US Aid to Kiev About to “Dry Up”

May 18th, 2023 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

US military aid to Ukraine may be close to drying up. According to a recent report by an important American media outlet, until July, Washington will be unable to continue sending large amounts of military aid to Kiev, thus risking the supply necessary for Kiev to continue fighting in the proxy war with Russia. It remains to be seen whether the absence of new aid packages will be enough to put an end to the conflict or whether the regime’s military will be forced to remain in the trenches, even without proper supplies.

The report circulating in the media was based on information provided by anonymous sources familiar with Pentagon’s affairs. They claim that “it won’t be easy” to recover the tens of billions of dollars already spent on Ukraine, which is why severe cuts are expected in the near future. It is alleged that only 6 billion of the 48 billion reserved for the assistance program would be left. With the depletion of this value, it will be difficult to allocate new resources in the program – at least on a scale as significant as it has been until now.

July is expected to be the deadline for this depletion. In about two months the money to send more military resources will end and then there is a risk of an abrupt interruption of the supply, which tends to severely damage the regime’s forces on the battlefield. So, if no effective results are achieved by the Ukrainian armed forces in the so-called “spring counteroffensive”, surely the situation will become even worse during the summer.

“Reupping [the money] won’t be easy (…) [US] has about $6 billion left (…) based on the rate of announcements, the money to draw down existing US stockpiles will expire in July. That would mean the flow of equipment could be disrupted if Kiev has to wait an extended period for a new tranche of funding”, source said.

It was added by the informants that the White House is already discussing a new aid package for Kiev, which, depending on the allocated amount, could further accelerate the depletion of military assistance reserves. It also must be remembered that in early May, Washington announced its plan to create a “modest” 1.2 billion fund to send long-term aid to Ukraine, which would focus on anti-aircraft equipment. It seems that, in the current American situation, the more aid is announced, the closer assistance to Ukraine seems to be coming to an end.

These discussions and forecasts are still taking place in the midst of the country’s serious financial crisis. Republicans and Democrats seem less and less in deal about their attempts to find solutions to national problems. So far, a final project on the country’s debt ceiling has not been presented, which could result in a default. Insiders also added that the “Congress will spend the next several months debating the [US] fiscal 2024 defense budget, a wrinkle that could complicate Ukraine funding”.

In fact, the conflict in Ukraine only keeps going because of Western help. Without the constant supply of weapons, money and mercenaries, Kiev would have been forced to surrender long ago. Maintaining the conflict no longer seems pragmatically interesting for either the Ukrainian regime or its sponsors. As much as the American military-industrial complex is profiting from the massive flow of arms production and exports, the strategic interests of the US are already beginning to be affected, since exorbitant expenses are being used with Ukraine instead of being used to solve the country’s financial and social problems.

However, for the US and NATO, this no longer seems to be a matter of strategic calculation, but of an existential decision. Allowing the rapid defeat of Ukraine will mean consolidating the process of geopolitical transition towards Multipolarity. Furthermore, a quick victory for the Russian forces would allow Moscow to alleviate its troops and prepare them appropriately for future efforts on other possible frontlines. And this is precisely one of the biggest fears of NATO, since the organization plans to keep the Russians distracted and busy, while fomenting conflicts that could “save” the unipolar order.

The Atlantic alliance is trying to promote the creation of new frontlines across Eurasia. Tensions are worsening between Moldova and Transnistria, between Georgia and the secessionist regions, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But so far these measures have failed, and no new flanks have emerged in the war with Russia. It seems that for Washington keeping Moscow in combat and attrition is a priority, so until eventually new flanks emerge, aid to Kiev is unlikely to cease despite possibly reducing. And even if it ceases, there will be no “carte blanche” for the puppet state to accept negotiating or surrendering.

In other words, even if Washington’s help “dries up”, certainly the Ukrainian troops will continue to be forced to fight in a precarious situation, without adequate supplies – fulfilling the promise to fight “to the last Ukrainian”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The White House has nominated a Pfizer-tied doctor to become the next director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

In a statement released by the White House, President Biden declared Dr. Monica Bertagnolli “a world-class physician-scientist whose vision and leadership will ensure NIH continues to be an engine of innovation to improve the health of the American people.”

The NIH is currently led by Lawrence Tabak, a Bill Gates stooge who replaced longtime NIH chief Francis Collins.

Collins resigned after emails surfaced that he and Anthony Fauci, among others, coordinated with other influential figures to silence doctors and scientists who opposed the covid hysteria narratives.

Dr Bertagnolli has received a stunning $290.8 million in research funding from Pfizer.

The Daily Signal, a project of the Heritage Foundation, reported that from 2015 through 2021, she “received more than 116 grants from Pfizer, totaling $290.8 million, making up 89% of her research grants.”

Anthony Fauci, who remains on salary at the NIH and has a taxpayer-funded U.S. Marshals security detail, told The Washington Post that he personally advocated for her selection as the next NIH director.

Bertagnolli has also received $17.4 million in grant funding from Janssen Research & Development LLC, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

The revolving door strikes again, now more in your face than ever before.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden’s New NIH Director Nominee, Who Was Selected by Fauci, Received $290 Million in Grant Funding from Pfizer
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

For most of this month, the mainstream propaganda machine has been parroting the same story over and over again – a Russian 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” air-launched hypersonic missile was shot down by a US-made “Patriot” SAM (surface-to-air missile) system. The “conclusive” evidence cited by the political West is laughable at best, but it was enough to convince those without specific knowledge of how weapons actually work, which includes most of the population. Moscow didn’t really comment on the claims. Or to be exact, not until the early hours of May 16, when the actual response came in a very “non-rhetorical” form.

Namely, the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) launched a SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) mission over Kiev, with the operation including two “Kinzhal” hypersonic missiles, which were used to neutralize at least one battery of the “Patriot” SAM system. While neither side commented on the variant of the destroyed US-made air defense system, video evidence shows that it was most likely one of the latest iterations, the PAC-3 MSE (Missile Segment Enhancement upgrade) that also includes the much-touted CRI (Cost Reduction Initiative) interceptors. The cost of a single CRI missile currently stands at close to $5,300,000, meaning that the 32 interceptors fired by the Kiev regime forces amounted to nearly $170,000,000.

Such a massive quantity of interceptors was still nowhere near enough to stop the Russian hypersonic weapons, although  the Kiev regime announced that it shot down most of the missiles fired by the VKS, including the claim that it allegedly neutralized six “Kinzhals”, despite the fact that the Russian military used only two during this attack. Although Moscow didn’t publicly reveal this, the information is based on the comments from the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu himself. In response to the Kiev regime’s reverie, Shoigu stated laconically:

“The figures given by the Ukrainians about the interception of Russian missiles are [usually] three times higher than the amount [of weapons] we actually use.”

Several military experts estimate that the VKS used a lot of decoys of various types to bait the air defenses in and around Kiev, which would explain the claims of the local authorities that the Russian strike was “exceptional in density”. Ukrainian officials stated that the attack also included cruise missiles and drones. Local air defense forces allegedly shot down 18 missiles and nine drones, including six “Kinzhal” hypersonic missiles. The claims are widely ridiculed by military experts and numerous Telegram channels, with dozens of memes and practical jokes being posted by users and commenters.

Serhiy Popko, the head of the capital city’s military administration, stated:

“The barrage was exceptional in its density, with the maximum number of missiles in the shortest time possible, but the vast majority of enemy targets in Kiev airspace were detected and destroyed.”

CNN, the flagship of the mainstream propaganda machine, immediately resorted to damage control to save the “Patriot’s” reputation, as it only arrived late last month and just recently entered service, claiming that “a US-made ‘Patriot’ air defense system was likely damaged, but not destroyed, as the result of a Russian missile barrage in and around Kiev early Tuesday morning local time”, citing a US official as its source. The report further claims that “the US is still assessing to what degree the system was damaged”, adding that “this will determine whether the system needs to be pulled back entirely or simply repaired on the spot by Ukrainian forces”. It also noted that “a US National Security Council spokesperson referred CNN to the Ukrainian government for comment”.

Such advice by the US government can only be interpreted by the fact that even Washington DC simply wants to avoid having to do anything with the Kiev regime’s ridiculous claims. The issue obviously lies in the fact that such laughable propaganda is not only completely unsubstantiated, but also makes the US itself look like a laughingstock of the world. This is particularly noticeable when looking at somewhat less propagandistic US media, such as The National Interest. Geoff LaMear, the author of one of the analyses recently published by the TNI, stated that “Patriot missiles won’t save Ukraine“, with the following assessment:

“‘Patriot’ systems are limited to pinpoint defense of major assets and are designed to operate in tandem with air defenses engaging targets at higher and lower altitudes. Without these additions, ‘Patriot’ will have too many threats to engage and the result will either be porous coverage that doesn’t protect its defended assets, or coverage that quickly subsides when ‘Patriot’ runs out of interceptors. Moreover, ‘Patriot’ systems are themselves vulnerable. Operating a ‘Patriot’ radar system gives away its location, making it an open target for Russian attacks. This means that ‘Patriot’ is not a one-stop-shop for defending Ukraine’s military assets or its people.”

Indeed, the “Patriot” is simply one segment of the US air defense/ABM (anti-ballistic missile) doctrine that also includes several other types of longer-range systems and interceptors. However, considering how lucrative air defense contracts are, the political West will surely continue suppressing any information about the destruction of its much-touted systems, while also parroting the ludicrous claims that Russian hypersonic weapons are being shot down by these same SAM systems. Such assertions come despite the fact that even top US officials repeatedly reiterated that there’s no viable defense against maneuvering hypersonic targets. This includes President Joe Biden himself, who stated last year that the “Kinzhal” cannot be intercepted.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Introduction

What is the Antichrist? There are almost as many answers as there are questions. Is the Antichrist the biblical figure “Antichrist” appearing in the book of Revelation? Or is He a symbolic figure that may have appeared before Christ or after Christ – preventing or fighting ethics and conscience feared by the announcement of the coming of Christ, or left behind by Christ?

If you ask 100 people, you’ll likely get 80 different answers, according to one local pastor. What role this biblical enemy of Christ plays in what some believe will be a final confrontation, is also the subject of discussion and interpretation. See this.

The question about the Antichrist in our western “universe” seems to refer only to the Judeo-Christian Religions. That is what most of westerners believe.

But the symbolic meaning of the Antichrist is much wider and deeper and older. It goes as far back as humanity itself. It exists in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism – there has always been an “evil force” attempting to dominate the good in a society.

Until humanity “emerges from the darkness into enlightenment”, it is fair to say that today we are dominated by the forces of a profit-driven One World Order” (OWO). 

Case in point: the Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and so on. We may be living right now what might be described as “the climax of the Antichrist”, and most do not even notice it.

Today, humanity is dominated by a cult of egocentricity, of a seemingly unquenchable thirst for power, for control of resources, for enslavement of fellow human beings by a financial elite. It is precisely this “Cult Elite”, also called the Deep State; the power over life and death of “lower” humanity – meaning all those who do not belong to the elite.

And the elite is defined by their material wealth. Literally. Because over the past 100 years or so, this small elite has made it their life objective to dominate Mother Earth with all its resources and sentient beings. They – and their generations to come – want to live forever with the limited resources our planet has to offer. The so-called “Antichrist” is usurping Mother Nature – against the very origins of Nature.

“This material-and-power thirsty Antichrist” has no spirituality. He exists as sheer analogue two-dimensional all-crushing monster. We can escape it only by spiritually vibrating on a higher level of conscience – in the Fifth Dimension.

Depopulation

To dominate with pure force, “they” must eliminate, so they conclude, about 90% of the current population. We are currently about eight billion people populating Mother Earth. That would leave about 800 million. According to Dennis Meadows, one of the main authors of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth

“We could [ ] have eight or nine billion, probably [statement at time of writing], … But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down.  I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience.”

The Big Lie 

They also must lie – flooding and engulfing the world with lies. Isn’t that what is happening today, and has been happening for most, if not all, of the last century?

The Antichrist has gone beyond all reason, beyond George Orwell’s “1984” – to limitless excesses. That is when physiology, the science of life, kicks in. Life itself, Life as in Mother Earth, is at stake. And that is when the excesses bring down the pathology of our society.

Famine

According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the world can feed about 10 to 12 billion people. This is up to 50% more people than are inhabiting Mother Earth in 2023. See this.

These predictions were made in 2018. With fast advancing scientific knowledge, including in agricultural production, it could easily be assumed that with 2023 technology the world could feed up to 14 billion people.

Yet, the elite talks about overpopulation and the need to drastically reduce the planet’s population. Why? Because we have now close to a billion people who suffer from malnutrition and are at the edge of starvation. But they do not need to starve. They are being made to starve by the endless greed of the wealthy.

Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. Every three seconds somebody dies of famine in the world.

High food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger within a year. This means, one of eight world inhabitants suffers from extreme famine and under-nourishment, risking death.  See this.

Rules-based One World Order (OWO) 

None of this has anything to do with overpopulation, but everything with wanton speculation for profit and misdistribution; quite similar to natural resources – 20% of the world population consume 80% of all the world’s resources. See this.

Much of so-called food and resources shortages have to do with massive price-speculations and corporate hoarding, to make nutrition and other vital resources unaffordable for ever more people.

Now, on the heights of the reign of the “Antichrist” – in their self-designated decade 2020-2030, shortages of everything, abolishing of natural food, of farming and other means of food production, have become the “rules-based order”.

In the Netherlands about 3,000 farms, equivalent to about one third of all farmland, must disappear by 2030. See this and this. All this for a fake climate change agenda, see below. Holland is the second largest agricultural exporter in the world, after the United States.

The Antichrist is everywhere, and powerful, because we let Him be powerful.

The Elite Cult does not want this to change; they do not want a better equilibrium in the world. To the contrary, they want a One World Order, to control us all.

This Elite Cult is today’s Antichrist, vibrating on low frequency and attempting to make the oppressed vibrating at the same low frequency, by media-imposed fear and anger, so people, the masses, will not emerge from darkness into illumination. That is what is happening today without scruple, since 2020 with the onset of the Great Reset and Agenda 2030.

At the beginning of June 2016, Switzerland inaugurated at that time the world’s longest railway tunnel, the Gotthard Mountain base tunnel. The celebration was a weird Luciferian ceremony, to which notably European and some “world leaders” were invited. Most Swiss citizens were oblivious to what was happening. The celebration was filmed, televised, yet, it hardly evoked much attention.

An RT  journalist had the clear sight of reporting that if “they” come out into the open with their cult symbolism, as demonstrated by the diabolical ceremony, the actual take-over cannot be far away. Indeed, he was right.

It started with a fake plandemic in 2020, a lockdown and lockstep scenario, as already predicted in the 2010 Rockefeller Report.

The ceremony openly reveals the evil connections to the ongoing Great Reset and Agenda 2030 – see the 6-min. video below or click here.

This all-encompassing “Antichrist movement” was prepared by a long hand – at least 100 years back. The preparation was highly sophisticated to exclude failure to the very extent possible. For example, if one approach fails, several others are foreseen to secure a take-over by any means.

Lies, Trickery and Digitization of Everything

Since there is no physical reason for food shortage, it must be created with lies and trickery; since there is no physical reason for energy shortages, they must be created under false pretexts; since there is no reason for mass-dying, it must be created; and since there is no physical reason to control the population before and after the mass-dying, it has to be created.

The means to do so is full and complete digitization of all and everything. Digitization is a linear process of projecting life. But life is dynamic, never linear. What we are being imposed is an aberration of an impossible projection of life – any life. It will not work.

That is why the Antichrist must destroy life as given by nature and replace it by electronic means – “chipping life” – so, human brains and human behavior can be monitored and manipulated by this small, non-chipped, non-linear elite.

They will not succeed as dynamics outlive man-made imposed linearism.

Giant Financial Corporations and Multibillion-Billionaires

According to OXFAM (January 2023), 1% of the world population, financial corporations and multi-billionaires, own more than two thirds of the world’s total monetary wealth. And no spiritual wealth at all.

For example, BlackRock, Vanguard and StateStreet alone – not to mention other banking behemoths – control every important food, manufacturing, military and service sector by major shareholdership. See this.

They own the mainstream media and dictate to them how to trick people into believing their lies. Tavistock Institute in the UK, and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) have developed over the past few decades extremely sophisticated technologies and methods for mind manipulation.

They work seamlessly together. The bulk of the population doesn’t have a clue. See this, Tavistock Institute “Social Engineering the Masses” by Daniel Estulin.

That is how covid came about and kept from one day to the next the entire world spellbound, at home, scared to the bones with dehumanizing masks and social distancing, keeping children away from their ill or dying parents or grandparents.

Today’s Antichrist, having little or nothing to do with religion – but with control and dictate and tyranny against all ethics and illumination – is the new “wannabe” emperor. His goal to achieve and maintain total control, is through darkness.

We, the people, must evolve onto a different level of conscience, from where we can escape and step into the light. And we will. It is just a question of time and humanity’s awakening.

One, so far, utterly effective control mechanism, that started with the Club of Rome and its infamous Darwinist theory of “Limits of Growth” – “the Antichrist’s blueprint” as of today – is at the origin of two major instruments for absolute control, massive de-population and fake climate change.

The mRNA “Vaccine” 

Despite all scientific evidence gradually coming to the fore and explaining the mass genocide being caused by the mRNA “vaccination” – the bulldozer rolls on vaxxing people around the world with mRNA-type injections, not just for covid, for EVERYTHING.

When you think you get a traditional flu-shot, an injection against Rubella, Polio, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, or whatever – you will be getting an mRNA jab – an irreversibly gene-altering shot, the effects of which will be passed on to future generations. – What is worse, you are not told about this change of “vaxxing-method”. You are kept totally in the dark.

Unfortunately, the majority of population has no clue. They cannot give informed consent, since they do not know what is being injected into their body. See this excellent explanation by Dr. Sucharit Bhakti. 

Already now, and more so in the future, is a myriad of deaths and causes of injury – difficult to trace back to the covid vaxx – see also Michael Yeadon’s video in which he explains the long-term effects, multiple diseases, from cancer to myocarditis, to sudden death, to brain damage and strokes, infertility – and much more. It will be almost impossible to connect these injuries and deaths with the vaxxes in five to ten years from now. See this.

What’s even worse, people, when told that their loved ones have died, or may be dying from the criminal covid vaxxes, they do not believe you. They will deny it. They prefer not seeing the truth. That is the well-planned reality. That is the Antichrist at His best.

It is mass-murder without punishment.

We must seek judgement for the sake of future generations.

The Fakeness of Climate Change

Climate change – just as people are gradually waking up to the fakeness of climate change, the Antichrist has an ultra-sophisticated tool of climate manipulation – or Environmental Modification (ENMOD). This technology, developed since the 1940s, had been elaborated and perfected by DARPA – the Pentagon thinktank, and later HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program) a US Air Force executed climate and weather modifying program acting in the ionized part of the earth’s atmosphere.

ENMOD technologies can cause droughts, floods, extreme cold and heat waves. HAARP science is so sophisticated that it can trigger earthquakes.

It is suspected – though no proof yet – that the Turkey-Syria earthquake of 6 February 2023, was an ENMOD engineered disaster. Similar suspicions surround the horrendously devastating 12 January 2010 Haiti 7.0 (Richter) earthquake. See this.

The Antichrist is among us. Touchably nearby. Has always been – when we least expect it – and when we do not want to see Him.

As long as we deny his existence, although he is in plain sight – so long “He” will prevail and we may not see the light. Escaping His grip and evolving into a higher sphere of consciousness may be the biggest challenge of our life, but also our only chance to live in the spirit of LIGHT.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Little Rock, AR – 37 year old Officer Crystal Wyrick died unexpectedly on April 3, 2023 after walking into local hospital and collapsing (click here)

Rome, GA – 58 year old Officer Jose “Joe” Picon died unexpectedly on April 3, 2023. Cause of death was not released (click here)

Orange County, FL – 31 year old Deputy Michael Milmerstadt died on March 26, 2023 after suffering a brain injury during training session at gym which started out as severe headache after his workout (click here)

Calgary, AB – 25 year old former Calgary Police Cadet Wyatt Topolnicky died suddenly in his sleep on March 26, 2023. He was a hockey player.

Olathe, KS – 34 year old Officer Brandon Blom died on March 23, 2023 while suffering a medical emergency while off duty (click here)

Edmonton, AB – 44 year old Police Constable Corinne Kline died suddenly on March 22, 2023, she was at least triple COVID-19 vaccinated and was infected with COVID-19 at least twice (click here).

Worcester, MA – 42 year old Sergeant Derrick Leto died unexpectedly while off duty on March 17, 2023 (click here)

McAlester, OK – 52 year old Captain Richard Parker died unexpectedly at home on March 16, 2023 (click here)

Evansville, IN – 33 year old Deputy Asson Hacker died after suffering a medical emergency while participating in his basic training program, on March 2, 2023. (click here)

Memphis, TN – 36 year old Senior Patrol Officer Michael Evans died unexpectedly on Feb. 24, 2023. Cause of death not released (click here)

New York, NY – 48 year old Detective Del Caraballo died after experiencing a fatal medical emergency while driving, resulting in a crash (Feb.19, 2023)(click here)

Miami, FL – 47 year old Officer Joel Perez died after suffering an unexpected medical emergency on Feb. 13, 2023 (click here)

Cincinnati, OH – 30 year old Officer Olivia Zick died unexpectedly on Feb. 11, 2023, cause of death not released (click here)

My Take…

So many medical emergencies, leading to unexpected deaths on duty or off duty.

Look at their ages.

Many of these deaths are probably the result of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and subsequent vaccine injuries to the heart, brain or other organs.

Several very interesting cases to note here:

  • 25 year old Canadian cadet Wyatt Topolnicky died in his sleep (hockey player!).
  • 31 yo Deputy Michael Milmerstadt had a headache during gym which was fatal.
  • 37 yo Crystal Wyrick tried to seek medical attention but collapsed and died.
  • 33 yo Deputy Asson Hacker died during his basic training program!
  • 48 yo Detective Del Caraballo had fatal medical emergency while driving causing a crash – he died from the medical emergency, not the subsequent crash!

I have done several substack articles on COVID-19 vaccinated bus drivers and truck drivers collapsing behind the wheel, leading to a crash.

Vaccinated Police Officers are at a similar risk.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Died Suddenly: Police Officers Who Died Suddenly Recently, Possibly Due to Injuries from COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

May 8 and the Rehabilitation of Nazism in Germany

May 17th, 2023 by Peter Schwarz

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

On 8 and 9 May, Berlin traditionally hosts numerous commemorative events to mark the end of the Second World War in Europe. On these two dates, the German Wehrmacht signed the unconditional surrender in 1945 in Reims, France, and in Berlin-Karlshorst, Germany. The Nazi regime was finally crushed. Adolf Hitler had committed suicide eight days earlier.

The main burden of the struggle against Hitler’s Germany was borne by the Red Army of the Soviet Union, which defeated the Wehrmacht under immense sacrifices. At least 13 million Soviet soldiers and 14 million civilians lost their lives in the war. But at the Berlin commemorative events this year, the displaying of the Soviet flag was forbidden. The Berlin Senate called on more than 1,500 police officers to enforce the ban on the three Soviet memorials in Treptower Park, Tiergarten and Schönholzer Heide. There were more police officers than visitors.

On the other hand, it was permissible to show the Ukrainian flag, which was only used by collaborators who were deeply involved in the crimes of the Nazis during World War II. For example, the Melnyk wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-M) used the blue-yellow flag with a trident, as it is also used today in Ukraine.

While the vast majority of Ukrainian men and women, along with their Russian and other Soviet comrades in the Red Army, fought against the Nazis, the OUN-M and the rival wing around Stepan Bandera (OUN-B) joined German SS units and participated in mass murders that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Jews, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians.

The decision to ban the display of the Soviet flag at the commemorative events was ultimately taken by the High Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg. The police originally banned both Soviet and Russian as well as Ukrainian flags and justified this on the grounds that they could provoke violence against the background of the Ukrainian war. The Berlin Administrative Court lifted this ban again on the basis of a lawsuit. At the request of the police, the High Administrative Court decided to ban only the Soviet and Russian flags and to admit the Ukrainian flag.

The political significance of this decision is unequivocal: 78 years after the defeat of the Nazi regime, it is forbidden in the German capital to show the flag of the liberators. The flag of collaborators and war criminals is welcome. A clearer commitment to the criminal policy of the Nazi regime is hardly conceivable.

This is not an isolated case or a misstep. The scandalous ban illustrates how advanced the trivialization of Nazi crimes in Germany is. Not a single significant media outlet and no established party has objected to it.

The trivialization of National Socialism is inseparable from the return of German militarism. The IYSSE already warned in 2014: “The revival of German militarism requires a new interpretation of history that trivializes the crimes of the Nazi era.” At the time, the youth organization of the Socialist Equality Party (SGP) protested against the historian Jörg Baberowski, who had defended the Nazi apologist Ernst Nolte in Der Spiegel and declared that Hitler was “not vicious.”

This warning has been confirmed in the intervening years. Even then, almost all the media, the leadership of the Humboldt University and numerous politicians supported Baberowski and denounced the IYSSE for daring to criticize the far-right professor. Close cooperation with the right-wing and fascists has since become commonplace, not only in Germany, where the far-right Alternative for Germany sits on all important parliamentary committees, but also in Berlin’s foreign policy.

In official Berlin, nobody is bothered by the fact that the German-backed and -armed Zelensky regime erects monuments for Nazi collaborators and mass murderers, names numerous streets after them, cleanses the country of Russian culture (even Alexander Pushkin and other representatives of world literature are not spared) and bans numerous left-wing parties.

In the Baltic states, too, the German government and the German army work closely together with forces that revere members of the Nazi SS as heroes.

If one follows the bellicose propaganda with which the population in Germany is daily bombarded, one gets the impression that large parts of the ruling elites deeply regretted that Hitler had not achieved his goal of conquering and destroying Moscow. 

In a long commentary on 7 May, F.A.Z. journalist Konrad Schuller urged Ukraine to immediately join NATO to provide it with a “nuclear umbrella.” He warned of a “painful stalemate” if the announced offensive of the Ukrainians remains unsuccessful. The “vigilance” of the West could then weaken and “the temptation to put scarce money into other projects rather than into weapons” grows.

After NATO “had already gone out on a limb for Ukraine with material and ideological aid,” Schuller said, its solemn promises would turn out to be empty words. “The allies could then scatter like chickens when the hawk arrives.” Therefore, Ukraine must receive much more money and weapons than it does now.

Less than 80 years after large parts of Europe and Germany lay in ruins, people like Schuller are again ready to unleash a nuclear inferno to satisfy their imperialist world power fantasies.

In reality, the German ruling class has never resigned itself to the defeat of Hitler. After the end of the war, it took a full 40 years for a German head of state to refer to May 8 as “Liberation Day” for the first time. But Federal President Richard von Weizsäcker, whose father was convicted as a war criminal in Nuremberg, also added at the time: “May 8 is not a day for us Germans to celebrate.”

