss francs – just over 3 million dollars – to the Foundation’s initial phase from 2019 to 2022. The city and the Canton of Geneva will each contribute 300,000 Swiss francs for the same period and contributions from the private sector are also expected.

As President of this new Foundation, the former CEO of Nestlé, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe (image right) was chosen. The Vice-President is Patrick Aebischer, the former President of the Lausanne Federal Institute of Technology – EPFL is the French acronym. Patrick Aebischer has also been a member of the Nestlé Health Science Steering Committee since 2015, founded in 2011 by Nestlé and located right on the EPFL campus.

The choice of Peter Brabeck and Patrick Aebischer – both with strong connections to Nestlé – to run this new foundation has a very clear rationale. It primarily represents the recognition of Nestlé’s power within the Swiss Government – a former Nestlé CEO is, by definition, competent to drive this initiative. More upsettingly, Peter Brabeck’s choice is yet another example of the ever-closer “partnership” between governments and large transnational corporations, leading to the establishment of an international corporate oligarchy that is gradually taking over power within Western democracies.

Amply documented, Nestlé as a private corporate entity has battled various form of State regulation, the best-known case being the regulation of infant food marketing standards, particularly milk powder. The conflict between Nestlé under the direction of Peter Brabeck and the IBFAN – International Baby Food Action Network – is well known. (See the Muller report)

But the biggest irony – and the biggest danger – is that Brabeck’s choice to chair this Foundation indicates that the real purpose of this initiative is precisely to prevent any form of regulation by the government that might impose  limits on profits from the technological advances of the private sector.

It is also not expected that this Foundation will defend any protection of the public sphere or the environment against possible threats posed to society by new technological advances. On the contrary, Brabeck’s choice indicates that this Foundation’s primary objective is to defend and support  the private sector. What can be expected from this Foundation are proposals for self-regulation by the private sector in  cases of overly explicit conflicts, which is nothing effective. Since this Foundation is an initiative of the Government of Switzerland – certainly after talks with the private sector – and is located in Geneva, it will have an enormous influence  and I believe that organized social movements must carefully follow the future steps of this Foundation, as it embodies a huge threat to democracy.

Just a few months after the launch of this new Foundation, the Government of Switzerland announced that Christian Frutiger (image left), Nestlé’s current Global Head of Public Affairs, will soon take over the Vice-Presidency of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation – SDC – which is the Swiss Government Agency responsible for development aid projects in other countries. Another example of the growing collaboration between the private sector and the government, but this time in a much more sensitive area: development cooperation.

This constitutes yet another example of the growing influence and presence  of Nestlé within the Government of Switzerland. This presence is neither new nor recent, and it is important to remember that the SDC not only supported the creation of the Water Resources Group – WRG – the initiative of Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Pepsi to privatize water, topics on  which I’ve written a few articles – (see this) as the SDC Director himself is a member of the WRG Governance Board.

The contradiction of the fact that Switzerland has one of the best public sanitation and water distribution services in the world, but uses Swiss citizens’ tax money to support water privatization in other countries through the SDC partnership with Nestlé, does not seem to be a problem.

The budget of Switzerland’s international cooperation for the period 2017-2020 is around 6.635 billion francs – a little over 6.730 billion dollars. As Deputy Director, Christian Frutiger will have a great deal of influence over decisions regarding the application of part of this budget. Most importantly, as Deputy Director, Frutiger will be directly responsible for the SDC’s ‘Global Cooperation’ Division and for the WATER program. Christian Frutiger started his career at Nestlé in 2007 as a Public Affairs Manager after working at the International Red Cross.

In 2006, Nestlé’s “Pure Life” bottled water brand became its most profitable brand and in 2007, with the purchase of the Sources Minérales Henniez S.A. group,

Nestlé became the leading company in bottled water within the Swiss market. In 2008, just a decade after its release, “Pure Life” became the world’s top-selling brand of bottled water. Within this context, it was only natural that Christian Frutiger’s work at Nestlé should focus on the topic of WATER.

In 2008, the Nestlé espionage scandal broke out in Switzerland. A  Swiss TV journalist denounced in a program that Nestlé hired security firm SECURITAS to infiltrate spies within Nestlé-critical groups within Switzerland, particularly the ATTAC group. Proven espionage took place between 2002 and 2003 but there is evidence of spying until 2006. ATTAC filed a lawsuit against Nestlé and SECURITAS, and in 2013, the Swiss court finally condemned Nestlé for organizing this espionage operation, indicating the involvement of at least four company directors in the operation.