Today, Weizsäcker’s Christian Democratic Union posts on social media that May 8, 1945 is indeed a “day of liberation,” but “also a day of immeasurable suffering.”

Immeasurable suffering for whom, one wonders. For the surviving concentration camp inmates? For the few Jews who had escaped their murderers? For the workers who had not come to terms with the Nazis and were spied on and terrorized by the Gestapo? For the Greeks, Yugoslavs, Poles and Soviet citizens whose livelihoods and lives were destroyed by the Nazis? For the young men who were forced into uniforms and massacred at the front? Or for the fat Nazi henchmen and entrepreneurs who had enriched themselves with Aryanization and forced labor and now feared for their fortunes – which, unfortunately, remained with them.

When the historian Ernst Nolte made his first attempt to rehabilitate National Socialism in 1986, he suffered a devastating defeat in the historians’ dispute (Historikerstreit). When Baberowski defended Nolte in 2014, he was met with open arms. Today, if Nolte were still alive (he died in 2016), he would be showered with prizes.

The rehabilitation of National Socialism has objective causes. German imperialism is confronted with the same insoluble contradictions as at the beginning of the twentieth century. And it is trying to solve them with the same barbaric methods.

Imprisoned in fragmented Europe, the dynamic German economy at the beginning of the twentieth century urgently needed raw materials, investment opportunities and markets. But these were already divided among the old colonial powers. During the First World War, Germany fought against France, Great Britain and the Tsarist Empire, which was allied with France and, with its enormous territory, offered great opportunities for expansion.

But Germany lost the war. Instead of victory came the revolution, which German capitalism only survived with the help of the Social Democrats. The real winner of the war was another rising power: the United States.

The Second World War was a gigantic attempt to correct the result of the first. Germany tried to bring Europe under its rule and smash the Soviet Union in order to challenge the world power, the USA. To this end, a conspiracy around Reich President Paul von Hindenburg with the support of leading economic and military circles in January 1933 brought Adolf Hitler to power. His regime had two tasks: the violent crushing of the workers’ movement, which rejected war and militarism, and the concentration of all the country’s forces on rearmament and war.

But Germany also lost the Second World War. German capitalism survived, partly because the US needed it as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. In the post-war decades, it thrived and expanded in the slipstream of US imperialism. But that changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since then, the conflicts between the imperialist powers have intensified.

The US is trying to offset its economic decline by one brutal war after another. The German government supports these wars partly openly, partly indirectly, in order to become a European leader and a world power. One day after the start of the war in Ukraine, it launched the largest rearmament offensive since 1945. Like the US, it is steadily escalating its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and is not even shying away from nuclear annihilation.

This explains the changed view of Hitler, whose furious hatred of the Soviet Union, Marxism and the organized workers’ movement are now again gaining positive sides.

Above all, parts of the affluent urban middle class, which have enriched themselves in recent years by the stock and real estate boom, while the incomes of the workers fell, have found favor with imperialism. This explains the transformation of the Greens, which initially presented themselves as anti-fascist and pacifist, into ardent militarists.

The danger of a nuclear world war can only be stopped by an independent movement of the international working class that combines the struggle against social inequality and war with the struggle against its cause, capitalism. The same insoluble contradictions of capitalism that drive the ruling class towards war also create the conditions for the socialist revolution.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Kurt Nimmo

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on May 8 and the Rehabilitation of Nazism in Germany
  • Tags:

Lost Souls with Nukes

May 17th, 2023 by Robert C. Koehler

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

More mass killings. More bloody “normal” — not just in Texas, not just in the United States, but around the world.

Eerily, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott inadvertently reminded us of the international nature of this scourge when he referred to five recent murder victims, in a tweet announcing a $50,000 reward for the killer, as “illegal immigrants.”

Hey, this is a divided world! Were you aware of that?

There’s “us” and there’s “them” — which apparently is a viewpoint that a mass shooter shares with the governor of Texas. Abbott, of course, was inundated with flak and wound up apologizing for his careless tweet, but the reality of it won’t go away. A private belief —that someone’s immigration status matters more than life itself — suddenly went public.

And a door of awareness opens. This is about dehumanization. And it’s not an individual flaw. It’s part of our collective psychology. Ironically so. Those on both sides of a divide — be it national, ethnic, racial, political or whatever — are united in their dismissal of each other’s humanity.

Recent mass shootings include the two in Texas: in Allen, a gunman walked into an outdoor shopping mall on May 6, carrying three weapons, and opened fire at the shoppers; he killed eight people, including three children. And in the Dallas suburb of Cleveland, a gunman killed five of his neighbors on April 28, who had asked him to stop shooting his rifle in his backyard because the noise was disturbing their baby.

And, in a trans-Atlantic link, there were two recent mass shootings in the gun-saturated nation of Serbia: On May 3, a 13-year-old boy, armed with two of his father’s handguns, opened fire at his school in Belgrade, killing eight classmates and a security guard and wounding seven others. The next day, a 20-year-old wielding an assault rifle and a pistol killed eight people and wounded fourteen in a rural area south of Belgrade.

Serbia immediately erupted in protests and even, apparently, political action. People possessing weapons illegally were given 30 days of amnesty, in which they could turn in their weapons with no questions asked. According to Serbian police, some 1,500 guns were turned in on the first day.

But that’s hardly all the transnational killings of the past few weeks. Mostly they’re committed not by armed loners but by various states. It’s called self-defense. It’ called war. For example, Israel conducted an aerial bombardment of Gaza on May 9, killing thirteen people and wounding twenty. Three of those killed were members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement. The rest were, well, collateral damage, which, of course, is just a word meant to turn a victim into an abstraction. This is how we play war.

Transcending war can only start by turning victims back into human beings, for instance: Two sisters, Dania Adass, age 21, and Iman Alaa Adass, age 17, were killed when their home was hit by one of the Israeli bombs. A cousin told Al Jazeera: “Dania was getting ready for her wedding in a few days, and Iman was sad because her sister was about to leave the family home.” He pointed out Dania’s fiancé, who stood next to her body, weeping and speechless.

The process of not knowing, not caring about, such humanity, at least long enough to kill someone, is known as “othering.” It’s the opposite of connecting and cooperating. It’s the opposite of empathy. When it comes to the mass-killing phenomenon, analysts — not to mention politicians and, oh yeah, pro-gun lobbyists — mostly focus on the mental health of the individuals who commit the crime. Something’s wrong with them. They’ve. shut down their empathy.

The serious mistake in this analysis, as far as I’m concerned, is the assumption that people act alone. In a sense, yes, they do: There’s only one person pulling that trigger. But acting alone doesn’t necessarily mean thinking alone. Indeed, lonely, angry, disconnected people are not alone. They’ve merely claimed, as their own, the belief that a given enemy is the cause of their trouble, and there’s only one solution: Eliminate the enemy. Where would such a belief come from?

“Without the creation of abstract images of the enemy, and without the depersonalization of the enemy during training, battle would be impossible to sustain.”

These are the words of Richard Holmes, in his book Acts of War (as quoted by Dave Grossman in On Killing). Holmes also writes:

“ . . . the road to My Lai was paved, first and foremost, by the dehumanization of the Vietnamese and the ‘mere gook rule’ which declared that killing a Vietnamese civilian does not really count.”

OK, so what? How does an attitude like this escape from boot camp into the general public? Lots of ways, as war is glorified by both the news and (especially) entertainment media. War preparation — the endless presence of some enemy or other — contributes, as I say, to our collective psychology.

And it’s not just the unquestioned, ever-expanding, multi-trillion-dollar global military budget. It’s the presence, for God’s sake, of 12,700 nuclear warheads on this planet, 9,400 of which, according to the International Campaign of Abolish Nuclear Weapons, are in active military stockpiles. Nine countries possess nukes; five more “host” them (for the USA, of course). And a total of thirty-four countries, not counting the nine — all of them so-called first-world countries — “endorse” the use of nuclear weapons.

There’s a hostage situation at work here! Our collective psychology is trapped in a cage. Humanity, having divided itself into “us” and “them,” is under its own threat to commit suicide, rather than attempt to understand itself. Lost souls with guns are just doing their part of help out.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lost Souls with Nukes

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

New York City will begin tracking the carbon footprint of household food consumption and putting caps on how much red meat can be served in public institutions as part of a sweeping initiative to achieve a 33% reduction in carbon emissions from food by 2030.

Mayor Eric Adams and representatives from the Mayor’s Office of Food Policy and Mayor’s Office of Climate & Environmental Justice announced the new programs last month at a Brooklyn culinary center run by NYC Health + Hospitals, the city’s public healthcare system, just before Earth Day.

At the event, the Mayor’s Office of Climate & Environmental Justice shared a new chart to be included in the city’s annual greenhouse gas inventory that publicly tracks the carbon footprint created by household food consumption, the Gothamist reported.

The city already produced emissions data from energy use, transportation and waste as part of the annual inventory. But the addition of household food consumption data is part of a partnership that London and New York launched with American Express, C40 Cities and EcoData lab, Commissioner Rohit Aggarwala from the NYC Department of Environmental Protection announced at the event.

Aggarwala — who founded Google smart city subsidiary Sidewalk Labs — celebrated the expanded data collection as forging “a new standard for what cities have to do” and a new way to shape policy.

He said the inventory also will measure greenhouse gas pollution from the production and consumption of other consumer goods like apparel, whether or not those items are made in New York City. It also tracks emissions tied to services like air travel and healthcare.

But Adams’ presentation at the event focused on food consumption, particularly meat and dairy.

“Food is the third-biggest source of cities’ emissions right after buildings and transportation,” Adams said. “But all food is not created equal. The vast majority of food that is contributing to our emission crises lies in meat and dairy products.”

He added:

“It is easy to talk about the emissions that’s coming from buildings and how it impacts our environment, but we now have to talk about beef. And I don’t know if people are ready for this conversation.”

Adams — a vegan who, according to a whistleblower, also eats fish, credits his “plant-based diet” for his recovery from diabetes. He is the author of “Healthy at Last: A Plant-Based Approach to Preventing and Reversing Diabetes and Other Chronic Illnesses,” a vegan cookbook.

Adams claims that changing New Yorkers’ eating habits will have both climate and health benefits. He said:

“We already know that a plant-powered diet is better for your physical and mental health, and I am living proof of that. But the reality is that thanks to this new inventory, we’re finding out it is better for the planet.”

But agricultural economists and regenerative farmers say that calculation isn’t actually that simple.

“Different meats have different kinds of greenhouse gas footprints” because of differences in the production systems and “all land is not created equal” Melissa McKendree, Ph.D., an agricultural economist at Michigan State University, told The Defender.

Land that is suitable for cattle production, such as rangeland and pasture, often isn’t suitable for other types of agriculture, and vice versa. And all of those different ecosystems for different plants and animals, when working well, work together to create a healthy ecosystem.

Alternative grazing systems, like the regenerative agricultural systems that McKendree researches, make it possible for pasture-raised beef “to sequester carbon, and to become a carbon sink” — actually reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of food production rather than adding to it.

Regenerative livestock farmer Will Harris told The Defender, “As a practitioner who has been regenerating depleted land for 30+ years I can tell you that regenerating land is about restarting the cycles of nature that have been broken by industrial farming — and restarting those cycles cannot be done cost effectively without animal impact.”

He continued:

“All ecosystems evolved with certain kinds of animal impact and to say we’ve misused technologies to break these cycles of nature and we are going to start them back by leaving out this essential ingredient that has been around for millennia is wrong.

“Sadly there is a percentage of the populace that for whatever reason has decided that animals in the ecosystem are bad and the way to have a healthier planet is to give up that animal impact.

“Many of us have proven that there is benefit, ecological benefit to having animal impact in the equation. It has to be done right, but when it is done right there is an ecological benefit, an ecological service that we provide.

“But this sector of society is so committed to the vegetarian vegan solution, that it doesn’t matter what we demonstrate, they are going to paint us with that same brush.

“They drown out our voices by screaming the same misapplied science over and over and over.”

Organization behind 15-minute city is mapping consumption-based emissions for New York and London

The partnership between American Express, New York, London and C40 Cities to map urban emissions was formally launched last week in a C40 press release. The groups will map the consumption-based emissions of both New York and London.

The press release does not make the purpose of emissions mapping inventories explicit. It simply states the inventories “will enable London and New York City to develop a suite of actions to incentivise more sustainable consumption in collaboration with people and businesses.”

It adds that the project “will also pioneer new ways for other cities to measure emissions from urban consumption,” adding that there is an “urgent need to reduce the emissions impact of urban consumption, especially what is eaten and the waste in food systems.”

To that end, “Building data inventories in partnership with city businesses (such as supermarket chains and retailers) is important for cities to measure, plan and act to ensure our cities become better places to live for all people and sustainable business can thrive.”

The press release bases its claims on a report by the University of Leeds and developer Arup Group.

Arup is a Rockefeller-supportedWorld Economic Forum-affiliated organization that uses “fourth industrial revolution” technologies to transform cities. They promise that immense quantities of highly detailed data,” can produce a “new level of control” making possible “more efficient and sustainable use of the world’s precious materials.”

The report assesses consumption-based emissions in C40 cities across the world produced by food, clothing, transportation, building infrastructure and household appliances and calls for those emissions to be halved by 2030.

In the same press release, Adams announced that New York has signed on to the C40 Good Food Cities Accelerator, where signatory cities commit to achieving a “planetary healthy diet” by 2030, defined by more “plant-based foods,” less meat and dairy and less food waste overall.

C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group is also one of the forces driving the implementation of 15-minute city projects across the world.

The group comprises 96 mayors of cities from around the world, is funded by major corporations and philanthropic foundations and focuses on urban activism for climate change.

Then-Mayor of London Mayor Ken Livingstone founded C40 in 2005 when he convened mayors from 18 cities to agree to cap climate emissions. In 2006, C40 merged with the Clinton Climate Initiative. In July 2020, the group published a framework for cities to “build back better.”

Bloomberg Philanthropies is one of C40’s major funders. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg previously unsuccessfully tried to impose top-down changes on how New Yorkers consume by instituting a wide-scale ban on large sodas and other sugary drinks. The policy was struck down by a state Supreme Court judge.

Will ‘meat caps’ really lower emissions and improve health?

Mayor Adams’ announcement about the C40 Good Food Cities declaration suggests the city will be serving less meat in the future to meet its 2030 goals. Officials from his administration did not specify the targets or the standards that would be used, but did indicate there would be “caps on meat.”

Kate MacKenzie, executive director of the Mayor’s Office of Food Policy, explained that the standards they are developing “set maximums for the number of times that red meat can be served each week and really introduces the plant-based proteins and a floor for that.”

“So it’s really the caps on meat,” she said, adding that the city has been moving in this direction already.

New York already instituted “meatless Mondays” as a joint initiative by Adams and former Mayor Bill De Blasio in 2019. “Vegan Friday” began in public schools last year, where children are served food such as pre-packaged burritos that received reviews such as “nasty” and “sad” on the Brian Lehrer WNYC call-in show.

Meals in the city’s hospitals have been made vegetarian by default, although people can request meat if they prefer.

New York spends roughly $300 million buying food for schools, homeless shelters, hospitals and prisons each year. According to the NYC Food Policy Dashboard, the city spends only about 1% of its food budget on “ruminate meats.”

New York’s initiative is part of a broader move by global policymakers toward targeting the food system — and meat in particular — as a source of emissions. Proposals have ranged from an outright ban on meat consumption to various types of incentives to minimize meat consumption, encourage lab-grown or alternative meat production to putting extra taxes on meat or forcing animal farmers to stop producing, as in the case of the Dutch farmers.

Meat bans, McKendree said, are “the most extreme policy [for addressing environmental impacts of meat production]. Think about what we ban. We ban toxic chemicals like Agent Orange and things that we know have those environmental impacts.”

She continued:

“But when we think about making policies, we have to ask, what’s the issue of concern? And we want to try to target that exact issue. So if our concern is reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then put policies in place that directly reduce carbon or greenhouse gas emissions.

“But banning beef doesn’t have a direct carbon or greenhouse gas emissions effect, it creates a reduction in meat consumption.”

Instead, she said, policymakers could consider a wide range of other policies — from creating certified products, to subsidies, to taxes, to education through cooperative extension at universities like hers — that would support farmers to produce meat using regenerative practices.

“I think there’s other options and opportunities besides banning or capping meat products,” she said.

In its March 2023 report on U.S. biotechnology and biomanufacturing innovation, the White House emphasized a coming focus on climate-centric agriculture in the biotech industry.

The report followed a September 2022 “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy,” which paves the way for biotechnology to take over food production by opening the door to more lab-grown meats and bioengineered plant foods.

Specific plans in the March “Bold Goals” report include reducing methane emissions from agriculture by 30% by 2030, in part by reducing methane emissions from ruminant livestock.

As policymakers across the world crack down on meat production, the alternative to meat markets, lab-grown meat industry and insect protein markets are booming.

Many meat alternatives require energy-intensive production and are ultra-processed, so may have serious environmental and health impacts

Obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and depression are but a few examples of conditions known to be promoted and exacerbated by a processed food diet.

For example, a December 2022 study in Sweden found many plant-based meat alternatives have very high phytate levels — antinutrients that inhibit the absorption of minerals in the human body.

As a result, while the meat substitute may appear to contain many of the necessary nutrients, such as iron, the body cannot absorb them according to a report in NutritionInsight.

Harris said the processed foods that will likely replace the meat that they are taking out of the meals are “less healthy, less good for the environment, and less good for the local rural economy that is rebounding by raising food right. There’s a lot of losers in this.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New York to Track Residents’ Food Purchases and Place ‘Caps on Meat’ Served by Public Institutions
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry’s aggressive and often unlawful efforts to prevent competition and keep drug prices elevated cost American patients, insurers, and federal health programs more than $40 billion in 2019 alone, according to a report released Tuesday.

The new report—put out by the American Economic Liberties Project and the Initiative for Medicines, Access, and Knowledge (I-MAK)—focuses specifically on pharmaceutical companies’ antitrust law violations, which the groups say are a key reason why U.S. drug prices are astonishingly high compared to those of other rich nations.

Examining the 100 top-selling drug products in Medicare Part D—which covers prescription medicines—and Medicaid, the report estimates that Big Pharma’s antitrust violations “increased Part D gross spending by 14.15%, or $14.82 billion, and increased Medicaid gross drug spending by 9.05%, or $3.15 billion, in 2019 for the top 100 drugs in each.”

Assuming that pharmaceutical companies’ antitrust violations similarly affected retail brand drug spending, the report estimates that “U.S. patients and payers spent an additional $40.07 billion on pharmaceuticals in 2019.”

“American families are paying far too much for prescription drugs, in large part due to rampant corporate lawlessness,” said Erik Peinert, research manager and editor at the American Economic Liberties Project.

The report highlights 10 illegal anticompetitive schemes that U.S. pharmaceutical companies deploy to juice their profits and keep prices high, including horizontal collusion, patent fraud, no-generics agreements, and sham citizen petitions aimed at convincing regulators to delay approval of potential competitor drugs.

“This report documents the many ways Big Pharma is manipulating and breaking the law to expand corporate profits at the expense of patients and taxpayers,” said Peinert. “The Federal Trade Commission has begun fighting back, but it needs more assistance from Congress and other agencies to crack down on these illegal practices and deliver for patients.”

Shortly following the new report’s release, the FTC sued to stop the biopharmaceutical giant Amgen from acquiring Horizon Therapeutics, warning that “rampant consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry has given powerful companies a pass to exorbitantly hike prescription drug prices.”

The researchers behind the report offer several specific examples of how large pharmaceutical companies have used their power and dominance of certain markets to push up prices.

The nation’s insulin market, they argue, “has been distorted by multiple overlapping anticompetitive schemes in recent years,” including the “illegal listing” of products and “collusion” among top manufacturers in violation of RICO law, as well as “exclusionary rebates to drive patients toward brand products and away from substantially cheaper authorized generic versions.”

The groups estimate that Medicare Part D and Medicaid “would have spent approximately 50% less on three of the four major insulin brands (Levemir, Novolog, Lantus) in 2019 but for the anticompetitive strategies used by the major insulin manufacturers.”

The report also accuses AbbVie and Allergan—which the former acquired in 2020—of engaging in a “sustained, consistent pattern of illegally blocking generic and biosimilar competition in violation of the antitrust laws.”

In the case of Bystolic, a blood pressure medicine, “Allergan entered illegal pay-for-delay agreements to prevent and delay generic competition” for the drug before 2019.

The groups estimate that Part D and Medicaid would have spent 90% less on Bystolic and its generic equivalents in 2019 had Allergan not entered the pay-for-delay agreement, which the FTC says cost U.S. consumers and taxpayers $3.5 billion a year in the form of higher drug prices.

The report also points to a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that Janssen Pharmaceuticals—which is owned by Johnson & Johnson—committed patent fraud to prolong its monopoly on Zytiga, a prostate cancer drug.

“The patent system is at the root of enabling many of the antitrust violations we identified and which are leading to higher drug prices,” said Tahir Amin, an executive director of I-MAK.

To combat the pharmaceutical industry’s abuses and lower costs for patients, the American Economic Liberties Project and I-MAK recommended that lawmakers and regulators act to completely ban pay-for-delay agreements, modify patent laws to “ensure that drug companies cannot use bad-faith patent strategies to perpetually extend monopolies,” and ramp up penalties for antitrust violations, among other changes.

“Until Congress and the United States Patent and Trademark Office ensure stricter standards that would prevent the granting of many of the types of patents that are leading to these violations in the first place,” Amin said, “Americans can expect to see their drug prices continue to rise.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Big Pharma’s ‘Rampant Corporate Lawlessness’ Cost Americans $40 Billion in 2019: Report
  • Tags: ,

Washington Wants War with China Served Hot, Not Cold

May 17th, 2023 by Connor Freeman

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The ruling class in Washington is planning on using America’s sons and daughters as cannon fodder to wage their long-awaited war against China. President Joe Biden along with the other de facto employees of the military industrial complex, including in Congress, have not made their plans a secret. Contrarily, they are quite happy to brag about basically any escalation they can get.

Hawks in the Pentagon, along with those in the administration and legislative branch—including the key leadership—have been speaking explicitly about the coming war with China for a while now, usually boasting about all they are doing to prepare for, as well as provoke, such a conflict.

This all began in earnest during the Barack Obama administration. War with China, despite the Republican Party’s obsession with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is the Progressive Democrats’ project led by—among others—the likes of Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kurt Campbell, Antony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, and Michelle Flournoy.

In 2011, Obama launched the “pivot to Asia.” The policy has been expanded by each successive administration. Obama’s project for the new American century entails the largest military buildup since the Second World War, shifting hundreds of bases as well as two-thirds of all U.S. Air and Naval forces to the Asia-Pacific region. Washington is encircling China for a future war with Beijing. In the words of Lew Rockwell, “The U.S. seeks to encircle China and make it bow down before the hegemon.”

The new Cold War on China has been heating up for years, but things have taken a turn for the worse under the Biden regime which is significantly more hawkish than both the Obama and Donald Trump administrations.

In January, the top U.S. Marine Corps general in Japan explained to the Financial Times that Washington and Tokyo are “setting the theater,” for war with China. Lt. Gen. James Bierman, commander of the Third Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF) and of Marine Forces Japan, said Washington is working with its allies in the region to prepare for the coming war with China, much like the U.S. did with its NATO allies following the 2014 U.S. backed coup in Kiev.

“Why have we achieved the level of success we’ve achieved in Ukraine? A big part of that has been because after Russian aggression in 2014 and 2015, we earnestly got after preparing for future conflict: training for the Ukrainians, prepositioning of supplies, identification of sites from which we could operate support, sustain operations,” the general said. He went on to explain this is called “setting the theater. And we are setting the theater in Japan, in the Philippines, in other locations.”

Later the same month, NBC News reported on a memo written by four-star U.S. Air Force General Mike Minihan, the head of Air Mobility Command (AMC), discussing the coming war with China. AMC includes 50,000 airmen and oversees roughly 430 aircraft. “I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me [we] will fight in 2025,” Minihan said, ordering his forces to begin preparing for war with Beijing.

In recent weeks and months, the U.S. has worked on deals to gain exclusive military access to the Federated States of Micronesia, secured an agreement with Manilla to gain access to four more military bases in the Philippines, awarded contracts to begin work on a new radar installation in Palau, announced increased cooperation between American and Japanese armed forces for a future confrontation with China, and made plans to deploy additional Marine units armed with anti-ship missiles along the Okinawa islands.

In April, Washington and Manila carried out their largest ever joint military exercises. 17,600 military personnel took part, including 12,000 American troops. The Balikatan exercises saw more than 100 Australian soldiers participate. The increasing pressure on both Russia and China has seen Moscow and Beijing step up their own cooperation in the region.

Later this year, the U.S. and Australia will carry out the “largest-ever” iteration of their Talisman Sabre war drills. This bilateral military exercise takes place every two years. As Antiwar.com News Editor Dave DeCamp has explained,

The plans for the massive exercises come after the US, Australia, and Britain unveiled their plansunder the AUKUS military pact with the ultimate goal of Canberra being able to produce nuclear-powered submarines by the 2040s.

The U.S. Navy envisions AUKUS will turn Australia into a full-service submarine hub for the United States and its allies in the region in operations targeted at China. As part of the deepening U.S.-Australian military ties, the United States also plans to deploy more troops and aircraft to Australia, including nuclear-capable B-52 bombers.

The rhetoric of U.S. military leaders may seem unhinged, but it is now all too common. In February, U.S. Army Secretary Christine Wormuth declared that “we” need to be prepared to fight a direct, hot war against China over Taiwan, and win it. “I personally am not of the view that an amphibious invasion of Taiwan is imminent,” she told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute, adding but “we obviously have to prepare, to be prepared to fight and win that war.”

Her plan consists of sending more U.S. troops and advanced weapons to the region, including hypersonic missiles. She also discussed setting up “theater distribution centers” in the region where weapons and other supplies can be pre-positioned for the coming war, suggesting Japan and Australia would make good candidates.

She said “our goal is to have Army forces in the Indo-Pacific seven to eight months out of the year,” when the war starts their job will be establishing “staging bases for the Navy, for the Marines, for the Air Force,” adding they will be providing “intra-theater sustainment.”

Wormuth also discussed what appeared to be a plan for the Army to impose martial law in the United States during the coming war with China. “If we got into a major war with China, the United States homeland would be at risk as well, with both kinetic attacks and non-kinetic attacks. Whether it’s cyberattacks on the power grids, or on pipelines, the United States Army, I have no doubt, will be called to provide defense support to civil authorities.”

In March, General Kenneth Wilsbach, the head of U.S. Pacific Air Forces, told a symposium in Colorado that his focus is on blowing up Chinese ships in the event that Beijing orders a blockade on the island of Taiwan. “You saw when Speaker Pelosi went to Taiwan, what [China] did with their ships,” Wilsbach said, adding, “They put them on the east side of Taiwan…as a sort of blockade.”