The fact that Nestlé organized an illegal espionage operation within Switzerland and was condemned by the Swiss courts for doing this had no effect on the company’s relations with the Swiss Government and especially with the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, as one would expect. No one asked Nestlé’s CEO Peter Brabeck then if his company was capable of such actions within Switzerland itself, what could we expect from the behaviour of the same company in other countries of weaker democratic guarantees?

Infiltrating undercover agents under  false identitites to spy the ATTAC gorup is, to say the least, grossly unethical. But it seems that ethics was not one of the criteria that the SDC took into account when hiring Christian Frutiger who, throughout this episode, kept silent, never apologized to the people who were spied on by the company he worked for, and did everything to minimize the impact of the problem, which means that he complied with his employer’s lack of ethics. But the appointment of Frutiger as Deputy Director of the SDC points to much deeper and far-reaching problems, especially with regard to WATER, as it seems clear to me that his choice for this position is all about this topic.

Peter Brabeck’s appointment to chair the new foundation of the Swiss Government in Geneva and Christian Frutiger’s appointment as Vice-President of the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation reveal a link between the private sector and the Swiss Government to deepen the privatization policies – especially water – and corporate control over public policies. But this articulation goes beyond the Government of Switzerland, it will take place above all at the level of the international agencies and organizations present in Geneva as Christian Frutiger will be responsible for the contacts with many of these organizations. These new roles also indicate that the transnational corporate sector is very consciously organizing and articulating itself at various government levels to ensure that its demands and policy proposals are met.

Not much reaction from the major Swiss NGOs should be expected in the face of all this, especially as SDC is the main financier of almost all of them, which explains the deep silence around Nestlé and its actions within Switzerland. A recent example of this silence occurred in Brazil at the World Water Forum held in Brasilia in March 2018. Since this Forum is in fact the Forum of large private enterprises,

Nestlé and WRG were present within the official Swiss pavilion, along with organizations such as HELVETAS, HEKS/EPER and Caritas Switzerland, three of Switzerland’s largest private development agencies and all supported by SDC. HEKS/EPER – which are German and French abbreviations – is linked to the Protestant Church of Switzerland, as Caritas Switzerland is linked to the Catholic Church.

During the Forum, 600 women from the Landless Movement occupied Nestlé’s premises in São Lourenço, Minas Gerais for a few hours, to draw attention to the problems caused by the company and the water bottling industry. None of these Swiss organizations expressed any solidarity with the Landless Movement, none condemned Nestlé’s practices, nor did they even mention on their return to Switzerland that this occupation had taken place. But HEKS/EPER and Caritas Switzerland claim to fight for the human right to water and “support” social movements – but not when they stand against Nestlé. In São Lourenço, located in the Circuito das Águas region in MG, and in many other places in Brazil, there are problems with Nestlé’s exploitation of water and citizen’s movements trying to protect its waters. HEKS/EPER has an office in Brazil but has never approached the groups that fight Nestlé in Brazil.

The SDC does not consider problems with Nestlé in many parts of the world – not just in Brazil – as a reason to re-evaluate its partnership with the company. There are very well-documented problems with Nestlé’s bottling operations and water pumping in the U.S.A, Canada, and France, for example – countries considered to be established democracies. What is common among all of these countries is that the governments always stand in favor of the company and against their own citizens. In the town of Vittel, France, the situation is absurd: studies by French government agencies indicate that the aquifer from which the Vittel population draws its water and from which Nestlé also collects bottled water as “VITTEL” is at risk of depletion. The aquifer is not in a position to withstand the long-term demands of the local population and Nestlé’s bottling company. The solution proposed by the French authorities: to build a pipeline about 50 km long to seek water in a region neighboring Vittel to meet the needs of the population – leaving Nestlé free to exploit the Vittel aquifer waters!

In Wellington County, Canada, a local group called Wellington Water Watchers was created to protect its waters from Nestlé exploration, which has the support of the local government to renew its permission to continue bottling water. In Michigan, U.S.A, the problem is similar. None of this seems to bother the Swiss Government, the SDC, or Christian Frutiger – and if such problems occur in these countries, what couldn’t happen in countries that are much more fragile in their social and political organization? As current Head of Public Affairs of Nestlé, Christian Frutiger has done his best to ignore completely the problems created by his employer in many countries.