The General’s conclusion is “[w]e’ve got to sink the ships.” He continued, “sinking ships is a main objective of not only PACAF [Pacific Air Forces] but really anyone that’s going to be involved in a conflict like this.” In other words, even if the cross-strait conflict which Washington’s build up and closer ties with Taiwan is actively provoking does not immediately go kinetic, General Wilsbach will ensure that it escalates quickly as a result of his attempts to shoot through the Chinese naval blockade.

That same month, Trump’s former national security adviser Robert O’Brien said in the event of a cross-strait conflict, the U.S. would bomb and destroy Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor manufacturing facilities. The “United States and its allies are never going to let those factories fall into Chinese hands,” O’Brien threatened during an interview with Semafor.

A similar plan was laid out, as a potential joint operation with Washington and Taipei, in a 2021 paper published by the U.S. Army War College. The paper characterizes obliterating the island’s chip factories as a “scorched earth strategy” designed to leave Taiwan in ruins “not just unattractive if ever seized by force, but positively costly to maintain.”

The paper continues, explaining this “could be done most effectively by threatening to destroy facilities belonging to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the most important chipmaker in the world and China’s most important supplier.”

This month, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) told a think tank conference “the U.S. should make it very clear to the Chinese that if you invade Taiwan, we’re going to blow up [the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company],” which produces most of the world’s advanced semiconductors.

Apparently, the Taiwanese military brass did not get the memo. Taiwan’s Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng fired back against the Congressma, saying “[i]t is the military’s obligation to defend Taiwan and we will not tolerate any others blowing up our facilities.”

In April, for the first time, the U.S. Army’s Special Operations Command defended Taiwan from a mock Chinese invasion as part of CAPEX, the command’s annual capabilities exercise.

Lt. Gen. Jonathan P. Braga declared it was about time, these war drills are “in accordance with our national defense strategy, [China] is our true pacing challenge out there.”

According to Military.com,

[m]embers of the U.S. Army’s Special Operations Command fired Carl Gustaf recoilless rifles, breached tunnels and operated Switchblade drones that flew with an unsettling whiz over a training area…The exercise combined some of the hallmark tactics and weapons that were used during the Global War on Terror with other tools reflecting a seismic shift for the command as it prepares for potential conflict against major military rivals…and the mission they were gaming out was an insertion into Taiwan to defend against a Chinese invasion.”

Last fall, Navy Admiral Charles Richard, the head of Strategic Command, which oversees American nuclear forces, ominously warned the “Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup…The big one is coming. And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested [in] a long time.” Unmistakably, the “big one” is the coming war with China.

For almost 50 years, the One-China policy has governed the now extremely fragile relationship between Washington and Beijing. Thirty years after Mao’s forces won the civil war, Washington accepted reality and made an agreement which has kept the peace and prevented war. Under the policy, the U.S. severed diplomatic ties with Taipei and recognized that there is but one China, with Beijing as the sole Chinese government.

One-China means the U.S. does not have an official relationship with Taipei, with Washington recognizing China and Taiwan as the same country. The U.S. also maintains “strategic ambiguity” towards Taiwan or at least it did until the Joe Biden administration unilaterally overturned that part of the delicate policy.

Per the former approach, the U.S. would never commit to defending or not defending the island against a potential attack against the breakaway province. Critically, “strategic ambiguity” has aimed to deter Beijing from attempting to retake the island by force and, at the same time, to discourage Taiwan’s radical factions seeking to declare Taiwan’s independence.

But for the bipartisan China hawks, that successful arrangement is no longer good enough. Worst of all, some are proposing, and in some cases outright issuing, defense commitments in contradiction of the longstanding U.S. policy.

Since Biden came into office, he has continued to make “gaffes” announcing the U.S. is doing away with “strategic ambiguity” and even potentially the One-China policy. Biden has seemingly committed Americans to Taiwan’s defense multiple times. But now it appears that these notorious mistakes which were often walked back by the White House, were not “gaffes” at all.

In March, speaking before a House Intelligence Committee hearing, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines announced that “strategic ambiguity” was dead and gone. When asked by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) if the policy needed to be changed, Haines responded by announcing “I think it is clear to the Chinese what our position is, based on the president’s comments.”

Indeed, Washington constantly ramps up U.S. military cooperation with Taipei, committing billions of dollars in military aid to Taiwan, expanding U.S. National Guard training programs with the Taiwanese military, sending ever more Congressional delegations to the island, deploying ever higher numbers of U.S. troops to the island, concurrently training hundreds of Taiwanese soldiers for war on U.S. soil,  converting Taiwan into a “giant weapons depot,” and sailing American warships through the sensitive Taiwan strait almost every month.

The U.S. government absurdly promises these provocations are done to “deter” war, but China has made clear that Taiwan is a “red line” and Washington’s actions makes war more likely. Beijing has repeatedly said that they are seeking a “peaceful reunification” with Taiwan but they have not ruled out using force.

Even Haines appeared to admit this when, at the same hearing, she admitted “it’s not our assessment that China wants to go to war.” Bellicose members of Congress are foaming at the mouth for a confrontation with China nonetheless.

In April, during an interview on Fox News Sunday, Republican senator and neoconservative spokesman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called for an outright reversal of “strategic ambiguity,” as well as a complete overhaul of Washington’s China policy. As the Libertarian Institute’s Kyle Anzalone reported,

Graham claimed the United States had only a short window of time to prepare for the coming conflict, calling to “increase training and get the F-16s they need in Taiwan,” He also complained about a “backlog“ of arms sales to the island, arguing the transfers should move ahead while proposing new US military deployments in Asia and elsewhere.

“I would move war forces to South Korea and Japan. I would put nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on all of our submarines all over the world,” Graham continued.

He additionally explained he was willing to send US troops to fight for Taipei, a dramatic departure from longstanding policy, saying “Yes, I’d be very much open to using US forces to defend Taiwan.”

The ultra-hawkish Republican Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), further declared that sending U.S. troops to fight China over the island of Taiwan is “on the table.” McCaul clarified his position that if “communist China invaded Taiwan, it would certainly be on the table and [that’s] something that would be discussed by Congress and with the American people.”

How gracious of our ostensible representatives! After more than 70 years of illegal, undeclared wars and millions killed, some are willing to concede perhaps before going to war with another nuclear superpower, it may warrant at least a discussion with the American people.

To date, we—the people—have not been consulted regarding any of these horrendous and reckless policies. The hyper-drive propaganda against China is already designedly overwhelming our neighbors’ psyches. Given the current anti-Russia hysteria among the populace, with minimal domestic resistance, the White House has been able to ratchet tensions with Moscow—via its proxy war in Ukraine—to levels not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, it’s even worse, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists says the risk of nuclear war has never been higher.

There is no telling what Americans may be frightened into consenting to if a cross-strait conflict kicks off, or if there is an accident or confrontation between U.S. and Chinese forces in the South China Sea. Not too long ago, some were almost calling for war with China over a weather balloon.

As is the case with Russia, the U.S. launching a direct war with Beijing is essentially guaranteed to lead to a nuclear exchange. In such a scenario, China has the ability to destroy continental American cities, not just the aircraft carrier strike groups and the hundreds of U.S. military bases encircling China.

This should go without saying, if the hawks were honest about the risks of the war with China they are proposing, and indeed cultivating, the American people would refuse to allow a continuation of the buildup at all.

It is not inconceivable that, under the circumstances, an informed American populace may collectively decide they no longer wish to be ruled by notoriously venal people in Washington irrevocably caught up in the insane, outmoded, long discredited, and arms industry funded neoconservative ideology of unipolar, global hegemony.

And yes, that is what this coming war with China is about: world domination by Washington. The same Democrats and Republicans whose hands are still covered in blood from Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan now want to go to war with China.

But just like the other wars you’ve likely lived through, it’s not our war—it’s their war—even if the American people are fighting it.

We must stop this madness.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Connor Freeman is the assistant editor and a writer at the Libertarian Institute, primarily covering foreign policy. He is a co-host on Conflicts of Interest. His writing has been featured in media outlets such as Antiwar.com and Counterpunch, as well as the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He has also appeared on Liberty Weekly, Around the Empire, and Parallax Views. You can follow him on Twitter @FreemansMind96

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Britain’s Undeclared War with Russia

May 17th, 2023 by Thomas Scripps

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The shipment of Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine, the longest-range weapons yet received by Kiev, confirms the UK’s role as provocateur-in-chief in the NATO war against Russia.

The Ukrainian army is now not only capable of striking Crimea—Russia’s central concern in the war—but deep into the Russian mainland. It takes delivery of these weapons on the eve of a long-anticipated counteroffensive against Russian lines.

In these circumstances, all that has prevented a direct war breaking out between Britain and Russia is the Kremlin’s restraint, fearing the triggering of NATO’s collective defence clause.

At every stage of the war, Britain has led NATO’s escalation. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced last week that the war in Ukraine “didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014.” This dates the beginning of NATO’s “biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War” to the Maidan coup sponsored by the US and European powers to instal an anti-Russian regime in Kiev.

The events led to the Russian annexation of Crimea and the eruption of civil war in Ukraine over the breakaway of regions in the East. The situation was formally addressed by the Minsk Agreements which were portrayed as a peace effort. Last December, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that this was only a cover “to give Ukraine time… to become stronger.”

From that point, British imperialism was central in carrying out a joint programme of training and equipping the Ukrainian army while staging repeated anti-Russian provocations—most notably the 2019 allegations that Moscow had poisoned double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia with novichok.

The UK’s war preparations

Under Operation Orbital, begun in 2015, Britain had already trained 22,000 Ukrainian troops in the seven years before the Russian invasion. It has since trained a further 14,000. In the lead up to the war, thousands of British soldiers were deployed in Eastern Europe on permanent missions or for large-scale NATO combat exercises.

The UK played a central role in NATO’s aggressive posturing from the Baltic to the Black Sea. In June 2021, a British warship entered waters claimed by Russia near Crimea, in an incident that nearly resulted in a direct exchange of fire between UK and Russian forces.

The UK’s actions have been accompanied by statements from leading military and political figures making clear Britain’s hostile intentions towards Russia.

In 2016, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told Parliament’s Defence Select Committee that the UK would be ready for war with Russia by 2018. That year, Chief of the General Staff Sir Nick Carter declared that this included “project[ing] land capability over distances of up to some 2,000 km… copying what the Germans did very well in 1940”. Carter was referring to the preparation by Nazi Germany for Operation Barbarossa—the 1941 war of annihilation against the Soviet Union, recognised as the most brutal military campaign history has ever seen.

The 2021 Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy warned of the acute threat posed by Russia, as well as China, Iran and North Korea, and centred on increasing nuclear warhead capacity by 40 percent. In “Defence in a Competitive Age” the Ministry of Defence described Russia as “the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security.”

After the Ukraine war broke out in February 2022, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the UK was taking measures “to bring down the Putin regime.” New army chief General Patrick Sanders declared that the “British Army must be prepared to engage in warfare at its most violent.”

The Integrated Review Refresh 2023 is introduced by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with the declaration, “What has changed is that our collective security now is intrinsically linked to the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine.”

Integrated Review Refresh 2023 [Photo: Open Government Licence v3.0]

Britain supplied £2.3 billion of military assistance to Ukraine in 2022, with a commitment to match that figure in 2023. Thousands of UK troops have been dispatched to Eastern Europe to participate in NATO exercises involving tens of thousands of soldiers and advanced weaponry. UK special forces troops have been deployed to Ukraine, as confirmed in leaked Pentagon files.

Russia has also accused Britain of covertly sabotaging the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

The UK’s main public role since the outbreak of war has been as an outrider for the US and European NATO powers, being the first to supply Ukraine new classes of weaponry. Prior to the provision of long-range missiles, Britain also led the way with the supply of main battle tanks, sending a squadron of Challenger IIs. This was followed by Germany sending Leopard tanks and allowing other countries to send those in their armouries. The US then agreed a shipment of Abrams tanks.

Just days after confirming shipment of the Storm Shadows, now also agreed to by France, the UK used a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to declare a “jets coalition” aimed at securing modern F-16 fighter jets for Ukraine.

The crisis of British imperialism

Britain’s leading role in the war, outstripping to this point France and Germany, is paradoxically driven by its economic and geopolitical weakness, which it has sought to offset through a “special relationship” with the United States.

In its 2022 Congress resolution, “Mobilise the working class against imperialist war”, the Socialist Equality Party (UK) answered the lie that the war in Ukraine was the result of a supposedly unprovoked invasion by Russia, explaining, “The war against Russia is the continuation and intensification of the drive for US global hegemony that was initiated with the first invasion of Iraq in 1990-91 and intensified following the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991,” including wars and interventions against Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya and Syria.

It continued:

“British imperialism participated as a chief partner in every one of these bloodbaths. The UK has long acted as Washington’s foremost ally in Europe. But since Brexit this alliance has assumed an ever more essential imperative in British imperialism’s efforts to project its global interests. Opposed by Washington, Brexit lost the UK its place within the European Union as the foremost advocate of US interests in the continent, especially in opposing German and French efforts to build a European military capability independent of NATO. This has necessitated a redoubling of London’s efforts to prove its usefulness to the White House and the Pentagon. British imperialism, amid an unprecedented collapse in its world standing, is cleaving as close to the US as possible in the hope of a share of the spoils.”

Anglo-Russian enmity and anti-communism

There are deeper historical interests and old scores involved. Relations between Russia and Britain have been hostile for centuries, despite significant periodic alliances championing European reaction, including during the French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802) waged with the political aim of combating the spread of republicanism from France.

Anti-Russian sentiment was fuelled most acutely by the Crimean War (1853–1856), when Britain and France backed the Ottoman Empire in defeating Russia, and was deepened during the “Great Game” conflict over control of Central Asia in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

Britain and Russia found themselves in alliance with France in the Triple Entente (1907) only due to the enormous geostrategic threat posed to British by German imperialism, leading up to the eruption of the First World War in 1914.

Polish, British and French officers inspecting a detachment of Polish troops of so-called Murmansk Battalion before their departure for the front, Archangelsk 1919. [Photo: This image was created and released by the Imperial War Museum on the IWM Non Commercial Licence]

The most significant cause of Anglo-Russian enmity in the 20th century was the October 1917 Revolution, led by Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks. The seizure of power by the Russian working class in the world’s first socialist overturn of capitalism was viewed as a mortal threat by the British and international bourgeoisie. Britain led the allied armies of counter-revolutionary intervention (March 1918-October 1919) and supplied more than half the troops involved from Britain, the US, Italy, Serbia, Canada and France. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the class struggle in Britain, above all during the 1926 General Strike, and the ever-present threat of socialist revolution fed into the ferocious anti-Russian sentiment within ruling circles.

The re-eruption of German militarism and imperial ambitions in the Second World War pushed Britain under Winston Churchill into an alliance with the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. But as soon as the war was concluded the old enmities re-emerged with force.

Churchill, who gifted the world with the term “the Iron Curtain” at a speech in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946, had urged Washington to continue the war after 1945 against the USSR. “Operation Unthinkable” centred on a proposed July 1, 1945 assault by British, American, Polish and German Nazi forces against the Red Army. It was never implemented because the US was focused on the war against Japan, while Churchill was driven from office in the July 1945 general election that swept Labour to power.

Churchill in the Roman amphitheatre of ancient Carthage to address 3,000 British and American troops, June 1943 [Photo: Unknown author – Unknown source]

While leader of the opposition, Churchill met with former-US army officer Julius Ochs Adler on April 29, 1951, at the height of the Korean War, where he proposed that an ultimatum be delivered to Stalin once he was again prime minister, threatening to “atom bomb one of 20 or 30 cities”, to be followed by “if necessary, additional ones.”

Putin’s nationalist regime emerged out of the restoration of capitalism in 1991, the culmination of the Stalinist counter-revolution against October and the perspective of world socialist revolution on which it was based. Nevertheless, despite the entirely opposed nature of Putin’s government of capitalist oligarchs to Bolshevism, it is impossible to fully appreciate the extent of the UK’s hostility to Russia outside of the historic legacy of anti-communism and bitterness towards the Russian Revolution’s inspiration of anti-colonial struggles in which the British ruling class has been steeped from birth. It is an impulse ultimately rooted in class antagonisms; a hatred of the working class and socialism, shared by the upper middle class, felt so deeply that it is driving the ruling elite to contemplate war with a nuclear power that could end human civilisation.

Labour and the Tories: A single party of war

With Britain being dragged to the precipice of war with Russia, there has been no popular discussion of the consequences thanks above all to the unanimity between the Tories and the Labour Party. Sir Keir Starmer leads one half of a single, joint party of war sitting across both sides of the House of Commons.

At its latest conference, Labour delegates passed a motion submitted by the GMB trade union calling on the party to support the provision of military, economic, diplomatic, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, for the party to back an increase in funding for UK defence manufacturing, and supporting a long-term strategy to “tackle Putin and dictators around the world” and for the party to back an increase in funding for UK defence manufacturing.

Labour’s shadow foreign and defence secretaries David Lammy and John Healey have written in Foreign Policy magazine, “The next Labour government will ensure Britain is NATO’s leading European nation. We would apply a ‘NATO test’ to major defense projects within our first 100 days to ensure we are on track to fulfil our obligations to the alliance in full and review any capability gaps.”

These warmongers were handed leadership of the Labour Party by Jeremy Corbyn’s successful campaign to block a move by the membership to kick out the Blairites while he was in charge. The Corbynites have since either fallen silent on the war in Ukraine or, like his shadow chancellor John McDonnell, have lined up behind British imperialism and NATO.

War and the class struggle

The UK is above all driven on the path of war by acute social tensions and an eruption of class struggle at home.

Britain’s economic crisis and striving for global position dictates a brutal offensive against the working class, slashing wages, imposing speed ups and destroying social services under conditions of the worst cost-of-living crisis since the Second World War. In turn, militarism and war demands ever more draconian attacks, with the Royal United Services Institute hailing “the end of the peace dividend” such that Britain’s military spending must be prioritised over the “growing share of its national income devoted to the NHS and state pensions”.

The SEP’s 2022 Congress resolution noted:

“The catastrophic impact falls upon a society already torn by extreme levels of social inequality and widespread deprivation. Faced with a growing oppositional movement in the working class, the British ruling class is turning to war as a means of enforcing a false ‘national unity,’ with repeated calls for sacrifice from the government to justify massive hikes on the price of fuel, food and other essentials.”

The result has been a strike wave ongoing since last summer, with more than 2.8 million days lost during the winter months, the highest in three decades, and more than half a million in March alone. Sabotage and betrayals by the trade union bureaucracy of the fight by NHS, education, postal and rail workers have been vital in policing opposition, at the cost of undermining the union leaders in the eyes of millions. But the government is moving to ever more naked state repression, exemplified by the new anti-strike Minimum Services Levels Bill, set to become law on May 22.

Striking rail workers picketing during the UK wide national rail strike at the Cowlairs maintenance depot in Springburn, north Glasgow, June 25, 2022 [Photo: WSWS]

The war policy of British imperialism finds its only opposition in the working class, whose lives are being ruined and who face the prospect of death on an unimaginable scale.

But, as the SEP’s 2022 resolution warned:

“While there is enormous opposition to war among British workers, this opposition lacks a programme, perspective and leadership. The task of the Socialist Equality Party is to develop within the working class and its vanguard an understanding of the inextricable connection between war abroad and exploitation and repression at home, and in this process build a revolutionary leadership in the working class”.

Only with this perspective can workers and young people internationally fight to bring the madness of war with Russia to an end.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

On the night of May 16, Russian forces launched another massive attack on the military facilities of the AFU in Ukraine. According to Ukrainian reports explosions thundered in the capital, as well as in the Kiev, Kharkiv, Kramatorsk and Cherkasy regions.

The main direction of the recent attack was the Ukrainian capital Kiev, where the air defence systems provided by NATO states was active for several hours. The head of the local military administration called the attack on the city “exceptional in its density”. “The maximum number of attacking missiles” was recorded in a short time period.

The Kiev regime traditionally claimed that all Russian drones and missiles were intercepted, including several Kinzhal and Kalibr missiles.

Kiev Lies, US Suffers Losses: Russian Missiles Destroyed Patriot System, Other Targets In Kiev

According to the official statement Ukrainian Air Force intercepted all:

  • 6 Kinzhal ballistic missiles;
  • 9 Kalibr cruise missiles;
  • 3 ballistic/anti-aircraft missiles (to be defined);
  • 6 Shahed 136/131 strike UAVs;
  • 3 UAVs (Orlan, SuperCum).

While the military authorities claim that they miraculously intercepted 18 Russian missiles, the mayor of Kiev confirmed several strikes in the city, which allegedly resulted in some minor damage. 

According to mayor Klychko, several explosions thundered in the Solomenskiy district of the capital. Russian drones were reportedly intercepted in the Darnitsky district and near Boryspil. As a result, several cars caught fire in the city, a building was damaged and wreckage of several missile fell on the local zoo in Shevchenko district. He calmed down the world which is closely following the military developments in the country, assuring the public that

“none of the animals and workers were injured. Now anti–stress measures are being carried out with four-legged friends,” – Klitschko.

Kiev Lies, US Suffers Losses: Russian Missiles Destroyed Patriot System, Other Targets In Kiev

Ukrainian officials published photos of the burning cars to hide the real losses

Kiev Lies, US Suffers Losses: Russian Missiles Destroyed Patriot System, Other Targets In Kiev

Ukrainian officials have published photos of burning cars to hide the real losses

The official statement of Russia’s Ministry of Defense on the morning of May 16, is as follows:

Last night, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation launched a massive strike with high-precision long-range air and sea-based weapons at the locations of the AFU units, as well as storage sites for ammunition, weapons and military equipment delivered from Western countries.

The target of the strike has been achieved. All assigned objects are hit.

A high-precision strike by a hypersonic missile system “Kinzhal” in the city of Kiev hit the Patriot anti-aircraft missile system manufactured by the United States. 

The destruction of the US-made Patriot system was filmed by one of the cameras in Kiev.

The video clearly shows that the system makes about thirty launches per minute. The Patriot system is the only one deployed with the Ukrainian military capable to launch so many missiles. The deaths of US ‘military advisers’ who coordinate the operation of the advanced US weapons in Ukraine is also highly likely:

Kiev Lies, US Suffers Losses: Russian Missiles Destroyed Patriot System, Other Targets In Kiev

The video above also confirmed that several Patriot missiles failed to be launched properly and fell on the city streets. During the night strikes, numerous missiles of the Patriot and Iris air defense systems failed and fell in Kiev; they were found by the locals:

Kiev Lies, US Suffers Losses: Russian Missiles Destroyed Patriot System, Other Targets In Kiev

Kiev Lies, US Suffers Losses: Russian Missiles Destroyed Patriot System, Other Targets In Kiev

The head of the office of the President of Ukraine, asked not to film the work of the air defense. However, videos from Kiev confirmed that the Kiev regime was blatantly lying, hiding the heavy losses. Numerous targets were hit in the city:

The Kiev residents who were filming the work of the U.S air defence systems revealed the areas of their deployment.  

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All images in this article are from SF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russian Missiles Destroy U.S Patriot Air Defense System and Kiev Military Facilities

Turkey – Emerging Election Fraud

May 17th, 2023 by Peter Koenig

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The pattern is the same throughout the world, at least the western world, where election rules require an absolute majority, more than 50%, in the first round. If not, they go into a second round or runoff election between the two leading candidates.

In Turkey, the early vote count om 14 May started with a considerable lead for the people’s favored candidate, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He had an initial advantage of more than 60% vs. about 34% over his chief adversary, Kemal Kilicdaroglu. As the vote tabulation progressed, the margin diminished gradually.

Incumbent Erdogan was first elected President in August 2014. In 2017 Turkish voters approved Constitutional Amendments, changing the election system from a Parliamentary election to an “Executive Presidency”, giving the President, i.e. Erdogan, leader of the AK Party (Justice and Development Party) more power.

Under the new system, Erdogan won elections in June 2018 for a 5-year term, renewable once.

In the 2023, the second election, for which Erdogan is an eligible candidate, more than 64 million Turks were qualified to vote, including about 3.4 million Turks living abroad, mostly in the European Union. Among the Turks abroad, a landslide majority in most European countries voted for Erdogan.

When all votes were supposedly counted, Erdogan lost the absolute majority by a minuscule margin. The final “count” was 49.5% against 44.9% for Kilicdaroglu, the darling of the west, particularly of the US and NATO.

Erdogan is pro-Russia, against Russian sanctions and against Sweden entering NATO. It was clear from the beginning, from the moment when the Turkish Supreme Election Council announced the election cycle on 18 March 2023, that the west would do whatever they could to get Erdogan out and his pro-western opponent, Kilicdaroglu, “elected” – no matter the manipulation it would take.

Mr. Kilicdaroglu is pro-west, anti-Russia, pro-Russian sanctions, and foremost, pro-NATO. The picture couldn’t be clearer.

In sophisticated voter fraud, well refined by the Tavistock Institute’s and DARPA’s mind manipulation methods, tiny margins are made more plausible to the public, than larger ones. DARPA is a semi-secretive Pentagon think-tank, and stands for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

It would be more questionable, when the people’s preferred candidate, who was leading in the polls by a sizable margin, would suddenly lose by a considerable difference.

This subtle fraud is easier accepted, especially in cases where run-off elections are necessary between the leading candidates. In this case incumbent President Erdogan and his challenger, Mr. Kilicdaroglu, will be cast against each other for the final round on 28 May 2023.

Once there is a runoff, the election engineers will find the most subtle ways to get their candidate in the front – even if he or she wins only with the narrowest or margins. There is no way back. No recounts permitted. It’s Democracy, stupid!

While in earlier times, such small margins would have justified a vote verification, nowadays such democratic details are blocked. The recent pattern is quite informative. In October 2022,

Brazil’s Lula won by 50.9% over 49.1% by Bolsonaro; in Peru, Pedro Castillo on 11 April 2021 won by 50.6% over Geico Fujimori’s 49.4%, and in Colombia, Gustavo Petro won on 19 June 2022 a run-off election with the narrowest of margins, 50.4%.

In the meantime, on 7 December 2022, President Castillo was “lifted” from the Presidency and put without a trial for at lest 18 months, they say, in “preventive prison care”, for allegedly intending a “parliamentary coup”. He must have done something wrong in the eyes of the world rulers.

They are supposedly all “leftist” candidates. It is he most brutal betrayal of the old-style socialists, who hoped for a left-leaning leader to improve their state of life. In fact, almost all, if not all, are scholars of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF) academy for Young Global Leaders (YGL). As a reminder: Not long ago, Schwab said, paraphrased, “We are proud having been able to infiltrate our YGLs into governments all over the world.”

In the case of Peru’s Pedro Castillo, he was immediately replaced by Vice-President Dina Boluarte, another scholar of Klaus Schwab’s Academy for YGLs. Rather than calling for new election, Ms. Boluarte seems to be poised to remain in power until next Presidential elections in 2026. The few protests have been muffled by the media, and the world keeps turning.

They are all wins with the tiniest of differences. Technically, all within margins of error. And nobody insists on a recount? Or “recounts” were just not discussed – dictate of the manipulating rulers?

In France, Emmanuel Macron narrowly survived a parliamentary vote of non-confidence in the hail of protests against the unpopular presidential “decree”, rather than parliamentary vote – of a pension age increase from 62 to 64 – by 287 against 278.

All manufactured coincidences?

The population takes it all – no questions asked. It’s democracy at play.

If you ask such questions, uncomfortable questions, people avoid your eyes. At best they say, “it’s good we don’t know all”. That’s the level of consciousness we have reached. The Antichrist is living right among us and nobody seems to care – or dares to care.

President Erdogan faces a runoff election on 28 May 2023.

The narrowest of margins for pro-west, anti-Russia, pro-NATO Kemal Kilicdaroglu would be sufficient to get rid of Mr. Erdogan, an obstacle for the west’s plan of domination with Turkey, as key NATO member between East and West and Sweden admitted to NATO, another NATO member at Moscow’s doorstep. Is Kilicdaroglu a WEF scholar, a Young Global Leader?

Nobody would ask any question.

It’s a democratic process, a democratic decision – all legal, following the rules.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from duvarenglish

Dismantling the Supreme Court

May 17th, 2023 by Renee Parsons

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

There appears to be a new energy in Congress; perhaps subtle to those who disdain partisan politics but a noticeable shift especially in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  It is that consequential Committee where the Republican minority has stepped up to push back on leadership from the majority Democrats who remain trapped within their own moral bankruptcy and decadent agenda. On the House side, a razor thin Republican majority shrewdly holds together as they exhibit an obligation to put principle beyond narrow partisanship.

The American public is now confronted with a diligent campaign by Senate Democrats to dismantle the Supreme Court and its Federal system; piece by piece if necessary.  This is more than just a destabilizing effort; it is a coordinated plan to thoroughly discredit the Court’s authority and the credibility and integrity of its Constitutional majority of Justices who happen to be Republican appointees, to undermine American Constitutional values and the rule of law and most importantly, destroy America as a universal exemplar of international law as a divinely-inspired Constitutional Republic devoted to a Greater Good.

Each individual attempt has its influence yet combined as a blitzkrieg approach on the country’s 250 year old judicial process, its dismantling takes multiple forms;  whether it be submitting ideologic unqualified nominees for judicial appointment to dumb-down the Federal Courts and distort legally valid opinions, harassment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and now Justice Clarence Thomas who is the current target, a continual noisy parade of aggressive protestors, morning or night, at the homes of Republican Justices or occasionally at the schools of their children, manipulation of a bureaucratic Commission for the sole purpose of delegitimizing the Federal judicial system as a Constitutionally based agency and most recently, a desperate attempt to increase the Court to thirteen Justices  in order to guarantee Court decisions supportive of the Democratic agenda.

*

To digress briefly for context: the origin of the Supreme Court began with the Constitutional Convention of 1787. President George Washington signed the Federal Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789 formally establishing the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of appeals and head of Federal judicial system.  The Act further elaborated with Article III of the Constitution that  “judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts” as Congress determines while also creating the office of Attorney General, US Attorneys and US Marshals.

In 1803, the Court’s first decision was the authority to determine whether a law violated the Constitution; thereby including judicial review as an essential foundation of the Court’s primary role interpreting the Constitution upon which the Court has, ever since, functioned.

It is no small irony that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both pragmatic, innovative political thinkers and members of the Republican (Republican-Democrat) party, opposed the judicial review concept as no single arbiter should have that responsibility and criticized too much judicial power in the hands of too few as a potential for national tyranny. They both favored the sovereignty of the American people to be governed by majority rule with a decentralized government as opposed to the overreach of a strong central government and insisted that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution.

Since formation of the Court in 1790, there have been seventeen Chief Justices* and one hundred four  Associate Justices, each serving an average of sixteen years as the inclusion of a new Justice every two years continues to bring a new collegiality and a new focus to the Federal bench.

*

Back to the Judiciary Committee:  on the Senate side, push comes to shove on a regular basis within the Committee where the Biden Administration continues to nominate unqualified candidates who consistently exhibit a searing lack of familiarity with ethics, skilled legal scholarship or innate judgment.

In order to achieve their majority, Democrats on Judiciary must now rely on a barely functioning, wheel chair bound 90 year old Sen. Dianne Feinstein with balance and vision impediments whose votes will, nevertheless, be in complete alignment with every other Democratic member of the US Senate who vote en bloc with nary an independent thinker among them.

Upon Feinstein’s return, Democrats had the green light to move forward on three very problematic Federal District Court nominees whose nominations had been held in abeyance by Republican Senators requiring more skilled and proficient candidates; one responded that Article V nor Article II of the Constitution ‘were not coming to mind at the moment,’ while another expressed questionable opinions about sex offenders and a third, from my State of Colorado, was totally ‘unfamiliar’ with the Brady Rule.

I am not an LLD although much of my professional life has involved the law, yet even I know the significance of the Brady Rule but this young man, like other nominees before him, had not bothered to cram in expectation for the Senate grilling he would receive – which says something about their character and work ethic.

One example of Democrats lost in the fog of narrow partisanship, as if setting the stage for the impending drama on the Dobbs decision which would overturn Roe v Wade, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer succumbed to an unabashedly hysterical meltdown on the steps of the Supreme Court on March 5, 2020 as Justices were hearing arguments regarding abortion:

“I want to tell you Gorsuch” he shouted. “I want to tell you Kavanaugh… You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!”

While Schumer later admitted he “should not have used the words he did,” there is no missing his intent.  Schumer might take credit, that if it had not been for his not-so-subtle quasi threat, a blatant menacing dare, that threat arrived at Justice Kavanaugh’s home on June 8th with arrest of an armed man whose purpose was to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh just as it unleashed a flood of screeching protestors at the homes of Supreme Court Justices which continues to this day.

*

On April 9, 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14023 creating a Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States with its stated purpose “to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform”  and “including the role of secretive special-interest influence in and around the Court.”

One might inquire as to what ‘contemporary public debate’ the President was referring to and whether ‘secretive special interest influence” might include the American Bar Association which almost always takes a pro-con position on every Supreme Court nominee.

Curiously, thirty six Commissioners had been pre-selected to be included in the EO and appointed at the same time which appeared to put the Commission on a fast-track to somewhere; to make a timely recommendation, to offer its opinion or exhibit some impressive feat of accomplishment.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who has become a leading active critic of the Court, sent a six page letter to the newly formed Commission on May 18, 2021 expressing deep angst regarding 5-4 Court decisions (which presumably did not represent his political opinion) and outlining his significant expectations for the Commission’s collective consideration.

June 30, 2021, the Commission held its Second public meeting.

On December 7, 2021,  the Commission unanimously approved a draft 294 page final report that the Commission ‘voted unanimously” upon concluding that it had “met its charge to provide an account of the current debate over the role and operation of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system” and an “analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.”

In a press released written and released from the Whitehouse Senate office on December 8th, the  Senator referred to himself as a  “leading critic of special interest influence over the federal judiciary” and yet confessed that the  Commission’s final report “missed the point’ by failing to adequately address the twelve areas of concern he identified for Commission recognition.

It might be curious to know how long it takes thirty six individual members on any Commission to agree to a 294 page document on any topic as consequential as Supreme Court ethics within a seven month period from formation to issuance of a final report – or perhaps the draft report had been prepared by anonymous government bureaucrats prior to Commission consideration awaiting its proverbial rubber stamp?

Not to be deterred, Sen. Whitehouse continues to follow through with the full Judiciary Committee holding a hearing which would authorize Congress to supersede the Constitution in establishing its own parochial version of an ethics code for another Federal agency which violates the Constitutional concept of separation of powers.

*

On May 3, 2022, a draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito which would overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision was leaked to Politico, leaving little doubt that the Court would reverse Roe as the draft unleashed a level of opposition rarely seen in American political tirades.

On May 7, 2022, hundreds of sign-carrying, screaming and chanting abortion demonstrators arrived at the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Samuel Alito. Meanwhile, the Biden White House offered the reassurance that Justices ‘should not have to worry about their personal safety.”

On May 11, 2022, Governors Glenn Younkin (Va) and Larry Hogan (Md) sent a joint letter to AG Merrick Garland reminding him that (US Code 1507)  “Federal law prohibits picketing at the home of Judge with the aim to influence the Judge’s decision making process” and requested the “DOJ provide the appropriate resources to safeguard the Justices and enforce the law as written.” 

On June 8, 2022 a man armed with a gun, knife, zip ties and other tools, was arrested for threatening to assassinate  Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his family at their home.

On June 24, 2022 the Court issued its landmark decision in Dobbs.

By July 3, 2022, the US Marshal at the Supreme Court requested that state officials ‘enforce’ the law citing  “for weeks on end, large groups of protesters chanting slogans, using bullhorns, and banging drums have picketed Justices’ homes in Virginia” although state officials recognized that responsibility for managing the protests belong to federal law enforcement (ie US Marshals).

On March 29, 2023, US Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) questioned AG Merrick Garland during a budget hearing in which an additional $21 Million to hire 42 Deputy US Marshals was requested, when she released US Marshal training slides suggesting that Marshal’s ‘refrain from arresting protestors unless absolutely necessary” for criminal enforcement action  contradicting Garland’s earlier statement that “Marshals had full authority to arrest people under the Federal statute.”  Garland denied he had ever seen the training protocol.

On May 4, 2023, based on training documents revealed by Sen. Britt,  House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan held a hearing on why US Marshals were told to “avoid” arresting protestors at Justice’s homes “despite actions clearly in violation of Federal law;” even as the lack of US Marshal arrests of demonstrators outside the home of Justice Kavanaugh et al as demonstrations continue.     To date, not one protestor at a Justice’s home has been charged or arrested in violation of 1507.

*

On March 31, 2023, fifteen Democratic Senators sent a four page letter to the Senate Appropriation Committee directing that $10 Million be withheld unless the Chief Justice notifies the Congress that the Supreme Court has put into effect a public code of ethics including “misconduct by Justices of the Court.” That letter was clearly a breach of the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine.

Seven of those Democratic Senators running for re-election in 2024 are Senators Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Robert Casey (Pa), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Kaine (Va.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI.)

By May, 2023, the Committee began a hearing on S.Court ethics code, Sen. Schumer had still not recouped his standing when Sen. John Kennedy (R-La) repeated Schumer’s vociferous words with the admonition:

“I think Matthew 12:36 is correct; “by thy words, you shall be justified and by thy words, you shall be condemned.” Kennedy continued that some Democratic colleagues have been on a “crusade to undermine the Supreme Court’s legitimacy and credibility of the Federal Judiciary for years.”

In that spirit they publicized the school that Justice Barrett’s children attend; a man with a gun, pepper spray, knife and zip ties went to a Justice’s home to assassinate him. Actually, his stated goal was to murder three Justices. You don’t need to be Einstein’s cousin to figure it out; they aren’t getting their way so they want to change the rules. Now some Democrats want Congress to override the Supreme Court and apply rules to its Justices. The Constitutional separation of powers means that no branch of the Federal government can dictate how another should govern itself. The Framers insulated the Federal judiciary from political control to ensure that the Justices would decide cases impartially without fear of the kind of retaliation that fills the pages of some left-of-Lenin Democrats playbook.”

Kennedy went on to suggest that Sen. Whitehouse’s proposal was unnecessary and unconstitutional; that Justices already have a code of conduct, are subject to strict financial disclosure rules with Federal law requiring recusal in certain circumstances.  He duly noted a double standard exists regarding gifts and timely reporting with current and past Justices as ignored by the Democrats.

In conclusion, Kennedy said ‘The danger is not that rogue Justices are operating without ethics; it’s that Democrats aren’t winning every fight and they find that reality intolerable.  I’ve been disappointed in some Court decisions; but my Democratic colleagues should fill out a ‘hurt feelings’ report and move on.”

*

There appears to be no level of humiliation or shame that Senate Democrats will acknowledge as they vote en bloc in a deliberate, conscious effort to annihilate a Constitutional judicial process in place since 1787.

Once the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner was an annual Democratic celebration of two of its founders; the majority of today’s rank n file Democrats no longer honor Jefferson or Jackson.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC.

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: This file photo shows the US Supreme Court building located at One First Street, NE, in Washington.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dismantling the Supreme Court

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex… Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th President of the United States, (1953-1961), (in his ‘Farewell Address’, Jan. 17, 1961)

“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” George F. Kennan (1904-2005), American diplomat and historian, (in his preface to Norman Cousins’ 1987 book ‘The Pathology of Power’)

“A nation cannot become free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations.” Fredrich Engels (1820-1895), German social scientist and father of Marxist theory, (in “Speech on Poland’, 1847)

Sometimes politicians like to sprinkle their speeches and statements with words like “diplomacy” and “peace“. This does not insure, in so doing, that they really mean what they say. In fact, such grandiloquent talk could be a cover-up for their real intentions, which may be the very opposite to diplomatic solutions and peaceful coexistence to solving world problems. In the realm of politics, actions count more than words.

A good point in this case could be what U.S. President Joe Biden meant when he said, during a talk at the State Department on February 4, 2021: “diplomacy is back at the center of our Foreign Policy.”

He repeated the same message a few months later, in a speech at the United Nations, on September 21, 2021, saying that “we’re opening a new era of relentless diplomacy“, and pledging that “we are not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.” 

And to be well understood, Mr. Biden made the following commitment: “We must redouble our diplomacy and commit to political negotiations, not violence, as the tool of first resort to manage tensions around the world.” He even went on quoting the opening words of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “The equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom justice, and peace in the world.”

These were noble pledges.

The reality: The U.S. Government has largely abandoned multilateralism for a unilateral foreign policy mainly concentrated on NATO

However, what has really happened during the first three years of the Biden administration?

Following in the footsteps of a few preceding administrations, the Joe Biden administration has de facto abandoned the search for the common good of all countries within a multilateral approach. Indeed, far from actively leading the world with diplomacy in the hope of reducing military conflicts around the world, the Biden administration has embarked upon a bellicose foreign policy.

This is a policy inspired by neoconservative advisers, and it calls for increased military U.S. interventions abroad, on a permanent basis, outside of the framework of the U.N. Charter, which, it should be emphasized, was signed by all member nations. It has instead chosen to mainly pursue its foreign policy within the narrow framework of an increasingly offensive NATO.

Presently, there are two mainly U.S.-NATO-led proxy wars that are of immediate concern: a hot one in Ukraine directed at Russia, and one brewing in Taiwan and aimed at China.

In Ukraine, this has taken the form of the U.S. and other NATO countries shipping huge amounts of arms and equipment, and even some covert operations personnel, to that country neighboring Russia, including illegal depleted uranium weapons.

Even if public opinion in Western countries is still strongly behind the Russian-Ukrainian war, especially among the young and less among older generations, one of the consequences of the war, according to some polls, has been to isolate somewhat the United States and its NATO allies in certain parts of the world. In some countries, for example, notably in Asia, Africa and South America, the position seems to be “none of our business“.

Fall-outs from the American-NATO-led proxy wars against Russian and China

According to official propaganda, Russian embarked upon an ‘unprovoked’ war against Ukraine, on February 24, 2022. However, things are a bit more complicated, because the United States and NATO have been heavily involved in that unnecessary war since at least 2014, and credibly since 1991, as far as the U.S. government is concerned.

First of all, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991, it is widely established through declassified documents that U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, and the representatives of important European nations, made a solemn commitment to Russia, on February 9, 1990, that NATO would not be expanded “one inch” into Eastern Europe—conditional to Russia’s acceptance of the reunification of the two Germanys.

Secondly, as professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago has often said (and I agree), there would not have been a Ukraine War if Joe Biden had not been in the White House. It was, indeed, President Biden’s insistence on having NATO expand to the very doorsteps of Russia, with missiles pointed toward Moscow, that was the main reason why Russia felt directly threatened and why it invaded Ukraine.

Even Pope Francis arrived at the same conclusion, that the main trigger of the Ukraine War was “NATO barking at Putin’s door.”

Thirdly, let us remember that it was the Obama administration (2009-2017), with then Vice-President Joe Biden involved, that bankrolled, to a large extent, the overthrow of the elected pro-Russia Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014.

This was clearly established by then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland (a well-known neocon), who confirmed publicly, on December 13, 2013, that the U.S. government had invested $5 billion in Ukraine, under the pretext of ‘promoting democracy’, One may ask if it an accepted practice by democracies to overthrow elected governments?

Fourthly, published documents indicate that the policy of encircling Russia militarily, an act of war implicitly not allowed under the U.N. Charter, is a neoconservative idea originating from the Rand Corporation—a think-tank heavily financed by the military-industrial complex (MIC) and deeply involved in framing U.S. foreign policy.

Indeed, the policy of an aggressive military stand against Russia is well outlined in a 2019 report, entitled “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia“. Therefore, when Defense Secretary Gen. Lloyd Austin said publicly, on April 25, 2022, that the Biden administration’s objective in Eastern Europe was to “see Russia weakened“, it was a clear indication that the Rand Corporation’s strategy of militarily encircling Russia had become the official foreign policy of the Biden administration, even at the risk of turning such a localized conflict into a global one.

That may be a reason why people in the know do not swallow the propaganda line that the U.S. and NATO are in Ukraine to “save democracy“. In fact, there is no democracy in Ukraine, since the Ukrainian government of Volodymyr Zelensky has abolished eleven political parties.

Failed attempts by third parties to bring peace to Ukraine

The above could explain why the Biden administration has been quick to turn down any attempt to prevent or to end the Ukraine War.

For example, even when it was still possible to avoid a conflict, on December 7, 2021, during a Biden-Putin direct phone talk, President Biden undiplomatically turned down demands to consider Russian security considerations and stop pushing NATO right to Russia’s border. [N.B.: It is relevant to remember that when the shoe was on the other foot, in October 1962, and the USSR wanted to place missiles in Cuba, at 90 miles from the USA, it was seen by the John F. Kennedy administration in Washington D.C. as an unacceptable breach of American security.]

The Israeli government and the government of Turkey both have attempted to mediate a peace between Russia and Ukraine, but without any success.

First, in the beginning days of the conflict, in early March 2022, then Israeli Prime Minister (June 2021-June 2022) Naftali Bennett attempted to mediate a speedy end to the Russia-Ukraine confrontation. He came very close to succeeding when Russian President Vladimir Putin dropped his demand to seek Ukraine’s disarmament and Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky promised not to join NATO. A bilateral peace deal was ready to be signed in April 2022.

Secondly, in March 2022, the Turkish government also tried to bring a peace agreement closer between Russia and Ukraine. After successful talks were held in Istanbul, between officials of both countries, the two sides agreed on the framework for a tentative deal.

Considering that both Russia and Ukraine were willing to make concessions and with peace deals close at hand, why did the Israeli and the Turkish attempts at mediation fail?

Former Israeli Prime Minister Bennett gave an answer: the Biden administration commissioned then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to go to Kyiv and sabotage any peace deal. Some Western powers saw it to their advantage that the war in Ukraine continue.

Not too surprisingly, the latest attempt to end the Ukraine War—China‘s 12-point peace proposal for a “Political Settlement for the Ukraine Crisis“, made on February 24, 2023—has so far also been derailed.

It would seem that those who planned for and ‘invested’ much in such a war do not wish to lose face. For one, President Biden has branded the Chinese plan (which calls for de-escalation toward a cease-fire in Ukraine, respect for national sovereignty, establishment of humanitarian corridors, resumption of peace talks and a stop to unilateral sanctions), as “not rational“.

While President Joe Biden has concentrated his efforts on fueling the fire of war in Ukraine, Chinese President Xi Jinping seems to have filled the void and has developed the stature of a peace broker around the world.

In the end, considering the many parties involved in the conflict (Russia, Ukraine, United States, NATO, European Union), and their intransigence, the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, threw in the towel and confessed, on May 9, 2023, that peace negotiations in Ukraine were “not possible at this time”. Warmongers are in charge in many nations, and no ceasefire can be expected at this time in Eastern Europe.

Flight from the U.S. dollar as a consequence of financial and economic sanctions

Holding financial assets denominated in U.S. dollars has recently become a risky proposition. Any government imprudent enough to do so exposes itself to political pressures from the U.S. government and, if it does not abide, its dollar assets could be arbitrarily frozen, unilaterally seized or simply confiscated. The list of countries so punitively ‘sanctioned‘ has been getting longer and longer each month.

One would think that an international currency should not be ‘weaponized’ in that way, unless one really wishes to destabilize the entire international monetary and financial system and create chaos in the world economy.

On April 16, 2023, even the U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (1946-) mused aloud about the possibility of the U.S. dollar loosing its dominance in international finance and as a reserve currency.

Indeed, even if it is not easy, some countries have stopped settling their cross-border trade in U.S. dollars and are either using the Chinese Yuan, the Indian Rupee (INR), bilateral barter or their local currencies to do so. There are calls on the part of the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) to avoid using the U.S. dollar, as a response to unilateral U.S.-led financial and economic sanctions.

Such a movement to dedollarize global trade is an ominous development for international monetary and financial markets, with potentially enormous consequences, both monetary and economic.

In fact, the entire international monetary framework of the Bretton Woods System of payments, established in 1944 around the U.S. dollar (linked at the time to gold at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce), could be in jeopardy. Indeed, if the international payment system were to become more fragmented, the volume of international trade and the flows of capital movements could decline, and this could have a disastrous impact on the growth of the world economy.

Conclusions

As things stand now, despite efforts, hopes do not look promising for a quick resolution to the proxy war in Ukraine, and for lowering the escalating tensions over Taiwan.

First, if Great Powers hiding behind their veto at the U.N. Security council cannot contribute to peace in the world, they should at least not actively contribute to war. Unfortunately, in the 21st Century, the United Nations has become the carpet on which Great Powers wipe their feet.

Secondly, with its proxy wars, the U.S. government should realize that it is losing its moral ascendency and influence in the world. And it is evident why this is the case: the Biden administrations’s current neocon-inspired foreign policy of using NATO as its main instrument of intervention around the world, especially with its proxy conflicts with Russia and China, while snubbing the United Nations and its Charter, is shrouded with risks and may be a very bad idea.

Indeed, such a policy is isolating the United States and its NATO allies from the rest of the world. In the future, this could undermine their legitimacy, efficiency and influence outside North America and Western Europe. Pushed to the limit, such a development could result in unraveling the very international framework of global institutions that was established in the aftermath of World War II.

Thirdly, if one adds the persistent and threatening danger of a nuclear war to the equation, it would seem obvious to clear minds that a negotiated peace in Ukraine, in particular, should be preferable to a murderous and disastrous war, without ends, with few possible winners, other than arms dealers, and many losers all around.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book, in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University. Please visit Dr Tremblay’s site or email to a friend here.

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image is from Geopolitical Economy Report


The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles

by Rodrigue Tremblay, Preface by Paul Kurtz

Publisher: ‎ Prometheus (April 27, 2010)

Hardcover: ‎ 300 pages

ISBN-10: ‎ 1616141727

ISBN-13: ‎ 978-1616141721

Humanists have long contended that morality is a strictly human concern and should be independent of religious creeds and dogma. This principle was clearly articulated in the two Humanist Manifestos issued in the mid-twentieth century and in Humanist Manifesto 2000, which appeared at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Now this code for global ethics further elaborates ten humanist principles designed for a world community that is growing ever closer together. In the face of the obvious challenges to international stability-from nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation, economic turmoil, and reactionary and sometimes violent religious movements-a code based on the “natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings” is needed more than ever. In separate chapters the author delves into the issues surrounding these ten humanist principles: preserving individual dignity and equality, respecting life and property, tolerance, sharing, preventing domination of others, eliminating superstition, conserving the natural environment, resolving differences cooperatively without resort to violence or war, political and economic democracy, and providing for universal education. This forward-looking, optimistic, and eminently reasonable discussion of humanist ideals makes an important contribution to laying the foundations for a just and peaceable global community.

Click here to purchase.

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Disastrous Proxy Wars by Great Powers Create Military, Monetary, Financial and Economic Chaos Worldwide

“Bold Goals”: Biden’s Executive Order Will Have Us Bioengineering Everything

By Marie Hawthorne, May 15, 2023

In September 2022, President Biden released an Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology. Then, In March 2023, he released a document entitled Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing, outlining specific areas of focus in this bioengineering manifesto.

Is the United States Moving Its Capital to Jerusalem?

By Philip Giraldi, May 16, 2023

Recently there have been indications that rather than Washington being the center of the universe that title should rightly belong to Jerusalem as an extremist-led Israel has demonstrated its power over the self-anointed idiots who fancy themselves to be the “leaders” of the United States of America.

Nakba: Britain and the Secret 1948 Palestine Memos

By Rayhan Uddin, May 16, 2023

Zionist armed groups, allowed to flourish in Palestine by the British over three decades and subsequently trained and armed by the colonial power, are sweeping across Palestinian towns and villages, forcibly displacing residents from house to house.

A Timely Call for Peace in Ukraine by U.S. National Security Experts

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, May 16, 2023

On May 16, 2023, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement signed by 15 U.S. national security experts about the war in Ukraine. It was headed “The U.S. Should Be a Force for Peace in the World,” and was drafted by the Eisenhower Media Network.

Genetically Engineered Mosquito Experiment in California’s Central Valley Halted

By Friends of the Earth, May 16, 2023

In a victory for environmentalists, scientists and vulnerable agricultural communities across California, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced yesterday the withdrawal of a permit request for a mass release of experimental genetically engineered mosquitoes in the Central Valley.

Japan to Open NATO Liaison Office: Provocation Against China and Russia

By Ahmed Adel, May 16, 2023

Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi announced that his country is considering opening a NATO liaison office, demonstrating that Tokyo is deepening its ties with the US and becoming more hostile to China and Russia. Tokyo’s rapprochement with NATO would strengthen the anti-China/Russia alliance and advance the US plans to create a NATO-styled organisation in the Far East.

Assassinating Vladimir Putin?

By Ron Unz, May 16, 2023

Although pro-Ukrainian forces had likely been responsible for the drone attack, our government provides all their funding, intelligence, and control, and such a momentous act must have been fully authorized by top American officials. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is the Neocon responsible for Ukraine issues and McGovern believed she would have been the one who signed off on the strike against the Kremlin.

The Oil and Gas Industry of Alberta Versus the Climate Change Preoccupations of the Liberal-NDP Alliance

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, May 16, 2023

For decades the development of the separatist movement within Quebec proved most instrumental in threatening Canada’s confidence and coherence as a viable federation. This dynamic, however, is changing. These days the most direct challenge to Canada’s unified future is the growing constituency within Alberta starting to consider the possibility of moving towards sovereign independence.