As I write, Europe is suffering from an intense heat wave. There is water rationing in France, and fire hazards in many places. Big cities like Paris suffer from record-high temperatures never recorded before, and water consumption only tends to increase. On the other hand, glaciers are melting at an increasing rate and water is becoming increasingly scarce. Groundwater sources, many of them fossil water, are an important reserve for the future and should remain untouched. But the greed of bottling companies like Nestlé are acquiring more water sources. The picture is the same all over the planet – the remaining unpolluted waters are increasingly in the hands of a few companies.

In Brazil under the Bolsonaro government, the situation is even worse, with an environmental minister whose task is to facilitate the taking of Brazilian natural resources by foreign capital. It is important to remember that the main shareholder of the AMBEV group is the Swiss-Brazilian citizen Jorge Paulo Lemann, who has excellent communication channels with the Swiss Government. AMBEV is also part of the WRG which has already opened its first office in Brazil to support the privatization of SABESP, the public water company in the state of São Paulo. (see more here).

What is happening in Switzerland is just the tip of the iceberg – the visible part is the international articulation of big corporations, and the taking over of public space for political decisions by the world corporate oligarchy. We have to be vigilant and well organized to defend our waters, our earth and our society from the corporate attack on the common good.

*

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.

Translated by Tamanna Kohi

The situation in the Middle East is once again escalating.

On August 24, Israeli warplanes bombed what the Israeli military described as ‘Iranian targets’ near the town of Aqraba south of the Syrian capital, Damascus. The Syrian air-defense forces intercepted several hostile missiles. However, the rest of them hit the target.

According to claims by the Israeli side, the targeted positions were used by the Qods Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and affiliated units to prepare an attack on Israel with several armed drones. The Israeli military also released a satellite image of the positions its warplanes struck claiming that the image shows Qods Force Operatives’ building and a weapons warehouse.

IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaee denied that any Iranian position was hit. However, Lebanese sources reported that two Hezbolalh members were killed by the airstrikes. They were identified as Hassan Yusuf al-Zabib from the town of Nmairiyeh in southern Lebanon and Yasser Ahmad Dahir from the town of Blida in the same region. Hassan Yusuf al-Zabib is reportedly the son of Yusuf al-Zabib, a key administrator in the Hezbollah-affiliated news channel al-Manar.

Click here to watch the video.

Early on August 25, an explosion rocked Beirut’s Southern Suburb, known as the stronghold of Hezbollah. According to initial reports, two Israeli drones crashed in the area. Later, Hezbollah clarified that the drones were rigged with explosives and attacked the group’s media center.

“The first drone fell without causing damage while the second one was laden with explosives and exploded causing huge damage to the media center,” Mohamed Afif, the group’s spokesman said adding that the inactive drone is in the Hezbollah hands now.

Later on the same day, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah made an official statement on the situation vowing to shoot down Israeli drones flying over Lebanon. Nasrallah also promised that Hezbollah will respond to recent Israeli airstrikes on Damascus, which killed two fighters of the Lebanese group.

These developments were followed by a mysterious airstrike on a convoy of the Iraqi Armed Forces’ Popular Mobilization Units (the part of the military often describe as Iranian proxies by US-Israeli media) near the Syrian border. The strike destroyed at least 3 vehicles and reportedly killed a PMU officer.

The recent increase of Israel military actions across the region accidentally came ahead of the election into Israel’s Knesset in September 2019. It seems that once again the current Israeli leadership is escalating the situation in the region to secure a local political victory.

*

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.

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

On August 21, the Australian government convened a “crisis meeting” with representatives of the universities and the intelligence agencies, as part of a hysterical campaign alleging pervasive “Chinese influence” throughout society.

Little has been revealed about what was discussed at the closed-door meeting. It was called amid demands by senior political figures and the corporate press for a crackdown on ties between Australian and Chinese research institutions, supposedly because they threaten “national security.”

The official purpose of the talks was to set “guidelines” governing collaboration with Chinese academics. As well as Education Department officials, the gathering was attended by representatives of the Home Affairs Department, which oversees the domestic spy agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and the Australian Federal Police. Representatives from the Group of Eight, the country’s elite public universities, participated, along with members of university security and computer departments.