Will Lawsuits Bring an End to COVID Vaccines?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 16, 2023

Drug companies have a legal responsibility to provide profits for their shareholders. They do not have a legal responsibility to give patients the best and safest treatment. But the biggest scandal is that those with the responsibility to uphold scientific integrity — academic institutions, doctors, medical journals — also collude with industry for financial gain.

Big Bad Canada Pushes to Protect Profits from Mexico

By Yves Engler, May 16, 2023

Recently the Mexican government initiated more socially and ecologically sound mining legislation. The reform shortens mining concessions, tightens rules for water permits and requires companies to provide at least 10 per cent of profits to the communities where they operate.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: “Bold Goals”: Biden’s Executive Order Will Have Us Bioengineering Everything

Image: President Harry Truman

First published by GR on September 7, 2014, minor edits. 

The Declassified documents were first posted by Global Research in December 2003

see my 2003 article on the Truman Doctrine

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG312A.html

 

.

Author’s Introductory Note 

We bring to the attention of our readers the analysis of George F. Kennan (1948) which constitutes the foreign policy cornerstone of the “‘Truman doctrine.”

These documents have set the groundwork. They have a direct bearing on US foreign policy and military doctrine under the Biden Administration, specifically with regard to Germany and the European Union which are currently the object of a U.S. sponsored Act of “Economic Warfare”. 

What is of significance is that the threats directed against Germany and the EU, emanating from the Biden White House, were formulated under the “Truman Doctrine” at the very outset of the post-war era. According to George Kennan

“To achieve such a federation [EU] would be much easier if Germany were partitioned, or drastically decentralized, and if the component parts could be brought separately into the European union.”  

The military occupation of western Germany may have to go on for a long time. We may even have to be prepared to see it become a quasi-permanent feature of the European scene

In the long run there can be only three possibilities for the future of western and central Europe. One is German domination. Another is Russian domination. The third is a federated Europe, into which the parts of Germany are absorbed but in which the influence of the other countries is sufficient to hold Germany in her place.

The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better”  (George Kennan, emphasis added)

“Straight power concepts” are now designated by the U.S State Department and the media as “the rules-based order”.

See our recent articles: 

Video: America is at War with Europe

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 22, 2023

Video: Has Germany Become a Colony of the United States?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 20, 2023

Michel Chossudovsky, May 17, 2023

***

Introduction

Today’s US-NATO sponsored wars are part of a military and foreign policy agenda extending over a period of more than half a century.

In this regard, the NeoCons’ Project for the New American Century’s blueprint formulated in 2000  should be viewed as the culmination of a post-war agenda of military hegemony and global economic domination as initially formulated by the State Department in 1948 at the outset of the Cold War.

What these 1948 State department documents reveal (see below in Annex) is continuity in US foreign policy from “Containment” during the Cold War to today’s doctrine of “Pre-emptive War”.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is in many regards a continuation of the Truman Doctrine, namely a hegemonic “long war” waged by US-NATO at a global level. Military actions are to be implemented simultaneously in different regions of the world (as outlined in the PNAC): 

“Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” 

Needless to say, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush, Barack Obama [and now Joe Biden] have been involved in carrying out this hegemonic blueprint for global domination, which the Pentagon  calls the “Long War”.

Kennan’s writings point to the importance of building a dominant Anglo-American alliance based on “good relations between our country and [the] British Empire”. In today’s world, this alliance largely characterizes the military axis between Washington and London, which plays a dominant role inside NATO to the detriment of Washington’s  European allies. Kennan also pointed to the inclusion of Canada in the Anglo-American alliance, a policy which today has largely been implemented (under NAFTA and the integration of military command structures).  Canada was viewed as a go between the US and Britain, as a means for the US to also exert its influence in Britain’s colones, which later became part of the Commonwealth.

Of significance, Kennan underscores the importance of preventing the development of continental European powers (e.g. Germany and France)  which could compete with the Anglo-American axis:

Today, standing at the end rather than the beginning of this half-century, some of us see certain fundamental elements on which we suspect that American security has rested. We can see that our security has been dependent throughout much of our history on the position of Britain; that Canada, in particular, has been a useful and indispensable hostage to good relations between our country and British Empire; and that Britain’s position, in turn, has depended on the maintenance of a balance of power on the European Continent.

Thus it was essential to us, as it was to Britain, that no single Continental land power should come to dominate the entire Eurasian land mass. Our interest has lain rather in the maintenance of some sort of stable balance among the powers of the interior, in order that none of them should effect the subjugation of the others, conquer the seafaring fringes of the land mass, become a great sea power as well as land power, shatter the position of England, and enter—as in these circumstances it certainly would—on an overseas expansion hostile to ourselves and supported by the immense resources of the interior of Europe and Asia. Seeing these things, we can understand that we have had a stake in the prosperity and independence of the peripheral powers of Europe and Asia: those countries whose gazes were oriented outward, across the seas, rather than inward to the conquest of power on land. (George F. Kennan, American Diplomacy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1951)

Today the World is at crossroads of the most serious crisis in World history. The US and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. This roadmap of global warfare has its historical roots in the 1948 Truman doctrine.

Of relevance in relation to recent developments in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, Kennan explicitly pointed in his 1948 State Department brief, to “a policy of containment of Germany, within Western Europe”. What Kennan’s observations suggest is that the US should be  supportive of  a European Project only inasmuch as it supports US hegemonic interests.

In this regard, we recall that the Franco -German alliance largely prevailed prior to the onslaught of the March 2003 US-UK invasion of Iraq, to which both France and Germany were opposed.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a turning point. The election of pro-US political leaders (President Sarkozy in France and Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany) was conducive to a weakening of national sovereignty, leading to the demise of the Franco-German alliance.

Today both Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel are taking their orders directly from Washington.

Moreover, in today’s context, the US is committed to preventing Germany and France from developing political and economic relations with Russia, which in the eyes of Washington would undermine America’s hegemonic ambitions in the European Union.

“Federated Europe”

It would appear that a blueprint of  a European Union predicated on “a weakened Germany” had been envisaged by the US State Department in the late 1940s.

Writing in 1948, Kennan had envisaged the formation of a “Federated Europe” which would based on the strengthening of the dominant Anglo-American alliance between Britain and the US , the weakening of Germany as a European power and the exclusion of Russia.

According to Kennan:

In the long run there can be only three possibilities for the future of western and central Europe. One is German domination. Another is Russian domination. The third is a federated Europe, into which the parts of Germany are absorbed but in which the influence of the other countries is sufficient to hold Germany in her place.

If there is no real European federation and if Germany is restored as a strong and independent country, we must expect another attempt at German domination. If there is no real European federation and if Germany is not restored as a strong and independent country, we invite Russian domination, for an unorganized Western Europe cannot indefinitely oppose an organized Eastern Europe. The only reasonably hopeful possibility for avoiding one of these two evils is some form of federation in western and central Europe.

Moreover, it is worth noting that the US at the outset of the Cold did not favor the reunification of Germany. Quite the opposite: Germany was to remain partitioned:

Our dilemma today lies in the fact that whereas a European federation would be by all odds the best solution from the standpoint of U.S. interests, the Germans are poorly prepared for it. To achieve such a federation would be much easier if Germany were partitioned, or drastically decentralized, and if the component parts could be brought separately into the European union. To bring a unified Germany, or even a unified western Germany, into such a union would be much more difficult: for it would still over-weigh the other components, in many respects.

With regard to Asia including China and India, Kennan hints to to the importance of not only articulating a military solution but in maintaining the people of Asia in a state of poverty. What is also put forth is a strategy of creating divisions as well as ensuring that Asian countries do not establish a relationship with the Soviet Union which would hinder US hegemonic interests.

“The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better”:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples—the Chinese and the Indians—have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better. (emphasis added)

From the outset of the Cold War era, Washington was also intent upon weakening the United Nations. According to Kennan:

The initial build-up of the UN in U.S. public opinion was so tremendous that it is possibly true, as is frequently alleged, that we have no choice but to make it the cornerstone of our policy in this post-hostilities period. Occasionally, it has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part. (emphasis added)

Michel Chossudovsky, September 7, 2014, May 17, 2023  [updated from December 2003)


ANNEX

Further references including original archives:

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1945-1950 Emergence of the Intelligence Establishment

at http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/intel/

Foreign Relations Series   (Kennedy through Nixon)

at http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/frus.html

For a list of Kennan’s writings at Princeton University library:

http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/kennan/index.html

See also The United States’ Global Military Crusade (1945-2003) by Eric Waddell, Global Outlook, Issue 6, Winter 2003


 PPS/23: Review of Current Trends in U.S. Foreign Policy

Published in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Volume I, pp. 509-529.Policy Planning Staff Files 1

Memorandum by the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) 2 to the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State (Lovett)

TOP SECRET
PPS/23

[Washington,] February 24, 1948.

(emphasis added)

When Mr. Acheson 3 first spoke to me about the Planning Staff, he said that he thought its most important function would be to try to trace the lines of development of our foreign policy as they emerged from our actions in the past, and to project them into the future, so that we could see where we were going.

During the first months of the operation of the Staff, I hesitated to undertake any such effort, because I did not feel that any of us had a broad enough view of the problems involved to lend real value to our estimate.

I have now made an effort toward a general view of the main problems of our foreign policy, and I enclose it as a Staff paper. It is far from comprehensive and doubtless contains many defects; but it is a first step toward the unified concept of foreign policy which I hope this Staff can some day help to evolve.

The paper is submitted merely for information, and does not call for approval. I made no effort to clear it around the Department, since this would have changed its whole character. For this reason, I feel that if any of the views expressed should be made the basis for action in the Department, the views of the offices concerned should first be consulted.

This document should properly have included a chapter on Latin America. I have not included such a chapter because I am not familiar with the problems of the area, and the Staff has not yet studied them. Butler, 4 who is taking over for me in my absence, 5 has had long experience with these problems and I hope that while I am away he and the Staff will be able to work up some recommendations for basic policy objectives with regard to the Latin American countries.

George F. Kennan


[Annex]

Report by the Policy Planning Staff

TOP SECRET
PPS/23
[Washington,] February 24, 1948.

Review of Current Trends U.S. Foreign Policy

I. United States, Britain, and Europe

On the assumption that Western Europe will be rescued from communist control, the relationships between Great Britain and the continental countries, on the one hand, and between Great Britain and the United States and Canada on the other, will become for us a long term policy problem of major significance. The scope of this problem is so immense and its complexities so numerous that there can be no simple and easy answer. The solutions will have to be evolved step by step over a long period of time. But it is not too early today for us to begin to think out the broad outlines of the pattern which would best suit our national interests.

In my opinion, the following facts are basic to a consideration of the problem.

1. Some form of political, military and economic union in Western Europe will be necessary if the free nations of Europe are to hold their own against the people of the east united under Moscow rule.

2. It is questionable whether this union could be strong enough to serve its designed purpose unless it had the participation and support of Great Britain.

3. Britain’s long term economic problem, on the other hand, can scarcely be solved just by closer association with the other Western European countries, since these countries do not have, by and large, the food and raw material surpluses she needs; this problem could be far better met by closer association with Canada and the United States.

4. The only way in which a European union, embracing Britain but excluding eastern Europe, could become economically healthy would be develop the closest sort of trading relationships either with this hemisphere or with Africa.

It will be seen from the above that we stand before something of a dilemma. If we were to take Britain into our own U.S.-Canadian orbit, according to some formula of “Union now”, this would probably solve Britain’s long term economic problem and create a natural political entity of great strength. But this would tend to cut Britain off from the close political association she is seeking with continental nations and might therefore have the ultimate effect of rendering the continental nations more vulnerable to Russian pressure. If, on the other hand, the British are encouraged to seek salvation only in closer association with their continental neighbors, then there is no visible solution of the long term economic problem of either Britain or Germany, and we would be faced, at the termination of ERP, with another crises of demand on this country for European aid. 6

To me there seem only two lines of emergence from this dilemma. They are not mutually exclusive and might, in fact, supplement each, other very well.

In the first place, Britain could be encouraged to proceed vigorously with her plans for participation in a European union, and we could try to bring that entire union, rather than just Britain alone, into a closer economic association with this country and Canada. We must remember, however, that if this is to be really effective, the economic association must be so intimate as to bring about a substantial degree of currency and customs union, plus relative freedom of migration of individuals as between Europe and this continent. Only in this way can the free movement of private capital and labor be achieved which will be necessary if we are to find a real cure for the abnormal dependence of these areas on governmental aid from this country. But we should also note carefully the possible implications of such a program from the standpoint of the ITO Charter. 7 As I see it, the draft charter, as well as the whole theory behind our trade agreements program, would make it difficult for us to extend to the countries of western Europe special facilities which we did not extend in like measure to all other ITO members and trade agreement partners.

A second possible solution would lie in arrangements whereby a union of Western European nations would undertake jointly the economic development and exploitation of the colonial and dependent areas of the African Continent. The realization of such a program admittedly presents demands which are probably well above the vision and strengths and leadership capacity of present governments in Western Europe. It would take considerable prodding from outside and much patience. But the idea itself has much to recommend it. The African Continent is relatively little exposed to communist pressures: and most of it is not today a subject of great power rivalries. It lies easily accessible to the maritime nations of Western Europe, and politically they control or influence most of it. Its resources are still relatively undeveloped. It could absorb great numbers of people and a great deal of Europe’s surplus technical and administrative energy. Finally, it would lend to the idea of Western European union that tangible objective for which everyone has been rather unsuccessfully groping in recent months.

However this may be, one thing is clear: if we wish to carry through with the main purpose of the ERP we must cordially and loyally support the British effort toward a Western European union. And this support should consist not only of occasional public expressions of approval. The matter should be carefully and sympathetically discussed with the British themselves and with the other governments of Western Europe. Much could be accomplished in such discussions, both from the standpoint of the clarification of our own policy and ir the way of the exertion of a healthy and helpful influence on the Europeans themselves. In particular, we will have accomplished an immense amount if we can help to persuade the Western Europeans of the necessity of treating the Germans as citizens of Europe.

With this in mind, I think it might be well to ask each of our missions in Western Europe to make a special study of the problem of Western European union, both in general and with particular reference to the particular country concerned, and to take occasion, in the course of preparation of this study, to consult the views of the wisest and most experienced people they know in their respective capitals. These studies should be accompanied by their own recommendations as to how the basic problem could best be approached. A digest of such studies in this Department should yield a pretty sound cross-section of informed and balanced opinion on the problem in question.

II. European Recovery Program

The course of the debates in Congress now makes it possible for us to distinguish with some degree of probability the outlines of the action toward which this Government is moving in the question of aid to Europe.

1. The administration of the program.

The most significant feature of the emerging recovery program is that it is to be conducted by this Government as a technical business operation and not as a political matter. We must face realistically the fact that this will reduce drastically the program’s potential political effect and open up the road to a considerable degree of confusion, contradiction and ineffectiveness in this Government’s policies toward Europe. The conduct of relations with the European governments by a separate agency of this Government on matters of such great importance, over so long a period of time, cannot fail to cut deeply into the operations of the Department of State in European affairs and to reduce the prestige, the competence, and the effectiveness of its Missions in Europe.

In these circumstances, the possibilities for the exertion of influence by this Department over the course of our relations with European countries will become predominantly a matter of the extent to which it can influence national policy through the White House. This means that greatly increased importance must he attached to the means of liaison between the Department and the White House, and particularly to the National Security Council.

But we should not deceive ourselves into hoping that national policy conducted through channels as round about as this, and involving the use of a new and separate organization such as the ERP administration, can be as clear cut or as efficacious as that which could be conducted if policy-making functions continued to rest clearly with the regular agencies of government. No policy can become really effective unless it commands the understanding of those who carry it out. The understanding of governmental policies in the field of foreign affairs cannot be readily acquired by people who are new to that field, even when they are animated by the best will in the world. This is not a manner of briefing, or instructing, which could be done in a short time. It is a matter of educating and training, for which years are required.

Our experience with ad hoc wartime and post-hostilities agencies operating in the foreign field has demonstrated that not only are new agencies of little value in executing policies which go beyond the vision and the educational horizon of their own personnel, but that they actually develop a momentum of their own which, in the final analysis, tends to shape—rather than to serve—the national policy.

I do not think that the manner in which this aid program is to be undertaken is necessarily going to mean that its basic purpose will not be served. While we will hardly be able to use U.S. aid tactically, as a flexible political instrument, the funds and goods will nevertheless themselves constitute an important factor on the European scene. The mere availability of this amount of economic assistance will create, so to speak, a new topographic feature against which the peoples of Western Europe will be able to brace themselves in their own struggle to preserve political independence.

But we must recognize that, once the bill has been passed, the matter will be largely out of our hands. The operation of the ERP administration will make it difficult for this Department itself to conduct any incisive and vigorous policy with relation to Europe during the period in question. This does not relieve us, of course, of the duty of continuing to study carefully the development of the European scene and of contributing as best we can to the formulation of national policy relating to the European area. But it thrusts this Department back—with respect to one great area of the world’s surface—into the position it occupied in many instances during the recent war:—the position of an advisory, rather than an executive, agency.

2. The time factor and the question of amount.

The dilatoriness of the Congress in acting on this matter presents a definite danger to the success of the program. A gap between the date on which the aid becomes available and the point to which European reserves can hold out could nullify a great part of the effect of the program.

There is probably not much that we can do, by pleading or urging, to expedite Congressional action. But I think we should state very plainly to Congress the time limits involved (which our own economic analysts must determine) and the possible consequences of delay. Furthermore, we should make clear that aid granted subsequent to the specified time limits cannot be considered as a response to the recommendations of the Executive branch of the Government, and that the latter cannot take responsibility for the desirability or effectiveness of the program in these circumstances.

The same principle applies in case the program is cut in amount below what we consider to be the minimum necessary for the recovery purpose.

In either case, there will be charges we are trying to “dictate” to the Congress. But there is a serious question of responsibility involved here; and the Executive branch of the Government will find itself embarrassed in its future position if it allows itself to be forced now into accepting a share of responsibility for a program of aid which it knows will be too little, too late, or both.

3. The question of European Union.

The original reaction to the Harvard speech, 8 both in Europe and here, demonstrated how vitally important to the success of an aid program is the concept of European unity. Unless the program actually operates to bring closer together the countries participating in it, it will certainly fail in its major purpose, and it will not take on, in the eyes of the world public, the dignity and significance which would set it apart from the previous efforts at foreign economy aid.

There is real danger that this basic fact be lost sight of at this stage in the deliberations, not only in the Congress, but also in the Department.

We should therefore make it a point to lose no opportunity to stress this element in the concept of the aid program, and to insist that the principle of collaboration and joint responsibility among the 16 nations be emphasized throughout in our handling of the operation.

III. Germany 9

The coming changes with respect to the responsibility for military government in Germany provide a suitable occasion for us to evolve new long-term concepts of our objectives with respect to that country. We cannot rely on the concepts of the existing policy directives. Not only were these designed to meet another situation, but it is questionable, in many instances, whether they were sound in themselves.

The planning to be done in this connection will necessarily have to be many-sided and voluminous. But it is possible to see today the main outlines of the problem we will face and, I think, of the solutions we must seek.

In the long run there can be only three possibilities for the future of western and central Europe. One is German domination. Another is Russian domination. The third is a federated Europe, into which the parts of Germany are absorbed but in which the influence of the other countries is sufficient to hold Germany in her place.

If there is no real European federation and if Germany is restored as a strong and independent country, we must expect another attempt at German domination. If there is no real European federation and if Germany is not restored as a strong and independent country, we invite Russian domination, for an unorganized Western Europe cannot indefinitely oppose an organized Eastern Europe. The only reasonably hopeful possibility for avoiding one of these two evils is some form of federation in western and central Europe.

Our dilemma today lies in the fact that whereas a European federation would be by all odds the best solution from the standpoint of U.S. interests, the Germans are poorly prepared for it. To achieve such a federation would be much easier if Germany were partitioned, or drastically decentralized, and if the component parts could be brought separately into the European union. To bring a unified Germany, or even a unified western Germany, into such a union would be much more difficult: for it would still over-weigh the other components, in many respects.

Now a partition of the Reich might have been possible if it had been carried out resolutely and promptly in the immediate aftermath of defeat. But that moment is now past, and we have today another situation to deal with. As things stand today, the Germans are psychologically not only unprepared for any breakup of the Reich but in a frame of mind which is distinctly unfavorable thereto.

In any planning we now do for the future of Germany we will have to take account of the unpleasant fact that our occupation up to this time has been unfortunate from the standpoint of the psychology of the German people. They are emerging from this phase of the post-hostilities period in a state of mind which can only be described as sullen, bitter, unregenerate, and pathologically attached to the old chimera of German unity. Our moral and political influence over them has not made headway since the surrender. They have been impressed neither by our precepts nor by our example. They are not going to look to us for leadership. Their political life is probably going to proceed along the lines of a polarization inro extreme right and extreme left, both of which elements will be, from our standpoint, unfriendly, ugly to deal with, and contemptuous of the things we value.

We cannot rely on any such Germany to fit constructively into a pattern of European union of its own volition. Yet without the Germans, no real European federation is thinkable. And without federation, the other countries of Europe ran have no protection against a new attempt at foreign domination.

If we did not have the Russians and the German communists prepared to take advantage politically of any movement on our part toward partition we could proceed to partition Germany regardless of the will of the inhabitants, and to force the respective segments to take their place in a federated Europe. But in the circumstances prevailing today, we cannot do this without throwing the German people politically into the arms of the communists. And if that happens, the fruits of our victory in Europe will have been substantially destroyed.

Our possibilities are therefore reduced, bv the process of exclusion, to a policy which, without pressing the question of partition in Germany, would attempt to bring Germany, or western Germany, into a European federation, but do it in such a way as not. to permit her to dominate that federation or jeopardize the security interests of the other western European countries. And this would have to be accomplished in the face of the fact that we cannot rely on the German people to exercise any self-restraint of their own volition, to feel any adequate sense of responsibility vis-a-vis the other western nations, or to concern themselves for the preservation of western values in their own country and elsewhere in Europe.

I have no confidence in any of the old-fashioned concepts of collective security as a means of meeting this problem. European history has shown only too clearly the weakness of multilateral defensive alliances between complete sovereign nations as a means of opposing desperate and determined bids for domination of the European scene. Some mutual defense arrangements will no doubt be necessary as a concession to the prejudices of the other Western European peoples, whose thinking is still old fashioned and unrealistic on this subject. But we can place no reliance on them as a deterrent to renewed troublemaking on the part of the Germans.

This being the case, it is evident that the relationship of Germany to the other countries of western Europe must be so arranged as to provide mechanical and automatic safeguards against any unscrupulous exploitation of Germany’s preeminence in population and in military-industrial potential.

The first task of our planning will be to find such safeguards.

In this connection, primary consideration must be given to the problem of the Ruhr. Some form of international ownership or control of the Ruhr industries would indeed be one of the best means of automatic protection against the future misuse of Germany’s industrial resources for aggressive purposes. There may be otner devices which would also be worth exploring.

A second line of our planning will have to be in the direction of the maximum interweaving of German economy with that of the remainder of Europe. This may mean that we will nave to reverse our present policies, in certain respects. One of the most grievous mistakes, in my opinion, of our post-hostilities policy was the renewed extreme segregation of the Germans and their compression into an even smaller territory than before, in virtual isolation from the remaining peoples of Europe. This sort of segregation and compression invariably arouses precisely the worst reactions in the German character. What the Germans need is not to be thrust violently in upon themselves, which only heightens their congenital irrealism and self-pity and defiant nationalism, but to be led out of their collective egocentrism and encouraged to see things in larger terms, to have interests elsewhere in Europe and elsewhere in the world, and to learn to think of themselves as world citizens and not just as Germans.

Next, we must recognize the bankruptcy of our moral influence on the Germans, and we must make plans for the earliest possible termination of those actions and policies on our part which have been psychologically unfortunate. First of all, we must reduce as far as possible our establishment in Germany; for the residence of large numbers of representatives of a victor nation in a devastated conquered area is never a helpful factor, particularly when their living standards are as conspicuously different as are those of Americans in Germany. Secondly, we must terminate as rapidly as possible those forms of activity (denazification, re-education, and above all the Nuremberg Trials) which tend to set up as mentors and judges over internal German problems. Thirdly, we must have the courage to dispense with military government as soon as possible and to force the Germans to accept responsibility once more for their own affairs. They will never begin to do this as long as we will accept that responsibility for them.

The military occupation of western Germany may have to go on for a long time. We may even have to be prepared to see it become a quasi-permanent feature of the European scene. But military government is a different thing. Until it is removed, we cannot really make progress in the direction of a more stable Europe.

Finally, we must do everything possible from now on to coordinate our policy toward Germany with the views of Germany’s immediate western neighbors. This applies particularly to the Benelux countries, who could probably easily be induced to render valuable collaboration in the implementation of our own views. It is these neighboring countries who in the long run must live with any solution we may evolve; and it is absolutely essential to any successful ordering of western Europe that they make their full contribution and bear their full measure of responsibility. It would be better for us in many instances to temper our own policies in order to win their support than to try to act unilaterally in defiance of their feelings.

With these tasks and problems before us it is important that we should do nothing in this intervening period which would prejudice our later policies. The appropriate offices of the Department of State should be instructed to bear this in mind in their own work. We should also see to it that it is borne in mind by our military authorities in the prosecution of their policies in Germany. These considerations should be observed in any discussions we hold with representatives of other governments. This applies particularly to the forthcoming discussions with the French and the British.

IV. Mediterranean

As the situation has developed in the past year, the Soviet chances for disrupting the unity of western Europe and forcing a political entry into that area have been deteriorating in northern Europe, where the greater political maturity of the peoples is gradually asserting itself, but holding their own, if not actually increasing, in the south along the shores of the Mediterranean. Here the Russians have as assets not only the violent chauvinism of their Balkan satellites but also the desperate weakness and weariness of the Greek and Italian peoples. 10 Conditions in Greece and Italy today are peculiarly favorable to the use of fear as a weapon for political action, and hence to the tactics which are basic and familiar to the communist movement.

It cannot be too often reiterated that this Government does not possess the weapons which would be needed to enable it to meet head-on the threat to national independence presented by the communist elements in foreign countries. This poses an extremely difficult problem as to the measures which our Government can take to prevent the communists from achieving success in the countries where resistance is lowest.

The Planning Staff has given more attention to this than to any single problem which has come under its examination. Its conclusions may be summed up as follows:

(1) The use of U S. regular armed force to oppose the efforts of indigenous communist elements within foreign countries must generally be considered as a risky and profitless undertaking, apt to do more harm than good.
(2) If, however, it can be shown that the continuation of communist activities has a tendency to attract U.S. armed power to the vicinity of the affected areas, and if these areas are ones from which the Kremlin would definitely wish U.S. power excluded, there is a possibility that this may bring into play the defensive security interests of the Soviet Union and cause the Russians to exert a restraining influence on local communist forces.

The Staff has therefore felt that the wisest policy for us to follow would be to make it evident to the Russians by our actions that the further the communists go in Greece and Italy the more surely will this Government be forced to extend the deployment of its peacetime military establishment in the Mediterranean area.