The Australian Financial Review (AFR) reported that the major universities had agreed to the meetings after briefings by Education Minister Dan Tehan earlier this month.

The article declared that the “university sector has allowed itself to become dependent on Chinese students.” It stated:

“The government and its security agencies feel the sector has become compromised, and over past weeks and months the sector has been given multiple briefings by such agencies as ASIO, the Home Affairs Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Defence Signals Directorate voicing concerns about Chinese influence.”

The article said the “security agencies” were particularly concerned about research partnerships involving Australian and Chinese universities. After the meeting, Tehan insisted that universities would “likely” have to “liaise more closely with national security agencies.”

Lurid claims that such collaboration aids the Chinese military have played a central role in an anti-China campaign spearheaded over the past two years by the government, the Labor Party, the Greens and the corporate media.

These unsubstantiated assertions have been based almost entirely on the claims of the intelligence agencies. In 2017, for instance, the Guardian warned against a $100 million “innovation precinct” at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), unveiled the previous year by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.

The Guardian trumpeted “defence fears” over the centre. It was funded, however, by private Chinese corporations, and focused on non-military research projects, including marine technologies, solar and wind power generation and the development of nanotechnologies.

Similar media campaigns have targeted other research initiatives, claiming, without any evidence, that they are of use to the Chinese military. The military and intelligence apparatus has invoked these assertions to push for unprecedented control over research, directly attacking academic freedom.

In a submission to the government in July 2018, the Australian Department of Defence requested powers to prohibit the publication of research, even for scientific purposes, and for warrantless entry, search, questioning and seizure powers to monitor compliance.

The department demanded authority to prohibit research on the virtually limitless ground that it has “reason to believe the technology is significant to developing or maintaining national defence capability or international relations of Australia.”

The request was inextricably tied to the Australia’s deepening integration into the US-led war drive against China, overseen by successive governments, Labor and Coalition alike.

The latest crackdown is also doubtless being conducted in close collaboration with the Trump administration. The AFR reported after last week’s meeting:

“The university sector fears the government could be pressured by the United States to crack down even harder on its collaboration with China, following a series of measures being proposed by US Republicans, one of which directly implicates Australia.”

The Trump administration is currently pushing a series of bills targeting Chinese academics, researchers and students.

One bill would ban visas for “individuals who are employed, funded, or otherwise sponsored by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.” Given that China’s university sector is state-controlled, this provision could be used to target any Chinese researcher. Other measures would force Chinese, Russian and Iranian students to undergo intrusive background checks before engaging in any “sensitive research projects” in the US.

The US legislation demands that Washington’s allies impose the same authoritarian regulations, declaring:

“Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom should take measures similar to the measures outlined in [the bill] to address security concerns posed by researchers and scientists affiliated with, or funded by, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”

The AFR noted that “the university sector is aware it needs to work with the government if only to avoid an even more onerous crackdown on its liaison with Chinese institutions.”

The US measures are one aspect of a military, economic and diplomatic confrontation with the Beijing regime, aimed at shoring-up Washington’s dominance in the Asia-Pacific and internationally. The attack on Chinese researchers is connected to the Trump administration’s trade war measures, which seek to stymie Beijing’s development of the high-tech sector.

The crackdown on Australian universities comes amid warnings from Washington’s mouthpieces within the political and media establishment over the sector’s reliance on Chinese student enrolments after decades of government funding cuts. At the same time, estimates indicate that partnerships with Chinese research institutions will eclipse those involving any other nation by the end of next year.

The growing ties underscore the dilemma facing the Australian corporate and political establishment, between its strategic alignment with US imperialism and its economic and trade ties to China. The Coalition government’s measures, which have Labor’s full support, are another indication that the dominant sections of the ruling elite are fully committed to the US confrontation with China.

The renewed focus on universities follows the visit to Australia last month by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Labor and the Coalition welcomed Pompeo as he called for stepped-up involvement in US provocations targeting China, and in preparations for war with Iran.

Following Pompeo’s trip, Chinese international students have again been vilified as agents of the Chinese Communist Party, and there have been calls for their prosecution under draconian “foreign interference” legislation.

This week, the New South Wales Coalition government cancelled Mandarin and Chinese cultural classes in 13 public schools on the absurd grounds they “could be facilitating inappropriate foreign influence.” The sole ground for the decision was that the program involved Chinese government agencies, Hanban and the Confucius Institute.

These measures are aimed at vilifying China to legitimise the escalating war drive. They are also establishing a precedent for further attacks on democratic rights, to suppress the opposition to militarism and war that exists in the working class.

*

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 short answer is yes and no. 

G7 nations Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and US are united in one respect. They’re profoundly undemocratic while pretending otherwise.

They’re united for privileged interests over beneficial social change. They operate as virtual US colonies most often, even when harming their own interests.

Is Trump isolated on the world stage as the Wall Street Journal suggested? Regardless of how Western leaders feel about him, their nations are very much allied with the US geopolitically.

According to Sputnik News, Trump and his aides were “blindsided” by Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif’s arrival at the G7. Does it matter given US war on the Islamic Republic by other means? More on this below.

What’s very important is the refusal of Western nations to join a Trump regime anti-Iran Persian Gulf coalition, lessening the possibility of war.

The US is largely a coalition of one so far, Britain, Israel, and Australia offering token support alone.

Russia was absent from G7 talks, excluded from the club since 2014 over nonexistent aggression in Ukraine.

G7 countries support the US transformation of the country from sovereign and independent to US client state bordering Russia — a dagger threatening its heartland, especially if joins NATO.

Economic powerhouse China, the world’s second largest economy, is excluded from G7 participation.

So-called global challenges were discussed on Saturday through Monday in Biarritz, France, Iran one of many topics.

Since Trump’s unlawful abandonment of the JCPOA nuclear based on Big Lies, an international treaty unanimously affirmed by Security Council members, making it binding international law, Europe pretended to go its own way.

By failing to fulfill their treaty obligations, Britain, France, Germany, and the EU breached the JCPOA, going along with the Trump regime’s pullout without admitting it.

French President Macron first said he’d lead G7 discussions on Iran, then about-faced, claiming no mandate from other G7 leaders to pass on joint messages to Tehran, adding:

“We had a discussion (Saturday) on Iran and that enabled us to establish two common lines.”

“No member of the G7 wants Iran to get a nuclear bomb and all the members of the G7 are deeply attached to stability and peace in the region,” adding:

“But there is no formal G7 mandate that is given so there are initiatives that will continue to be taken to reach these two objectives. We agreed on what we wanted to say jointly on Iran.”

Fact: Britain, France and the US have nuclear arsenals.

Fact: The Islamic Republic has none, doesn’t want one, never did, and urges elimination of these destructive weapons.

Fact: Judge them by their actions. G7 countries abhor “stability and peace in the” Middle East and elsewhere while pretending otherwise.

They back endless US wars of aggression in multiple theaters. The Islamic Republic is at peace with other countries.

It never attacked another nation, seeking cooperative relations regionally and globally — its nonbelligerent agenda polar opposite the US and its imperial partners.

Macron added that G7 leaders “will talk on Iran together” and issue a joint statement, the US excluded from it.

Trump said he’ll pursue his own (hostile) agenda on Iran, independently of other G7 nations.

Asked he agreed on a G7 statement Macron intends making making when discussions end, he said he hadn’t discussed this, adding:

“We’ll do our own outreach, but, you know, I can’t stop people from talking. If they want to talk, they can talk.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif arrived at the G7 to discuss the nuclear deal on its sidelines — reportedly on invitation from Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.

He intends no meeting with US officials while there. RT reported that Macron’s plan for saving the JCPOA “involves the US lifting its oil embargo on Iran, in exchange for Iran immediately returning to compliance with the 2015 deal, and coming to the negotiating table.”

Despite increasing its uranium enrichment, Iran remains in compliance with the agreement. Trump illegally pulled out and Europe continues to breach its obligations.

There’s virtually no chance that Trump regime hardliners will ease their “maximum pressure” on Iran that’s all about replacing its sovereign independence with pro-Western puppet rule and gaining control over its vast hydrocarbon resources.

Zarif has been conducting full-court press negotiations with other G7 members — except the US because of its illegal JCPOA pullout and weaponized sanctions war.

The JCPOA is dead short of a formal obituary notice. The only chance to save it is if Europe breaks with the Trump regime on this issue by fulfilling its treaty obligations — what it failed to do since May 2018, and shows no signs of changing policy.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.