There is no doubt in our minds but that if the Russians knew that the establishment of a communist government in Greece would mean the establishment of U.S. air bases in Libya and Crete, or that a communist uprising in northern Italy would lead to the renewed occupation by this country of the Foggia field, a conflict would be produced in the Kremlin councils between the interests of the Third Internationale, on the one hand, and those of the sheer military security of the Soviet Union, on the other. In conflicts of this sort, the interests of narrow Soviet nationalism usually win. If they were to win in this instance, a restraining hand would certainly be placed on the Greek and Italian communists.

This has already been, to some extent, the case. I think there is little doubt that the activity of our naval forces in the Mediterranean (including the stationing of further Marines with those forces), plus the talk of the possibility of our sending U.S. forces to Greece, has had something to do with the failure of the satellites, up to this time, to recognize the Markos Government, and possibly also with the Kremlin’s reprimand to Dimitrov. Similarly, I think the statement we made at the time of the final departure of our troops from Italy was probably the decisive factor in bringing about the abandonment of the plans which evidently existed for a communist uprising in Italy prior to the spring elections.

For this reason, I think that our policy with respect to Greece ar Italy, and the Mediterranean area in general, should be based upon the objective of demonstration to the Russians that: 

(a) the reduction of the communist threat will lead to our military withdrawal from the area; but that
(b) further communist pressure will only have the effect of involving us more deeply in a military sense.

V. Palestine and the Middle East

The Staff views on Palestine have been made known in a separate paper. 11 I do not intend to recapitulate them here. But there are two background considerations of determining importance, both for the Palestine question and for our whole position in the Middle East, which I should like to emphasize at this time.

1. The British strategic position in the Middle East.

We have decided in this Government that the security of the Middle East is vital to our own security. We have also decided that it would not be desirable or advantageous for us to attempt to duplicate or take over the strategic facilities now held by the British in that area. We have recognized that these facilities would be at our effective disposal anyway, in the event of war, and that to attempt to get them transferred, in the formal sense, from the British to ourselves would only raise a host of new and unnecessary problems, and would probably be generally unsuccessful.

This means that we must do what we can to support the maintenance of the British of their strategic position in that area. This does not mean that we must support them in every individual instance. It does not mean that we must back them up in cases where they have gotten themselves into a false position or where we would thereby be undertaking extravagant political commitments. It does mean that any policy on our part which tends to strain British relations with the Arab world and to whittle down the British position in the Arab countries is only a policy directed against ourselves and against the immediate strategic interests of our country.

2. The direction of our own policy.

The pressures to which this Government is now subjected are ones which impel us toward a position where we would shoulder major responsibility for the maintenance, and even the expansion, of a Jewish state in Palestine. To the extent that we move in this direction we will be operating directly counter to our major security interests in that area. For this reason, our policy in the Palestine issue should be dominated by the determination to avoid being impelled along this path.

We are now heavily and unfortunately involved in this Palestine question. We will apparently have to make certain further concessions to our past commitments and to domestic pressures.

These concessions will be dangerous ones; but they will not necessarily be catastrophic if we are thoroughly conscious of what we are doing, and if we lay our general course toward the avoidance of the possibility of the responsibility I have referred to. If we do not lay our course in that direction but drift along the lines of least resistance in the existing vortex of cross currents, our entire policy in the Middle Eastern area will unquestionably be carried in the direction of confusion, ineffectiveness, and grievous involvement in a situation to which there cannot be—from our standpoint—any happy ending.

I think it should be stated that if this Government is carried to a point in the Palestine controversy where it is required to send U.S. forces to Palestine in any manner whatsoever, or to agree either to the international recruitment of volunteers or the sending of small nation forces which would include those of Soviet satellites, then in my opinion, the whole structure of strategic and political planning which we have been building up for the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern areas would have to be re-examined and probably modified or replaced by something else.

For this would then mean that we had consented to be guided, in a highly important question affecting those areas, not by national interest but by other considerations. If we tried, in the face of this fact, to continue with policy in adjacent areas motivated solely bv national interest, we would be faced with a duality of purpose which would surely lead in the end to a dissipation and confusion of effort. We cannot operate with one objective in one area, and with a conflicting one next door.

If, therefore, we decide that we are obliged by past commitments or UN decision or anv other consideration to take a leading part in the enforcement of Palestine of any arrangement opposed by the great majority of the inhabitants of the Middle Eastern area, we must be prepared to face the implications of this act by revising our general policy in that part of the world. And since the Middle East is vital to the present security concepts on which this Government is basing itself in its worldwide military and political planning, this would further mean a review of our entire military and political policy.

VI. U.S.S.R.

If the Russians have further success in the coming months in their efforts at penetration and seizure of political control of the key countries outside the iron curtain (Germany, France, Italy, and Greece), they will continue, in my opinion, to be impossible to deal with at the council table. For they will see no reason to settle with us at this time over Germany when they hope that their bargaining position will soon be improved.

If, on the other hand, their situation outside the iron curtain does not improve—if the ERP aid arrives in time and in a form to do some good and if there is a general revival of confidence in western Europe, then a new situation will arise and the Russians will be prepared, for the first time since the surrender, to do business seriously with us about Germany and about Europe in general. They are conscious of this and are making allowance for this possibility in their plans. I think, in fact, that they regard it as the more probable of the two contingencies.

When that day comes, i.e. when the Russians will be prepared to talk realistically with us, we will be faced with a real test of American statesmanship, and it will not be easy to find the right solution. For what the Russians will want us to do will be to conclude with them a sphere-of-influence agreement similar to the one they concluded with the Germans in 1939. It will be our job to explain to them that we cannot do this and why. But we must also be able to demonstrate to them that it will still be worth their while:

(a) to reduce communist pressures elsewhere in Europe and the Middle East to a point where we ran afford to withdraw all our armed forces from the continent and the Mediterranean; and

(b) to acquiesce thereafter in a prolonged period of stability in Europe.

I doubt that this task will be successfully accomplished if we try to tackle it head-on in the CFM or at any other public meeting. Our public dealings with the Russians can hardly lead to any clear and satisfactory results unless they are preceded by preparatory discussions of the most secret and delicate nature with Stalin. 12 I think that those discussions can be successfully conducted only by someone who:

(a) has absolutely no personal axe to grind in the discussions, even along the lines of getting public credit for their success, and is prepared to observe strictest silence about the whole proceeding; and
(b) is thoroughly acquainted not only with the background of our policies but with Soviet philosophy and strategy and with the dialectics used by Soviet statesmen in such discussions.

(It would be highly desirable that this person be able to conduct conversations in the Russians’ language. In my opinion, this is important with Stalin.)

These discussions should not be directed toward arriving at any sort of secret protocol or any other written understanding. They should be designed to clarify the background of any written understanding that we may hope to reach at the CFM table or elsewhere. For we know now that the words of international agreements mean different things to the Russians than they mean to us; and it is desirable that in this instance we should thresh out some common understanding of what would really be meant by any further written agreements we might arrive at.

The Russians will probably not be prepared to “talk turkey” with us until after the elections. But it would be much easier to talk to them at that time if the discussions did not have to be inaugurated too abruptly and if the ground had been prepared beforehand.

The Russians recently made an interesting approach to Murphy in Berlin, obviously with a view to drawing us out and to testing our interest in talking with tbom frankly and realistically on the informal plane. I do not think Berlin a desirable place for the pursuit of further discussions of this sort. On the other hand, I do not think that we should give them a complete cold shoulder. We must always be careful not to give discouragement to people in the Kremlin who may urge the desirability of better understanding with us.

I think, in the light of the above, we should give careful attention to the personnel arrangements which we make with relation to the Russian field in the next few months, and that we should play our cards throughout with a view to the possibility of arriving eventually at some sort of a background understanding with the Kremlin. But we must bear in mind that this understanding would necessarily have to be limited and coldly realistic, could not be reduced to paper, and could not be expected to outlast the general international situation which had given rise to it.

I may add that I think such an understanding would have to be restricted pretty much to the European and western Mediterranean area. I doubt that it could be extended to apply to the Middle East and Far East. The situation in these latter areas is too unsettled, the prospects for the future too confusing, the possibilities of one sort or another too vast and unforeseeable, to admit of such discussions. The economic exchanges between Japan and Manchuria might be revived in a guarded and modified form, by some sort of barter arrangement. This is an objective well worth holding in mind, from our standpoint. Rut we should meanwhile have to frame our policies in Japan with a view to creating better bargaining power for such discussions than we now possess.

VII. Far East

My main impression with regard to the position of this Government with regard to the Far East is that we are greatly over-extended in our whole thinking about what we can accomplish, and should try to accomplish, in that area. This applies, unfortunately, to the people in our country as well as to the Government.

It is urgently necessary that we recognize our own limitations as a moral and ideological force among the Asiatic peoples.

Our political philosophy and our patterns for living have very little applicability to masses of people in Asia. They may be all right for us, with our highly developed political traditions running back into the centuries and with our peculiarly favorable geographic position; but they are simply not practical or helpful, today, for most of the people in Asia.

This being the case, we must be very careful when we speak of exercising “leadership” in Asia. We are deceiving ourselves and others when we pretend to have the answers to the problems which agitate many of these Asiatic peoples.

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful one.

The greatest of the Asiatic peoples—the Chinese and the Indians—have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic. We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas remain in hands which we can control or rely on. It is my own guess, on the basis of such study as we have given the problem so far, that Japan and the Philippines will be found to be the corner-stones of such a Pacific security system and if we can contrive to retain effective control over these areas there can be no serious threat to our security from the East within our time.

Only when we have assured this first objective, can we allow ourselves the luxury of going farther afield in our thinking and our planning.

If these basic concepts are accepted, then our objectives for the immediate coming period should be:

(a) to liquidate as rapidly as possible our unsound commitments in China and to recover, vis-à-vis that country, a position of detachment and freedom of action;
(b) to devise policies with respect to Japan which assure the security of those islands from communist penetration and domination as well as from Soviet military attack, and which will permit the economic potential of that country to become again an important force in the Far East, responsive to the interests of peace and stability in the Pacific area; and
(c) to shape our relationship to the Philippines in such a way as to permit the Philippine Government a continued independence in all internal affairs but to preserve the archipelago as a bulwark of U.S. security in that area.

Of these three objectives, the one relating to Japan is the one where there is the greatest need for immediate attention on the part of our Government and the greatest possibility for immediate action. It should therefore be made the focal point of our policy for the Far East in the coming period.

VIII. International Organization

A broad conflict runs through U.S. policy today between what may be called the universalistic and the particularized approaches to the solution of international problems.

The universalistic approach looks to the solution of international problems by providing a universalistic pattern of rules and procedures which would be applicable to all countries, or at least all countries prepared to join, in an identical way. This approach has the tendency to rule out political solutions (that is, solutions related to the peculiarities in the positions anil attitudes of the individual peoples). It favors legalistic and mechanical solutions, applicable to all countries alike. It has already been embodied in the United Nations, in the proposed ITO Charter, in UNESCO, in the PICAO, and in similar efforts at universal world collaboration in given spheres of foreign policy.

This universalistic approach has a strong appeal to U.S. public opinion: for it appears to obviate the necessity of dealing with the national peculiarities and diverging political philosophies of foreign peoples; which many of our people find confusing and irritating. In this sense, it contains a strong vein of escapism. To the extent that it could be made to apply, it would relieve us of the necessity of dealing with the world as it is. It assumes that if all countries could be induced to subscribe to certain standard rules of behavior, the ugly realities—the power aspirations, the national prejudices, the irrational hatreds and jealousies—would be forced to recede behind the protecting curtain of accepted legal restraint, and that the problems of our foreign policy could thus be reduced to the familiar terms of parliamentary procedure and majority decision. The outward form established for international dealings would then cover and conceal the inner content. And instead of being compelled to make the sordid and involved political choices inherent in traditional diplomacy, we could make decisions on the lofty but simple plane of moral principle and under the protecting cover of majority decision.

The particularized approach is one which is skeptical of any scheme for compressing international affairs into legalistic concepts. It holds that the content is more important than the form, and will force its way through any formal structure which is placed upon it. It considers that the thirst for power is still dominant among so many peoples that it cannot be assuaged or controlled by anything but counter-force. It does not reject entirely the idea of alliance as a suitable form of counter-force; but it considers that if alliance is to be effective it must be based upon real community of interest and outlook, which is to be found only among limited groups of governments, and not upon the abstract formalism of universal international law or international organization. It places no credence in the readiness of most peoples to wage war or to make national sacrifices in the interests of an abstraction called “peace”. On the contrary, it sees in universal undertakings a series of obligations which might, in view of the short-sightedness and timidity of other governments, prevent this country from taking vigorous and incisive measures for its own defense and for the defense of concepts of international relations which might be of vital importance to world stability as a whole. It sees effective and determined U.S. policy being caught, at decisive moments, in the meshes of a sterile and cumbersome international parliamentarianism, if the univeralistic concepts are applied.

Finally, the particularized approach to foreign policy problems distrusts the theory of national sovereignty as it expresses itself today in international organization. The modern techniques of aggressive expansion lend themselves too well to the pouring of new wine. into old vessels—to the infusion of a foreign political will into the personality of an ostensibly independent nation. In these circumstances, the parliamentary principle in world affairs can easily become distorted and abused as it has been in the case of White Russia, the Ukraine and the Russian satellites. This is not to mention the problem of the distinction between large and small states, and the voice that they should have, respectively, in world affairs.

This Government is now conducting a dual policy, which combines elements of both of these approaches. This finds its reflection in the Department of State, where the functional (or universalistic) concept vies with the geographic (or particularized) in the framing and conduct of policy, as well as in the principles of Departmental organization.

This duality is something to which we are now deeply committed. I do not mean to recommend that we should make any sudden changes. We cannot today abruptly renounce aspirations which have become for many people here and abroad a symbol of our belief in the possibility of a peaceful world.

But it is my own belief that in our pursuance of a workable world order we have started from the wrong end. Instead of beginning at the center, which is our own immediate neighborhood—the area of our own political and economic tradition—and working outward, we have started on the periphery of the entire circle, i.e., on the universalistic principle of the UN, and have attempted to work inward. This has meant a great dispersal of our effort, and has brought perilously close to discredit those very concepts of a universal world order to which we were so attached. If we wish to preserve those concepts for the future we must hasten to remove some of the strain we have placed upon them and to build a solid structure, proceeding from a central foundation, which can be thrust up to meet them before they collapse of their own weight.

This is the significance of the ERP, the idea of European union, and the cultivation of a closer association with the U.K. and Canada. For a truly stable world order can proceed, within our lifetime, only from the older, mellower and more advanced nations of the world—nations for which the concept of order, as opposed to power, has value and meaning. If these nations do not have the strength to seize and hold real leadership in world affairs today, through that combination of political greatness and wise restraint which goes only with a ripe and settled civilization, then, as Plato once remarked: “. . . cities will never have rest from their evils,—no, nor the human race, as I believe.”

[Here follows Part IX, “Department and Foreign Service.”]

X. Conclusions

An attempt to survey the whole panorama of U.S. policy and to sketch the lines of direction along which this country is moving in its relations with the rest of the world yields little cause for complacency.

We are still faced with an extremely serious threat to our whole security in the form of the men in the Kremlin. These men are an able, shrewd and utterly ruthless group, absolutely devoid of respect for us or our institutions. They wish for nothing more than the destruction of our national strength. They operate through a political organization of unparalleled flexibility, discipline, cynicism and toughness. They command the resources of one of the world’s greatest industrial and agricultural nations. Natural force, independent of our policies, may go far to absorb and eventually defeat the efforts of this group. But we cannot depend on this.

Our own diplomacy has a decisive part to play in this connection. The problems involved are new to us, and we are only beginning to adjust ourselves to them. We have made some progress; but we are not yet nearly far enough advanced. Our operations in foreign affairs must attain a far higher degree of purposefulness, of economy of effort, and of disciplined co-ordination if we are to be sure of accomplishing our purposes.

In the western European area communism has suffered a momentary check; but the issue is still in the balance. This Government has as yet evolved no firm plans for helping Britain meet her basic long-term economic problem, or for fitting Germany into western Europe in a way that gives permanence of assuring the continued independence and prosperity of the other nations of western Europe.

In the Mediterranean and Middle East, we have a situation where a vigorous and collective national effort, utilizing both our political and military resources, could probably prevent the area from falling under Soviet influence and preserve it as a highly important factor in our world strategic position. But we are deeply involved, in that same area, in a situation which has no direct relation to our national security, and where the motives our involvement lie solely in past commitments of dubious wisdom and in our attachment to the UN itself. If we do not effect a fairly radical reversal of the trend of our policy to date, we will end up either in the position of being ourselves militarily responsible for the protection of the Jewish population in Palestine against the declared hostility of the Arab world, or of sharing that responsibility with the Russians and thus assisting at their installation as one of the military powers of the area. In either case, the clarity and efficiency of a sound national policy for that area will be shattered.

In the Far East, our position is not bad; and we still have a reasonably firm grip on most of what is strategically essential to us. But our present controls are temporary ones which cannot long endure, and we have not yet worked out realistic plans for replacing them with a permanent structure. Meanwhile, our own public has been grievously misled by the sentimentalists on the significance of the area to ourselves; and we are only beginning with the long and contentious process of re-education which will be necessary before a realistic Far Eastern policy can receive the popular understanding it deserves.

In all areas of the world, we still find ourselves the victims of many of the romantic and universalistic concepts with which we emerged from the recent war. The initial build-up of the UN in U.S. public opinion was so tremendous that it is possibly true, as is frequently alleged, that we have no choice but to make it the cornerstone of our policy in this post-hostilities period. Occasionally, it has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part.

Notes

1 Lot 64D563, files of the Policy Planning Staff of the Department of State, 1947-1953.

2 The Policy Planning Staff of the Department of State was established on May 7, 1947, to consider the development of long range policy and to draw together the views of the geographic and functional offices of the Department. With the enactment of the National Security Act of 1947, the Policy Planning Staf undertook responsibility for the preparation of the position of the Department of State on matters before the National Security Council. For additional information on the activities of the Policy Planning Staff and its Director, see George F. Kennan, Memoirs 1925-1950 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967), pp. 313-500.

3 Dean Acheson, Under Secretary of State, August 1945-June 1947.

4 George H. Butler, Deputy Director of the Policy Planning Staff.

5 On February 26, Kennan departed for Japan to consult with United States officials. Subsequent illness prevented him from returning to the Department of State until April 19.

6 For documentation on United States policy with respect to the economic situation in Europe, see vol. III, pp. 352.

7 For documentation on United States policy with respect to the proposed International Trade Organization, see pp. 802 ff.

8 For text of Secretary Marshall’s address at commencement exercises at Harvard University, June 5, 1947, see Foreign Relations, 1947, vol. III, p. 237, or Department of State Bulletin, June 15, 1947, p. 1159.

9 For documentation on United States policy with respect to the occupation and control of Germany, see vol. II, pp. 1285 ff.

10 For documentation on United States efforts in support of democratic forces in Italy, see vol. III, pp. 816 ff. Regarding United States economic and military support for Greece, see vol. IV, pp. 1 ff.

11 For the views of the Policy Planning Staff on this subject, see PPS 19, January 20, 1948, and PPS 21, February 11, 1948, in vol. V, Part 2, pp. 545 and 656 respectively.

12 Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union.

 

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on America’s Blueprint for Global Domination: From “Containment” to “Pre-emptive War”. The 1948 Truman Doctrine

The Party’s Over, the Gloves Are Off

May 16th, 2023 by Daniel Patrick Welch

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

This whole Ukranian episode of the Forever War is more and more like a caricature every day. In the first place, it’s not a Ukranian war. We have to abandon that propaganda narrative that we’ve been aiding and abetting. It’s not a war where “the Ukranians did this, the Russians did this, the Ukranians, the Russians…” and on and on. That’s not what’s happening. It is–and has always been–a proxy war of the combined west against Russia. Absolutely every bit of that is true.

And now even the word “proxy” is getting to be a little creaky. Because all they are using is foreign investment in weapons: missiles that shoot farther, uranium depleted weapons. All those things are overseen by NATO and by the US. What provides an interesting light shone on this idea of it being just another chapter in the Forever War is this weird foreign trip of Zelensky. You now have the President of Ukraine going to the Germans. To ask *The Germans* to be the greatest provider of weapons in his fight against Russia. 

Is this 1939? Is W.H. Auden going to write about this? Is Stepan Bandera actually alive? What is this? The trouble is that this is exactly what it is– to replay of the end of World War II. Which, let’s be honest—let’s be completely honest—didn’t quite end the way the west wanted. From that space which the Nazis share. ALL the Nazis! I don’t mean the German word “Nazi.” I  mean it sounds cool, and it’s fun to say the word, Nazi! But Nazi isn’t a German tradition. And they certainly weren’t the only Nazis around!

In fact, they shared all that space with Bandera, with half the aristocracy of the British Empire, with all the great titans of American corporations who were building up Hitler to ruin Russia. This is what happens with exceptionalists, supremacists. It’s okay to kill the people who live on the land you want to take. And you can flip Auden either way you want from that time until now:

“I and the public know./ What all schoolchildren learn,/ Those to whom evil is done/ Do evil in return.”

This is what is happening. And what is going to happen. The ending is no different. The movie is the same. The Russians (Soviets) lost 27 million people. And it might as well have happened yesterday.

The same people are providing the same weapons to the same people (with the details slightly tweaked). These are the Somozas! This is the very origin of the Proxy. Older than Somoza. Older than SAVAK. Older than settlers in South Africa—well maybe not, I don’t know. But certainly Bandera is revered in this corner, in this northwest corner of Ukraine, for “making it free from 1939 to 1945.” 

How? By slaughtering tens of thousands of Poles, Russians, Jews. Friends of Hitler! Friends of Hitler have never been enemies of the United States in its policy machinations.

They’re the first ones they went to! And one of the first things they do is to demonize the hell out of anything that has to do with those people targeted. The attack–the slaughter—on Russian language, Russian tradition, Russian history. Is mindblowing. So much so that Americans don’t even know how brain dead they are. And they should. I mean, if so many of us come from Ireland, and we had to suffer historically what the British do. Which is sell the narrative that says Ah, the Irish are all drunks anyway. And they’re lazy. And they’re most likely terrorists. So we just march in with Cromwell and slaughter them all. And take that land! 

So you always have the resonance of that war, of World War II…all the wars come back and feed into each other. What the Wolfe Tones sang in the 80’s: Cromwell’s men are here again! England’s name again is sullied in the eyes of honest men. 

And it is ridiculous to think that you can change that. That history is just the long arm of a clock that if you have enough necons running things and enough capitalists on your payroll, you can stop that hand. You can move it! Guess what? You can’t. 

And the Russians know it. What are you going to do? Bring in all sorts of long range missiles? Well, we’ll blow them up where they are. These go 300 or 400 kilometers? Then I guess that is how far we have to push in. None of this s**t is going to be a threat to Russia. Period. 

Americans? The neocons who run things? They don’t understand that. Partly because they come out of this tradition. Edward VIII, King of England! Was pro Nazi. He had to abdicate partly because of that. Truman said Eh, if the Russians win, we’ll help the Germans, and if the Germans win we’ll help the Russians. Today. Today, in 2023, there is a woman sitting as an advisor to President Biden, who actually said you know what? Hitler might have been controversial, but no one really sings his praises for fighting communism to the death. 

What is this? Its okay to be soft on Hitler now?

Then what the hell was that all for? Ah, we know. We know what it was all for. And guess what? It had very little to do with communism. I’m sorry. I don’t buy that. I know that that is the narrative.

But it’s about Russia—it’s not about Lenin, Stalin, or even Marx. It’s about Mackinder! It’s about The Heartland. About preventing anyone from uniting that central part of—fast-forward now–Russia and China. And that is the threat! And the irony is that these people are so arrogant, and so full of themselves that they can’t see that they have made that even more inevitable than time itself. Russia and China are now joined at the hip because they know their existence depends on it. 

These wars are not proxies. These are fingers of a LONG armed puppet. They are dangerous. And they are threats everywhere.

So just like you do at a dinner party with friends you don’t really like or trust. You nod and smile. Find the exit. And jump and run to it—quick as you can—when it feels like you’re in danger. And—unknowingly, apparently–that is what the west is facing. They can’t help it. It is the demise of their control for the last five hundred years. It will yield incredible shortages and difficulties for the hundreds of millions of us who live under the western regime. But the party is over. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Daniel Patrick Welch is a writer of political commentary and analysis. He lives and writes in Salem, Massachusetts with his wife. Together they run The Greenhouse School. He has traveled widely, speaks five languages and studied Russian History and Literature at Harvard University. Welch has also appeared as a guest on several TV and radio channels to speak on topics of foreign affairs and political analysis.

Featured image is from Eurasia Review

Mercantilismo, crisis financiera y guerra

May 16th, 2023 by Mónica Peralta Ramos

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

It would seem that American politicians and media think that the entire world should rightly conform to the marching orders emanating from Washington, even though that pretense has become a bit shopworn after more than twenty years of pointless wars initiated and sustained by a serious of clueless presidents and Congress. Increasingly, the international community is looking for a way out of the tight embrace offered by the White House, a growing sense that a multipolar world would be much better than “rule of law” dictated by any self-proclaimed superpower.

Recently there have been indications that rather than Washington being the center of the universe that title should rightly belong to Jerusalem as an extremist-led Israel has demonstrated its power over the self-anointed idiots who fancy themselves to be the “leaders” of the United States of America.

Why do I think that? I truly believe that there have been several interactions lately involving US politicians and the Israelis that illustrate just how ignorant and self-absorbed America’s governing class actually is. The most egregious example of the “wag the dog” syndrome whereby Israel says “jump” and the fawning American government representatives beg to ask “How high?” comes from none other the newly appointed Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy, who spoke before the Israeli Knesset on May 1st. McCarthy made it a point to flatter his Israeli hosts by emphasizing that traveling to Israel was his first foreign trip as speaker, underlining the value of the relationship, and observing that he was also only the second speaker invited to make the trip to the Jewish state to address the Knesset.

McCarthy was accompanied by the usual cast of congressional toadies who flock to Israel during every recess. The group was bipartisan and included the loathsome Steny Hoyer of Maryland who has made and even led the groveling entourage more than twenty times. The ambition-driven McCarthy, who has never been accused of having a great deal of brain power, delivered a predictable speech that produced the pro forma standing ovations from the audience, but I would call attention to one part of it in particular where he said the following: “This is the foundation of our special relationship: We are the only two countries in history that were conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that we are all equal. Our values are your values. Our heritage is your heritage. Our dreams are your dreams. America is grateful for our friendship with Israel. We are a better nation because of it. And we must never shy away from defending it… As long as I am speaker, America will continue to support fully funding for security assistance in Israel.”

Nearly every line in this part of the McCarthy speech is basically either an out-and-out lie or a twisting of reality to such an extent that it is incomprehensible. Palestine, by the way, was not mentioned by McCarthy, but how Israel can claim to be “conceived in liberty” with the “proposition that we are all equal” when it has been engaged in genocide and expulsion as well as government endorsed violence directed against its Christian and Muslim subject population? And if American and Israeli values are identical, can we expect in the US different laws based on religion. And our common “heritage?” Israeli Jews claim to be “chosen,” don’t they? And finally, how on earth does McCarthy claim that the United States is a better nation because of its ties to Israel? It is ridiculous and insulting, but it leads to the punchline that McCarthy is making an unconstitutional pledge to defend Israel, no matter what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of criminals do, presumably to include attacking Iran. McCarthy should be impeached. Or even better he should magically become a Palestinian and spend a couple of months under the Israeli occupation. He might change his tune.

McCarthy continued his exaltation of Israel campaign after his return to Washington. On May 9th, he blocked an effort by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib to host a gathering at the Capitol Visitor Center that would have included least nine groups for an event entitled “Nakba 75 and the Palestinian People.” “Nakba” in the title of Tlaib’s canceled event is the Arabic word for “catastrophe,” which would have meant the speakers would be describing the founding of the state of Israel as a “catastrophe” for the Arab inhabitants of historic Palestine, which it was with hundreds of thousands left homeless, many winding up in refugee camps. McCarthy announced in a message that he was shutting down the event, tweeting that “This event in the US Capitol is canceled. Instead, I will host a bipartisan discussion to honor the 75th anniversary of the US-Israel relationship.” McCarthy announcement was in response to a letter from Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt to him which said ADL had concerns that some of the organizers of the “Nakba” event “have a record of rhetoric that demonizes and delegitimizes Israel, as well as dangerous stereotypes about Israel’s supporters.” Apparently free speech relating to a historic event is not even allowed to congressmen in today’s Zionist-occupied America.

If more evidence of the slime that is at the heart of the American political class is needed, I would cite another event which took place in Jerusalem on April 27th as both shameful and a disgrace. And “no” I am not referring to the Israeli police and army shooting dead more Palestinian teenagers on and around that date before stealing their family homes and destroying their livelihoods. I am referring to Florida’s governor and presidential aspirant Ron DeSantis’s groveling performance in bowing to Jewish power and money during his own trip to Israel. His abhorrent crawling before his masters culminated in his signing a new state law that will inter alia exploit the “hate” mechanism to criminalize nearly all criticism or even skepticism regarding Israeli apartheid, of the co-called holocaust narrative, or of the behavior of Jewish groups and individuals.

At the signing, DeSantis boasted how “We are doing what we can do in Florida to enhance the ability to hold people accountable when that really crosses the line into threatening conduct. We are fighting back.” He also made clear that the legislation was as much about Israel as about Judaism, arguing that rejecting “Israel’s right to exist is antisemitism” and adding that the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is “DOA” in his state. He also bizarrely described “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons” as an “existential threat to the state of Israel and to the United States of America.”

Perhaps DeSantis should have checked with the CIA and even Mossad before commenting on Iran as both have confirmed that the Iranians do not currently have a nuclear weapons program. Unsurprisingly DeSantis claims that “Florida is the most Israel-friendly state in the country and as long as I’m Governor, we will continue to stand with the Jewish community.” In that he is no doubt correct. Twenty-six other states have penalized anyone seeking to either boycott Israel or promote doing so, sometimes to include denial of government jobs or benefits, but there is no doubt that Florida is currently number one in its deference to the Jewish state and its claimed interests.

The bill (HB 269/SB 994), which passed unanimously in both chambers of the Florida legislature, attempts to criminalize what it perceives as anti-Semitism. Even though its language avoids identifying Jews as the protected class, the clear intent of the document is to do just that. It accomplishes that by transforming what would have once been seen as trivial incidents into hate crimes, which are felonies. It includes “to litter a yard with a flier, harass people, disrupt schools or religious services, deface graves and certain buildings, or project images on someone else’s property” as possible actions rendered felonious based on racial or ethnic prejudice, making them hate crimes. It might mean, for example, that if someone laughs at another person’s clothes and if the attire is considered “ethnic or religious” that person can be arrested and charged with a third-degree felony as a hate crime. Or if a student in a college history class disputes the standard largely fabricated narrative relating to the founding of Israel, a Jewish student can feign distress and demand that the offender be arrested.

One of the bill’s co-sponsor’s State Representative Randy Fine, who was present at the signing in Jerusalem, explained how “There is no First Amendment right to conduct. If you graffiti a building, it is a crime now, but if your motivation is hate, it will be a third-degree felony and you will spend five years in prison. If you want to litter, it’s a crime right now, but if you litter and your motivation is a hate crime, it will be a third-degree felony and you will spend 5 years in jail.” After the bill passed the Senate, Fine tweeted that the bill was “the strongest antisemitism bill in the United States” adding “To Florida’s Nazi thugs, I have news: attack Jews on their property and you’re going to prison. Never again means never again.” Another co-sponsor Mike Caruso warned “If we do nothing, we are going to have 1933’s Nazi Germany all over again.”

DeSantis, who is seeking Jewish money and media support for his run at the presidency, turned in something of a repeat performance of his inaugural trip to Israel back in 2019. At that time, he boasted, like Kevin McCarthy, that his first foreign trip was to good friend and perpetual ally Israel. He took his entire gubernatorial cabinet with him to celebrate his election and theatrically signed an earlier bill (HB 741) in Jerusalem that sought to “criminalize ordinary political speech” by making religion as a “protected class” similar to “racism” to be included in “hate crime” legislation. The new designation specifically included attempts to “demonize Israel.”

The Florida bill also included the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, similar to that which is favored by the office of the US Department of State’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, maintaining that “anti-Semitism” is “a certain perception of Jewish people, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jewish people, rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward a person, his or her property, or toward Jewish community institutions or religious facilities.” Under the bill, the BDS movement was defined as a terrorist “hate” group no different than the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS), which at that time prompted some civil libertarians to question if criticism of the behavior of the Jewish state could be deliberately mischaracterized as being an “anti-Semitic hate crime” that should or might be construed as criticism of the Jewish people and their religion.

HB 741 amended Florida’s “hate crime” statute to include such “antisemitic” acts as:

  • “Calling for, aiding, or justifying violence against Jews.
  • “Alleging myths about a world Jewish conspiracy or that Jews control the media, economy, government, or other institutions.
  • “Accusing Jewish people as a whole of being responsible for real or imaginary wrongdoing by a single Jewish person, group, or the state of Israel, or for acts of non-Jews.
  • “Accusing the Jewish people of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • “Accusing Jewish citizens of countries other than Israel of being more loyal to Israel than their own nations.
  • “Demonizing, applying a double standard to, or delegitimizing Israel.”

DeSantis has long nurtured political ambitions and, recognizing the power and wealth of those who are passionate about Israel, he harbors a particular “sensitivity” to Jewish and Israel issues as a means to help him move onwards and upwards. When he was a congressman, survivors from the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American seamen who lived in his district in Florida report that they sought to meet with him to discuss the possibility of opening a new inquiry into the incident. Even though DeSantis is a former Navy officer, he refused to meet with them.

The power of international Jewry has been most observable in the largely successful attempts to silence criticism of Israel by making such activity describable as motivated by anti-Semitism. Former Israeli government minister Shulamit Aloni has even described the practice of labeling all critics as anti-Semites as “It’s a trick. We always use it…the suffering of the Jewish people” is routinely used to “justify everything we do to the Palestinians.” A number of European countries have also criminalized what is described as “holocaust denial” and in Germany and France have imprisoned those who violate the laws, even when that denial only consists of questioning some of the facts that are employed in the standard accepted narrative of the event. The most recent country to climb onto the “hate speech” express is Ireland, where new legislation is being considered by the country’s parliament. Interestingly, the debate over what one is allowed to say without criminally offending someone else has largely focused on transexuals and gender identity, but it has also been observed that the law would impact on supporters of the Palestinian cause who would perforce criticize Israel, the Jewish state. That might easily be construed as anti-Semitism and lead to heavy fines or even prison time. Interestingly, the bill even criminalizes the mere possession of material considered to be “hateful.”

In any event, the domestic war dedicated to stamping out what is referred to as anti-Semitism continues and grows in the United States, even when it is trivial, largely imaginary, or even fabricated by hate groups like the ADL headed by the hideous Jonathan Greenblatt. And if free speech and honest inquiry have to be sacrificed along the way, so be it. On May 10th the Biden Administration used its United Nations Security Council veto to block a report on Israel’s war crimes in targeting civilians while bombing Gaza, which has killed 25 Palestinians, mostly women and children. Unsurprisingly, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan responded to the development by declaring their unwavering support for “Israel’s right to defend itself.”

Clearly, for the vast majority of politicians in Washington and even at the states level, allegiance and subservience to Israel and its interests are more important than protecting constitutional rights or managing a sane and responsible foreign policy. One wonders whether Ron DeSantis, if elected president in 2024, just might hold his inauguration in Jerusalem, just as he did when he became governor. It would actually be something of a relief – at last the ultimate acknowledgement of who is really in charge back here in America.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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].

Featured image is from TUR

Will Lawsuits Bring an End to COVID Vaccines?

May 16th, 2023 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Drug companies have a legal responsibility to provide profits for their shareholders. They do not have a legal responsibility to give patients the best and safest treatment. But the biggest scandal is that those with the responsibility to uphold scientific integrity — academic institutions, doctors, medical journals — also collude with industry for financial gain.

Five hundred Australians have joined a class action lawsuit against the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), arguing the agency did not fulfil its duty to properly regulate the vaccines, which resulted in considerable harm to Australians.

Australians who have experienced a serious adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination are invited to register for this class action.

A similar class action is taking place in the U.K., where attorneys representing approximately 75 people injured by AstraZeneca’s shot, and family members of those killed by it, are suing the drug company.

***

There’s now overwhelming evidence showing that the COVID shots were a disaster from the start, and that regulatory agencies knew it but went ahead anyway. Now, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is trying to rewrite history by giving provably false testimony before Congress

*

In the video above, Joe Rogan interviews cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra about Big Pharma’s control over research. What many don’t realize is that researchers who do peer-review of drug company-sponsored trials do not get access to the raw data. All they get is the drug company’s analysis of that data, which leaves the door wide open for manipulation and obfuscation.

As noted by Malhotra, “It’s not scientific, it’s not ethical … and it’s not democratic.” Most doctors, unless they’re involved in the peer review process, are not even aware of this, which is why they rarely ever question published science. Yet data analyses by Stanford professor Dr. John Ionnidis show that “the greater the financial interest in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true,” Malhotra says.

No One Protects Patients Anymore

So, is the drug industry all about satisfying shareholders and increasing profits by any means, with no real regard for public health? Rogan wonders. Basically yes. As noted by Malhotra, drug companies have a legal responsibility to provide profits for their shareholders. They do not have a legal responsibility to give patients the best and safest treatment.

But the biggest scandal here, Malhotra says, is that “those with the responsibility to uphold scientific integrity — academic institutions, doctors, medical journals — collude with industry for financial gain.” I would add that our regulatory agencies are also “on the take.” They’ve all been captured by industry, which leaves patients with no one to protect them from Big Pharma’s malfeasance.

Malhotra goes on to discuss Dr. Robert Hare, a forensic psychologist who developed the original DSM criteria for psychopathy, and how Hare noted that the way drug companies conduct business, as legal entities, fulfill the definition of psychopath: “callous unconcern for the feelings of others, incapacity to experience guilt, deceitfulness and conning others for profit.”

Between 2003 and 2016, drug companies paid fines totaling $33 billion. Many of these cases involved the illegal marketing of drugs, scientific fraud, hiding data on harms and the suppression of negative results. These fines never curtailed the behavior, however, because the fines were a drop in the bucket compared to the profits they made on these drugs. The fines were just considered the cost of doing business.

What Is the Net Effect of Pharmaceutical Drugs?

While the drug industry has created crucial life-saving drugs, the big question we need to ask is “What is the net effect of them?” Malhotra says. He points out that, in the U.S., of the 667 drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2000 and 2008, 75% were copies of old ones.

Off-patent drugs were repatented after minor tweaks to the formulations, thereby boosting profits from already existing drugs. Of those, only 11% were found to have a clinical benefit over the previous drug.

Similarly, in France, of the nearly 1,000 drugs approved between 2000 and 2011, most were copies and, importantly, 15% of the reformulations were found to be MORE harmful than the predecessor, whereas only 8% had clinical benefit over the previous drugs. So, what does this tell us?

It tells us that “the overall net effect of the drug industry on society in the last few decades [has been] a negative one,” Malhotra says. Of course, when it comes to dangerous drugs, nothing can match the COVID jabs, rolled out in December 2020. Add them into the equation, and the drug industry becomes the No. 1 cause of death and disability worldwide, hands down.

For the past three years, I and many others have been shouting warnings from the rooftops to little avail — our voices drowned out in a sea of corrupt “fact” checkers. Now, however, the ramifications of this mass experiment are becoming so glaringly obvious, legal experts are starting to take note, and to file lawsuits.

As reported by Spectator Australia at the end of April 2023, 500 Australians have joined a class action lawsuit filed by Brisbane lawyer Natalie Strijland:1

“All have suffered serious or life-threatening events or are the relatives of those who have died following COVID vaccination. Many have have been left with significant disabilities. As the news filters out about the class action, the first of its kind in Australia, more people are joining each day.

Dr. Melissa McCann, who instigated the action, is crowdfunding to assist with legal and travel costs. Any compensation awarded will be shared entirely by the injured and the bereaved.

The applicants will argue that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) did not fulfil its duty to properly regulate the vaccines which resulted in considerable harm to Australians.

The respondents are the Australian government, the Department of Health and Aged Care Secretary Dr Brendan Murphy, who announced in early April that he will retire in July, and the former head of the TGA Adjunct Professor John Skerritt who just retired from the public service in mid-April.”

Strijland told news.com.au:2

“[The class] action arises upon the basis that the government did not truly establish that the vaccines were indeed safe or effective for use by the Australian public, and the claim now proceeds upon the basis that the government in fact acted negligently in approving the vaccines and also by failing to withdraw them after approval based upon the known evidence.

Australians who have experienced a serious adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination are invited to step forward and register for this class action.”

AstraZeneca Sued in UK

A similar class action is taking place in the U.K., where attorneys representing people injured by AstraZeneca’s shot, and family members of those killed by it, are suing the drug company.

Among the plaintiffs in this suit is the husband of BBC North radio broadcaster Lisa Shaw,3 who died from vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia one week after her AstraZeneca jab. She was 44. The wife of psychologist Stephen Wright, a National Health Service (NHS) employee who died 10 days after his first dose in January 2021, is also suing.4 Wright was 32. As reported by The BMJ, March 28, 2023:5

“Lawyers have sent the company pre-action protocol letters, the first step in a legal claim on behalf of around 75 claimants. Some have lost relatives and some have survived with catastrophic injuries following blood clots …

[In] 2021 the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency confirmed a possible link between the vaccine, known as Vaxzevria, and a rare condition involving blood clots along with abnormally low platelet levels. Those taking legal action have been diagnosed with vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

The claimants are pursuing a two pronged strategy: taking legal action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 as well as claiming payment under the government run Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. The scheme … is limited to £120 000 per claim and applicants must prove severe disablement … Those taking action under the Consumer Protection Act must show that the vaccine was not as safe as the public were entitled to expect.

Peter Todd, a consultant solicitor with Scott-Moncrieff & Associates, one of two lawyers handling claims, told The BMJ that the complications included stroke, heart failure, and leg amputations. He said the technology involved in the AstraZeneca vaccine was ‘risky.’

Even though the legal claim is against AstraZeneca, the UK taxpayer will have to pay any compensation awarded, under a legal indemnity that the government gave the company early in the pandemic …

Damages for individuals in the court action could be in the millions. [Sarah] Moore [attorney with Hausfeld law firm] added, ‘We’ve been trying to get the government to reform their statutory scheme. We didn’t want to litigate but the government has forced us into a corner. The only way these families can get compensation is to fight the battle they didn’t want to fight.’”

CDC Director Tries to Rewrite History

There’s now overwhelming evidence showing that the COVID shots were a disaster from the start, and that regulatory agencies knew it but went ahead anyway.

Apparently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky believes the best way to deal with the agency’s clear culpability in widespread death and disability is to rewrite history and double down on provable falsehoods. As reported by investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, April 20, 2023:6,7

“This week, CDC director Rochelle Walensky provided witness testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations … But serious questions have been raised about the veracity of Walensky’s testimony.

Congressman Andrew Clyde (R-Ga) asked Walensky if her March 2021 public statement on MSNBC,8 in which she unequivocally said that ‘vaccinated people do not carry the virus, they do not get sick’ was accurate. ‘At the time it was [accurate]’ Walensky replied confidently.

She then proceeded to explain, ‘We’ve had an evolution of the science and an evolution of the virus’ and that ‘all the data at the time suggested that vaccinated people, even if they got sick, could not transmit the virus.’ However, there was no such evidence at the time …

Walensky should have known that when mRNA vaccines were first authorised in 2020, the FDA listed critical ‘gaps’ in the knowledge base.9 One of them was the vaccine’s unknown effectiveness against viral transmission.

Also, in Pfizer’s10 and Moderna’s11 original pivotal trials, there were 8 and 11 people respectively, who developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine group, proving the vaccines never had absolute effectiveness, like Walensky had claimed.”

What’s more, as detailed in “‘Speed of Science’ — A Scandal Beyond Your Wildest Nightmare,” in early October 2022, during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk.”

As the head of the CDC, how could Walensky be unaware that the COVID shot had NEVER been tested for transmission? And how could she, at any point, claim that it would stop transmission when that was never tested? Clearly, Walensky is trying to invent science that never existed.

Walensky Falsely Claims Mask Review Was Retracted

Even more egregiously, Walensky falsely claimed12 that part of the 2023 Cochrane review13 and meta-analysis of the available evidence on face masks for prevention of respiratory infections had been retracted. According to this review, the use of face masks in the community “probably makes little to no difference” in preventing viral transmission.

“I think it’s notable, that the editor-in-chief of Cochrane actually said that the summary of that review was … [stumble] … he retracted the summary of that review and said that it was inaccurate,” Walensky told Congress.

However, neither the summary nor the review was ever retracted. Nor has any of the language in the summary been altered. So, what the heck is Walensky even talking about? Demasi suspects Walensky may have repeated a falsehood previously published by The New York Times.14,15 This wouldn’t surprise me, seeing how this isn’t the first time Walensky has relied on mainstream propaganda rather than scientific data when making public statements. As reported by Demasi:

“In response to Walensky’s comments, Tom Jefferson, lead author of the Cochrane study said, ‘Walensky is plain wrong. There has been no retraction of anything. It’s worth reiterating that we are the copyright holders of the review, so we decide what goes in or out of the review and we will not change our review on the basis of what the media wants or what Walensky says’ …

[Professor of health policy at Stanford University School of Medicine Jay] Bhattacharya was also stunned by Walensky’s comments. ‘It’s irresponsible for her to claim that the Cochrane review [summary] was retracted when it was not. It damages her credibility and harms the scientific process, which requires public officials to be honest about scientific results,’ he said.”

CDC Artificially Inflated COVID Deaths

In other news relating to CDC malfeasance, the agency also inflated the number of COVID deaths, as Dr. Scott Jensen told Dr. Jordan Peterson in an April 2023 interview. As explained by Jensen, March 24, 2020, the CDC changed how death certificates were recorded for COVID-19.

“COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death,” the notice said.16 It’s important to note that this change was exclusively for COVID. In all other instances, contributing conditions are listed in the Contributing Causes box.

Why would the CDC do this? Jensen suspected the CDC wanted people to be afraid of COVID and needed statistics to support their claims that COVID-19 was a lethal infection. But these data are completely misleading. If someone is dying from cancer and tests positive for COVID, cancer should be listed as the cause of death and COVID-19 should be listed as a contributing factor, not THE cause of death, because they died with COVID (assuming it wasn’t a false positive), not from it.

DHHS Incentivized Misdiagnosing COVID-19

But it didn’t end there. Two days later, March 26, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) also issued massive financial incentive — $100 billion, to be exact — to diagnose patients with COVID-19.17

Fortunately for doctors and hospitals, it was really easy to cash in on this because the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization also set such high cycle thresholds for the PCR test that about 90% of the tests came out as false positives. I reviewed this in “Bombshell Admission — The COVID Tests Don’t Work.”

According to a Harvard Medical School study, analyses of the blood oxygen levels of nearly 50,000 hospital patients across the U.S. suggest 48% of all hospitalized “COVID patients” in 2021 were admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID.18

That means the number of “hospitalized COVID cases” was exaggerated by some 96%. In short, we had a “casedemic,” and an artificially created one at that. As suggested by Peterson, bureaucracy was weaponized to facilitate tyranny. And that’s where we’re still at, today.

COVID Patients Killed for Profit

On top of all that, the U.S. government also financially incentivized hospitals to exclusively use the most dangerous COVID treatments possible,19 while banning doctors from using ANY of the many safe and effective remedies that have been shown to work, including off-patent drugs and nutraceuticals. U.S., hospitals lost their federal funding if they failed or refused to administer remdesivir and/or ventilation.

Hospitals even had a financial incentive to log COVID deaths, which meant a COVID patient who left the hospital in a body bag was worth the most money. These “sticks and carrots” also drove up the COVID death toll. I detailed this scandal in “How COVID Patients Died for Profit.”

How to Save Your Life and Those You Love When Hospitalized

The good news is we now have a new process, a new strategy, with which you can help save yourself and your loved ones from being victimized by greedy hospitals. In response to overwhelming need, Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford, with the aid of a hospital administrator insider, came up with a template for a document that puts you, the patient, back in the driver’s seat. It’s the most powerful way I’ve seen so far to do that.

Filing a written medical consent form can literally help save your life, because no doctor can override your written decision (consent) declining certain medications or treatments. Verbal communication is not enough. It must be in writing, notarized and delivered in a manner that formally serves the hospital and puts their physicians on notice.

When you enter a hospital, you must sign a general consent authorization form. This is basically a contract between you and the hospital. Since you have bodily autonomy, they need your consent before they can do anything to you.

Typically, the general consent form authorizes hospital staff to test, treat and care for you in whatever way they see fit — and when a patient signs the general consent authorization, physicians feel justified that they can implement a hospital protocol without further explaining the risks, benefits or alternatives of that protocol to the patient.

Now, if you’re well enough to read the entire document, and see something in there that you don’t agree with, you can strike the sentence or paragraph and initial it, to indicate that you do not consent to that specific detail. However, that still doesn’t offer you much protection.

What you need is a much more specific document where you detail the types of treatments you consent to and the ones you don’t. You need to carve out a niche from the general consent form that specifies exactly what you do (and do not) consent to. And you need to be clear. Fortunately, the Caregivers and Consent document that Bartlett and Crawford created carves out that niche to communicate clearly to all physicians what your exact consent wishes are. So, there’s no confusion.

The template is available for download on OurPatientRights.com. You can find more information on ProtocolKills.com.

This Caregivers and Consent document can be altered in any way you wish. For example, I would recommend to add: “I do not consent to receiving ANY processed food, such as high-fructose corn syrup or seed oils. The only acceptable oil for me is butter, ghee, beef tallow or coconut oil.

Acceptable forms of protein would be eggs, lamb, bison, beef or non-farmed seafood; but they must not be prepared with seed oils. If the hospital is unable to provide this food for me, my family or friends will bring it for me.”

Important: Follow Proper Procedure!

How you deliver this document to the hospital is of crucial importance. Here’s a summary of all the necessary steps:

1. Complete your customized and personalized Caregivers and Consent document BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital.

2. Get the form notarized. Make sure you sign the document in front of the notary.

3. Send the completed, signed, notarized document to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested.

The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent forms entered into your electronic medical record.

4. Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized form and keep one copy on your person or in your wallet or purse, and another in the glove compartment of your car, in case you ever have an accident. Also provide copies to family or friends. If you happen to be hospitalized before you’ve had the chance to send the documents, have one of them follow the delivery procedure outlined.

5. Once you’re hospitalized, you or one of your contacts will give one copy to your attending physician and another to your nurse and inform them that this document is already in your electronic medical record, or that the hospital will be served the documents shortly. Distribute additional copies to other care providers as needed.

6. Also, upon hospitalization, request to see your electronic medical record to make sure your Caregivers and Consent form has been entered. It is your right to see your electronic medical record, and it’s available through an online portal, so don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Also routinely check your medical record (or have your patient advocate do it for you) to make sure your wishes are being followed and that you’re not being given something you’ve denied consent for.

7. Add the additional statement that I included in my interview on the diet changes in the hospital.

Final Thoughts

Having this document in your medical record virtually guarantees that they cannot harm you by doing something you don’t agree with — such as giving you a COVID shot or any other vaccine without your knowledge or consent. Of course, some psychopath might ignore your directives, but they’ll have to pay a hefty price, as they’re guaranteed to lose a malpractice suit and be stripped of their medical license.

Keep in mind that while you can request and consent to certain treatments, such as ivermectin, for example, this document CANNOT force your doctor or hospital to use that treatment. They can still refuse to administer something you’ve consented to.

They cannot, however, administer something that you’ve declined consent for. The ace up your sleeve at that point is that you can still sign out AMA (against medical advice), get out alive, and seek desired treatment elsewhere. Getting out alive is the key goal.

Please share this information with everyone you know. Bring it to your church, synagogue and local community groups. Everyone needs to know they can secure their patient right to informed consent and how to do it so that their wishes cannot be ignored. This is the most effective way to empower yourself when it comes to your medical care. So please, help spread the word.

To circle back to where we started, class action lawsuits over the COVID shots are now getting started, so, hopefully, it’s only a matter of time before that house of cards comes crashing down. That doesn’t mean we’re out of harms way though.

The medical system has clearly become so corrupted that no one is safe. We can only speculate as to what they might come up with for the next pandemic. So, get prepared, and get your current consent wishes into your electronic medical record. If millions of us do it, it might even change the entire system for the better.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Notes

1, 3 Spectator Australia April 29, 2023

2 News.com.au April 27, 2023

4 BBC April 19, 2023

5 The BMJ March 28, 2023

6, 12 Maryanne Demasi Substack April 20, 2023

7 Twitter Maryanne Demasi April 20, 2023

8 MSNBC Transcript March 29, 2021

9 FDA EUA No. 27034

10 NEJM 2020; 383: 2603-2615

11 NEJM 2021; 384: 403-416

13 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews January 30, 2023

14 New York Times March 10, 2023

15 Maryanne Demasi Substack March 15, 2023

16, 17 Twitter KanekoaTheGreat May 1, 2023 NVSS March 24, 2020 Document

18 The Atlantic September 13, 2021

19 Fox News April 9, 2020

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

The US Supreme Court Corruption Bonanza

May 16th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

When ProPublica’s investigation into links between Republican donor Harlan Crow and the US Supreme Court surfaced, there was a sense that dark waters lurked beneath the revelations.  While Justice Clarence Thomas featured prominently as the recipient of largesse and pomp from Crow – island hopping in Indonesia, private jet travel, among other treats – things were bound to get worse.

At the time of the unveiling of such ignominious conduct, Thomas did not heed the wise injunction of Lord Acton to avoid too much explaining lest the excuses become too many.  His hand caught in the till, Thomas dismissed such generosity as mere hospitality, a point reiterated in a statement from Crow.  Besides, he had been advised by his fellow brethren – troublingly so – that he could accept such gifts of hospitality without fear of conflict and compromise.  The clincher here: that Crow did not have any business before the court.

The Thomas-Crow relationship has had a decent pickling, stretching back a good number of years.  In 2011, Crow lavished $500,000 upon Thomas’ wife to form a Tea Party Group.  Thomas also received a $19,000 Bible said to belong to Frederick Douglass.  In rather smelly fashion – odorous, that is, in the links between think-tank land, wealth and policy – Thomas received a $15,000 gift from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), with Crow serving on the board at the time.  More recently, it has also been revealed that Crow’s generosity extended to funding the private school education of Thomas’s grandnephew to the sum of $6,000 a month.

The pong becomes a full raging stench with the realisation that the AEI filed three briefs with the Supreme Court soon after giving Thomas the gift, with all rulings being decided in their favour.  While influence should not be confused with association, the appearance of conflict would be fatal to even the most disciplined of judicial minds.

The link with Crow becomes even more taut with revelations from ThinkProgress in 2011 about the legal successes of the Crow-affiliated group, Center for the Community Interest, at least when facing the less than critical eye of Justice Thomas.  Not once did Thomas waiver in his judgments favouring the CCI.

Not to be outdone, Neil Gorsuch, along with two individuals, sold land to the chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, a firm often engaged in business before the Supreme Court.  The timing of the purchase is also of interest, given that the property in question had been on the market for almost two years till Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

In a less tawdry way, Justice Samuel Alito has also been found wanting for shooting off his mouth before dinner guests regarding the outcome of the 2014 case Burwell v Hobby Lobby months before its official publication.  Good judgment can be rare – even on Olympus.

Efforts to impose an ethical code upon the justices akin to the lower courts have floundered over the years, much of this due to the saboteurs of the Supreme Court.  At best, reliance has been placed upon the less than satisfactory statute requirement that justices, including those on the Supreme Court bench, recuse themselves in any case “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.

Chief Justice John Roberts was even threatening in his 2011 report, implying that any Congressional effort to constrain the bench by the imposition of such a code would violate the Constitution.  In a rather novel interpretation, the fact that the lower courts were bound by the Code of Conduct “reflects a fundamental difference between the Supreme Court and the other federal courts.”

Lower court judges, were they to refuse recusing themselves from individual cases, could have their decisions reviewed, all the way to the Supreme Court.  But on the high summit of Olympus, the country’s top judicial officers were intended to be wise and immune, “a consequence of the Constitution’s command that there be only ‘one supreme Court’.”  To also leave the assessment of recusal to fellow judges might “affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its Members may participate.”  Such reasoning is so idiosyncratic as to be suspicious.

A gaggle of Democrats are wondering how to bring the Supreme Court to heel on the issue, being particularly agitated at the Chief Justice’s refusal to take up an invitation to testify about ethics reform for the court.  “Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States,” he snootily declared in a letter to the chairman, “is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”

The idea of funding is being mooted as a potential point of pressure.  According to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Congress can draw upon court decisions making the point “that, in interbranch disputes, it is completely appropriate and proper for the legislative branch to use the power of the purse to influence the other branches in doing what they ought to be doing.”

Such suggestions risk having an opposite effect, stirring the justices into a sense of martyrdom while sailing close to the winds of violating the separation of powers.  But those occupying the bench, in their breathtakingly irresponsible links with private interest groups, have done their fair share in soiling the stables of US justice.  For that, the withering gaze of fairness should be directed not merely upon the likes of Crow, but such bodies as the Federalist Society, the sort that ensures that the Supreme Court, once bought, stays bought.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: Harlan Crow and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with Randolph-Macon Academy (George W. Bush Presidential Center, Getty, Google Maps)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US Supreme Court Corruption Bonanza

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Three Rhode Island teachers who were fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine have been offered their jobs back with full back pay after reaching a settlement with the school district.

Teachers Stephanie Hines, Brittany DiOrio, and Kerri Thurber were terminated from their positions in Barrington Public Schools after they had requested a religious exemption after the school mandated employees get the vaccine.

Last week, their attorney, Greg Piccirilli, and the school district said they had reached a settlement, allowing the teachers to return to their jobs. They are also each entitled to $33,333 in damages along with their back pay. DiOrio will get $150,000, Thurber will get $128,000, and Hines will receive $65,000 under the agreement.

“The three teachers have the opportunity to return to teaching positions within the Barrington School District should they choose to do so, at the steps they would have been at had they worked continuously,” the Barrington Public Schools district said in a statement on May 11.

In a statement to the Boston Globe, Piccirilli said that his clients are “extremely gratified that they’ve been vindicated in their position,” adding that he will get $50,000 in attorneys fees as part of the settlement. “A lot of people were dismissive and skeptical of their claims at the time,” he told the Boston Globe. “They went through a lot of personal trauma dealing with this. Their faith has gotten them through this.”

Meanwhile, Barrington Public Schools told the Providence Journal that it reached the settlement because the litigation would likely put a drag on the school’s resources and funding. It attempted to distance itself from its own vaccine mandate by claiming that it was dealing with the spread of COVID-19, although there is a growing body of evidence that shows the vaccines do not prevent the spread of the virus.

“Our district was navigating an unprecedented health pandemic and leaned on the important recommendations by the CDC and the Rhode Island Department of Health to ensure the safety of our students and school community,” the Barrington School Committee said Thursday, according to the outlet. “Our then-policy helped combat the pressing public health crisis of the time, while keeping schools open, and [was] one that nearly all faculty and staff adhered to.”

It added that “we determined this ongoing, expensive litigation” would likely continue for a lengthy period of time, and a resolution should be reached because the “administration’s time, and our district’s financial resources, should be spent on the daily work and mission of Barrington Public Schools … our School Committee looks forward to continuing to support this important work.”

Details

The three were first placed on unpaid leave in late 2021 before they were fired in January 2022, according to statements made by the district and the teachers. During a hearing in Barrington in October 2021, DiOrio said that she “did nothing wrong.”

“I have done nothing wrong. This is destroying my future ability to earn a living,” she said of the mandate. “What makes me more of a threat now? Is this how a highly-rated school department treats its people?”

At the time,  Sara Rapport, a lawyer representing the School Committee, said that the teachers were violating the school policy for not complying, adding that committees have the plenary authority over school interests. She said that the teachers’ decision not to get vaccinated pose a greater risk to students.

“Teachers have a right not to be vaccinated,” she said in late 2021. “But every decision has consequences. Religious beliefs do not override the health and safety of the community.”

It’s not clear if Thurber, Hines, or DiOrio will return to their previous teaching positions. During an interview with Legal Insurrection, Piccirilli said that the settlement should be seen as a victory for others who were fired because they refused to take COVID-19 vaccines.

“They’ve shown amazing resilience to stick by their faith. A lot of other people with similar situations have gone through this. And hopefully [this resolution] will serve as an example of how others should be vindicated the same way, for sticking up for what they believe in,” he said.

Last year, a Rhode Island Superior Court judge issued a ruling in favor of the three teachers who were fired, saying the district violated the state’s Open Meetings Act laws over their mandating the vaccine. The Barrington School Committee said after the ruling that officials disagree with the judge’s opinion.

“This case is not about whether mandating vaccinations is appropriate. Regardless of the significant political stance which the public may take for or against that issue, the issue here is whether the Barrington School Committee provided sufficient notice before enacting the Emergency Policy on COVID-19 Related Issues in August and September 2021. This Court finds that violations occurred,” Judge Jeffrey Lanphear wrote at the time.

Piccirilli, meanwhile, has said that the school committee did not possess the legal authority to implement a vaccine mandate and asserted it didn’t follow proper procedures in carrying it out. For example, he said that the district didn’t advertise it correctly.

“It’s shocking to me that the rule of law seems to have gone out the window in a lot of these situations,” Piccirilli said in 2021, reported the Globe. “There’s supposed to be a process.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Shutterstock


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fired Teachers Who Refused COVID Vaccine to Get Full Reinstatement and Back Pay

Is Your Money Spying on You?

May 16th, 2023 by Kevin Stocklin

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Slowly but steadily, our money is taking on a new role; in addition to its traditional function as a medium of exchange and store of value, money is increasingly becoming a means of surveillance and control.

Financial privacy has become one of the biggest casualties in the world’s relentless march to a digital payments system. Not only do corporations like your bank, credit card issuer, PayPal, and Amazon know your buying habits intimately, this data is routinely passed on to government to be mined in a warrantless search for criminal activity.

Behind this phenomenon is what some call the “war on cash,” with the goal of a cashless society. This transition includes partnerships of banking and tech companies, and the rise of the “fintech” industry.

A report by McKinsey, a management consultancy, states that 89 percent of Americans are now using some form of digital payments and more than two-thirds of Americans use or expect to use digital wallets in the next two years. The service providers for these digital wallets include banks, PayPal, Apple Pay, and Google Pay.

An August 2022 Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans now say they make “only a few” or no purchases with cash today, nearly double the 32 percent who said so five years ago. And the phasing out of cash also brings the decline of the most private medium of exchange available today.

“You have, on the one hand, a desire to be more efficient on the consumers’ part, on the part of businesses, and on the part of banks,” E.J. Antoni, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times. “On the other hand, you do have people who want a cashless society because it eases the transition to a central bank digital currency, and the problem is that both of these groups want the exact same thing.”

Banks, credit card issuers, payment companies, and tech companies profit from the fee income that comes with digital payments. And for banks, there is the cost savings from not having to handle physical cash or interact with customers in person, as well as the fact that digital transactions ultimately require having accounts with a bank or other fintech company. In short, it is a system outside of which few can survive today.

Consumers have embraced this transition because of the convenience, and are either unaware of, or unconcerned about, the loss of personal privacy it brings. Law enforcement also supports the transition because digital transactions leave fingerprints that can be tracked and data-mined.

Advancing Financial Surveillance

Under the digital financial system, the means of surveillance and control are extensive. A series of laws, starting with the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and including the 2001 PATRIOT Act, and most recently the 2021 Infrastructure Act, banks, broker dealers, casinos, mortgage companies, mutual funds, money service companies and other financial institutions must report to the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) all transactions over $10,000 (pdf) and any other transactions they consider “suspicious.”

One thing these laws have in common is that, while widening the net of information the government is allowed to collect on private citizens, they also stipulate that neither the financial institutions nor government officials should inform customers that their accounts are being searched.

“Instead of protecting the privacy of their depositors, financial institutions are forced to protect the secrecy of government investigations,” Nicholas Anthony states in a Cato Institute report, “whether those investigations have a legitimate criminal predicate or not.”

In 2019 alone, FinCen reported that more than 20 million suspicious activity reports (SARs) were filed by more than 97,000 U.S. financial institutions, “providing a wealth of potentially useful information to agencies whose mission is to detect and prevent money laundering, other financial crimes, and terrorism.”

While the $10,000 threshold set in 1970 under the BSA would be more than $72,000 today, taking inflation into account, this threshold was not indexed for inflation, meaning that an ever-widening number of Americans are now being tracked under a law that was originally intended to capture large-scale criminal transactions. In 2021, the Biden administration attempted to enact an even lower threshold for reporting transactions of $600, though this effort was ultimately put on hold.

In February 2022, the New York Post reported that Bank of America had data-mined its customer accounts after the Jan. 6 riots to determine who among their customers may have traveled to Washington D.C., made purchases or used ATMs there, or bought firearms around that time. The account information of more than 200 customers, collected without a warrant, was reportedly handed over to the FBI.

Expanding the surveillance network beyond banks, credit card companies Visa, MasterCard, and American Express agreed in September 2022 to begin tracking firearms purchases, with the goal of handing over the law enforcement any purchases they deemed “suspicious.” Following a public outcry, the card companies have put this effort on hold at present.

All of these actions create enormous pools of data for government officials to collect and sort through, despite the fact that this sort of warrantless surveillance violates the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits government searches without “probable cause” that citizens being searched have committed a crime.

Despite Constitutional protections, the Supreme Court has rejected challenges to the BSA, ruling that the government can conduct warrantless searches under what is called the “third party” doctrine, or the notion that when a person shares their personal data with a third party such as a bank, the right to privacy no longer applies. There is reason to believe, however, that the Supreme Court as currently composed may take a different view.

In his Cato report, Anthony states that the use of bank accounts and digital payment services is so essential to everyday living today that it becomes exceedingly difficult for most Americans to transact, or even survive, outside the system. For this reason, both liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices appear willing to reconsider the “third party” doctrine, and roll back the ability of government officials to conduct warrantless searches, if a relevant case were to come before them.

“It may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information disclosed to third parties,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the 2012 case United States v. Jones. “This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”

The Cashless Society Vanguard

As the world progresses toward a cashless society, one of the countries in the vanguard is Sweden.

Using fintech apps like Swish, BankID, and Klarna, the percentage of Swedes still paying in cash fell from 39 percent in 2010 to 9 percent in 2020. A microchip implanted in a person’s hand that can simply be waived over a sensor in stores to make payments has become popular, with thousands of Swedes opting to have it implanted. Sweden is also piloting a CBDC called the E-krona.

A British-Polish firm called Walletmor has also developed an implanted payment chip, which lights up under your skin when making a payment.

Walletmor founder and CEO Wojtek Paprota says the chip is “entirely safe, has regulatory approval, works immediately after being implanted, and will stay firmly in place. It also does not require a battery, or other power source.”

The cashless society is advancing in the United States as well. A Pew Research survey in October 2022 found that “in less than a decade, the share of Americans who go cashless in a typical week has increased by double digits.” Today, the survey found, 41 percent of Americans say none of their purchases in a typical week are paid for using cash, up from 24 percent in 2015.

But the decline in cash payments is uneven across demographic groups. For example, among Americans who earn more than $100,000 per year, only 5 percent make a significant number of purchases in cash. Among those earning less than $40,000 per year, about 20 percent use cash frequently or exclusively.

In addition, a cashless society is something Americans say they do not want. A survey by Civic Science found that 62 percent of Americans say they are against the idea of a cashless society. While the elderly are typically more attached to cash payments and younger generations are more likely to embrace fintech, the survey also found that “younger adults are also the most likely to use cash and the least likely to directly use debit or credit cards for purchases. Gen Z in particular is embracing alternatives to plastic, including writing checks.”

The Endgame: Central Bank Digital Currencies

One thing that few outside of government seem to want is a central bank digital currency (CBDC). For many governments including the Biden administration, however, introducing a CBDC, which is a programmable, traceable digital form of money issued directly by government agencies and held in digital “wallets,” is a top priority.

According to the Atlantic Council’s CBDC Tracker, as of March 1, 65 countries are in the advanced stage of developing a CBDC, more than 20 countries have launched pilots, and in total 119 countries are in some stage of developing CBDCs, representing more than 95 percent of the world’s GDP. The Biden administration has also thrown its weight behind the development of a U.S. CBDC, and the Fed has beta-tested versions of it, both for domestic payments and international settlements.

“The usual model of [CBDCs] is everybody can have a bank account on the books of the Federal Reserve System, and that certainly is a pathway to surveillance,” Lawrence White, economics professor at George Mason University, told The Epoch Times. “Your bank account is not as private as you might think now, but at least the federal authorities don’t have real time access to every check you wrote and don’t know where you spent it and where you received your money from; with a central bank, digital currency they could.

“That, of course, is the purpose of the system that’s being implemented in China,” White said. “It’s being implemented precisely in order to surveil people and to restrict their spending on things that are not approved. So that’s certainly not a model we want to emulate in the United States, and there is the danger, not that anybody at the Fed wants to be in the surveillance business, but that they will be pressured by other federal agencies that do want information about their customers, and the Fed is not in a position to resist them.”

“We don’t know who is using a $100 bill today, we don’t know who’s using a 1,000-peso bill today,” Agustin Carstens, general manager of the Bank of International Settlements, stated in October 2020. “The key difference with a CBDC is the central bank will have absolute control of the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.”

“One of the things you can do with a central bank digital currency is, instead of trying to manipulate people through the tax code, you can directly affect their purchases by simply saying only X percent of your income can be spent on anything fossil fuel related, whether that’s a gasoline powered car, a fossil fuel powered appliance, whatever the case may be,” Antoni said. “Maybe a certain percentage of your electricity comes from fossil fuels, in which case you’re only allowed to use a certain number of kilowatt hours per month.”

Republicans in Congress and several conservative U.S. states have taken steps to block the Biden administration from establishing a CBDC. In March, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced a bill to ban the federal government from adopting a CBDC. Also in March, Florida and Texas took action to ban the introduction of a CBDC in America.

“I think that resistance in the U.S. is important because I don’t think in other countries there will be enough resistance to it,” Dror Goldberg, economics professor at Open University of Israel, told The Epoch Times. “I think in the U.S., you might be able to put up a good fight and prevent it. In other countries, I don’t see that happening.”

Freezing Dissidents’ Accounts

One of the most striking incidents of financial control, even without a CBDC, occurred in Canada in February 2022, when the Canadian government ordered banks to freeze the accounts and credit cards of truckers who were protesting pandemic restrictions.

“We are today serving notice if your truck is being used in these illegal blockades, your corporate accounts will be frozen,” Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland stated. “The insurance on your vehicle will be suspended,” she said, adding that personal accounts would also be included in the order.

Canadian officials threatened donors who had given to apps like GoFundMe and GiveSendGo in support of the truckers with similar punishment. Many Americans believed that this could not occur in the United States, but some analysts are less confident.

Given the “demonstrable willingness of Congress to expand the weaponization of the financial infrastructure,” Anthony states, “it’s reasonable to think the United States will do the same if presented with a similar emergency situation.”

“It’s something that [George] Orwell probably could not have even dreamed of because the technology just wasn’t available,” Antoni said. “But as technology continues to progress, we are seeing a continued march, unfortunately, towards serfdom, to borrow a phrase from [F.A.] Hayek.”

If the U.S. government needed to enforce a given policy, it wouldn’t necessarily have to arrest people for non-compliance, Antoni said. “What they would do instead is simply make it so that when you go to buy groceries, your credit card is declined.”

“Your money is absolutely turning into a means of control and not just a medium of exchange.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Daily Sceptic

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The Trudeau government is pressing Mexico to maintain its loosely regulated, pro-capitalist mining policies.

Recently the Mexican government initiated more socially and ecologically sound mining legislation. The reform shortens mining concessions, tightens rules for water permits and requires companies to provide at least 10 per cent of profits to the communities where they operate. In “Mexico’s ‘shock’ new mining law hurts juniors most,” Mining.com complains that “companies now have to deal with an increased burden of pre-consultation, impact studies and water concessions, among other things. The new law also requires financial commitments (bonding) that would be difficult to meet for junior explorers.” While Canada’s many “junior” exploration firms will be adversely affected, the reforms will benefit local communities and the environment. But that hasn’t stopped Ottawa from pressing the Mexican government to shift gears.

Two weeks ago, Trade Minister Mary Ng publicly criticized the mining reforms. In a statement released after speaking with Mexican Economy Minister Raquel Buenrostro, Ng “expressed her concern with Mexico’s proposed mining reforms, which could affect Canadian investment in Mexico’s mining sector, as well as potential impacts on North American competitiveness and supply chain resiliency. The minister reiterated the importance of conducting broad and transparent consultations with all stakeholders regarding the proposed reforms, including with Canadians companies, which represent the largest group of foreign investors in Mexico’s mining sector. Minister Ng reiterated the important contributions of Canadian mining companies to the Mexican economy.”

A week later Ng raised the matter with US Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Afterwards they released a statement suggesting that “recent changes in Mexico’s mining law” violated the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The next day Canada’s ambassador to Mexico and the representatives of multiple Canadian mining companies met Minister Buenrostro.

Seventy per cent of foreign-owned mining companies operating in Mexico are Canadian-based. Two years ago the front page of national daily La Jornada blared: “Poseen mineras canadienses 60% del oro mexicano” (Canadian mining companies own 60% of Mexican gold). Canadian firms have had many disputes with local communities over the impact of their operations on local water systems and ecosystems. Similarly, Canadian companies have been implicated in many rights violations including high-profile killings.

The Canadian Embassy in Mexico City has openly backed some of the most controversial firms. For its part, the Trudeau government went to bat for half a dozen mining companies embroiled in a dispute over US$360 million in tax rebates with the Mexican government. “In a string of meetings, Canadian officials have pressed Mexico to fix the problem”, noted a June 2017 Reuters story. During a trade mission to Mexico that year natural resources minister Jim Carr “raised the matter with Mexico’s Secretary of the Economy.”

Canadian mining companies have benefited from neoliberal economic policies in Mexico. There were no Canadian mines operating in Mexico in 1994. By 2010 there were about 375 Canadian-run projects. Before the reforms that came with the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mexico’s constitution dictated that land, subsoil and its riches were the property of the state and recognized the collective right of communities to land through the ejido system. Constitutional changes in 1992 allowed for sale of lands to third parties, including multinational corporations. Combined with a new Law on Foreign Investment, the Mining Law of 1992 allowed for 100 percent foreign control in the exploration and production of mines. Canadian mining companies have been the biggest winners from these reforms.

As President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) has reversed decades of neoliberal reforms Canadian companies are faced with a less profitable prospects. Unsurprisingly, they are pushing back and the Trudeau government is assisting them despite the social and ecological benefits gained by the mining reforms. It’s the Ugly Canadian in action.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

It’s late April 1948, in Haifa, northern Palestine.

After more than 25 years, British officers are leaving their “mandate” over the territory and have set a withdrawal date: 15 May.

The exit is not going smoothly. Ethnic cleansing and violent atrocities are taking place across areas Britain is about to vacate. 

Zionist armed groups, allowed to flourish in Palestine by the British over three decades and subsequently trained and armed by the colonial power, are sweeping across Palestinian towns and villages, forcibly displacing residents from house to house.

Palestinians put up some resistance, helped by nominal forces from neighbouring countries, but are vastly outnumbered and under-equipped. Britain states that it is remaining neutral.

Cyril Marriott, consul-general in Haifa, is one of the last British officials to leave the embattled city.

He wonders, in a 21 April diplomatic cable sent to London and seen by Middle East Eye, whether Britain’s reputation will be damaged by “abandoning the pretence of keeping law and order before the expiry of the Mandate”.

“Any loss of prestige we may suffer is insignificant compared with the strong feeling that will be aroused in the United Kingdom if heavy British casualties are caused by our armed intervention between Jews and Arabs,” he writes. 

Months before Marriott’s cable, in November, the United Nations passed a resolution to split Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states – a policy Palestinian Arabs rejected. 

Britain, which by then was coming under violent attack from the Zionist groups it had once propped up, declared it would leave by midnight on 14 May.

Haifa 1948

Jewish fighters in Haifa, 1948 (Wikimedia)

But 15 May 1948 would not just be remembered as the day that Britain left Palestine.

It was also the day that the State of Israel was declared, and the date generations of Palestinians continue to mark as the Nakba – or Catastrophe – 75 years later.

At least 13,000 Palestinians were killed and hundreds of villages were destroyed. In the end, 750,000 people were forcibly displaced from their homes.

More than 6,000 Israeli Jews, including 4,000 soldiers and 2,000 civilians, were killed

Previously classified diplomatic cables, seen by Middle East Eye at the National Archives in London, show that Britain was well aware of mass killings and displacement, in Haifa and beyond, during the final days of its Mandate.

But London would play down the scale of the events, refuse to intervene or allow others to do so, and would eventually label Palestinians and their allies as masters of their own downfall. 

Regional leaders warn of massacre

By the final days of April, leaders in Egypt and Syria were raising the alarm about the spiralling situation across their borders. 

Azzam Pasha, an Egyptian diplomat and the Arab League’s first secretary-general, told British envoy Ronald Campbell in Cairo that Palestinians were being massacred in Haifa, Tiberias and Deir Yassin.

“This massacre was, [Pasha] was convinced, part of a Jewish military plan designed to terrorise the Arab population inside the Jewish state so that by May 15th they would be relieved of having to deal with any fifth column,” Campbell recounted to London on 22 April. 

Pasha told journalists that same day, as transcribed in a British foreign office memo: “They have committed at Haifa acts as reprehensible as at Tiberias [and Deir Yassin] attacking women, children and old people. So far the British forces have displayed their inability to protect defenceless persons.”

On 9 April, in what became known as the Deir Yassin massacre, Zionist groups went house to house, killing over 100 Palestinians in the small village near Jerusalem, despite having agreed to an earlier truce. 

Nine days later, Tiberias fell to Zionist militias too, where 6,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled.

Then on 21 April, Jewish paramilitary organisations ethnically cleansed Haifa, ejecting tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Phillip Broadmead, British envoy in Damascus, wrote to the foreign office on 23 April following a meeting with Syrian President Shukri al-Quwatli, who was disturbed by events in Haifa. 

Quwatli complained to Broadmead that a local British commander in Haifa had refused “to take measures to stop the killing of Arab women and children”, unless Palestinians delivered all their arms to Zionist groups, as per a truce proposal rejected by the Arabs.

nakba military campaigns graphic

Damascus lamented that Britain had promised to maintain law and order by 15 May, but “the events at Deir Yassin and Haifa made it clear this was no longer the case”. 

In Cairo, Pasha told Campbell that there was “a fully mobilised Jewish force in the country whose activities were out of control”, but no counter-balancing Palestinian force.

According to British figures at the time, there were around 15,000 troops from Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, in addition to 5,000 volunteers from the Arab Liberation Army. They were comfortably outnumbered by over 70,000 Jewish troops.

Cairo pleaded with Britain to turn a “blind eye” and allow volunteer Arab forces to enter Palestine before the Mandate expired to provide that “counter balance” to the mass killings and ethnic cleansing. London refused. 

Pasha told Campbell that if the British continued this stance until 15 May, “the result would be that Jewish forces would by that date have occupied all the strategic positions they required and the Arabs would find themselves at a great disadvantage”. 

He was right. Arab armies did enter Palestine to push back Israeli military advances after the expiry of the Mandate, but by then most of the key areas of what is now modern-day Israel had been depopulated and taken over by Zionist groups.

‘Reports have been exaggerated’

Despite the warnings, British officials significantly downplayed the scale of what was happening, including in Haifa. 

On 23 April, facing pressure from Arab governments, the foreign office wrote to its envoys in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

“You should inform [the] Government to which you are accredited accordingly, and point out that previous reports have clearly been exaggerated,” it said. “In particular press stories of evacuation of 23,000 Arabs [in Haifa] are a considerable exaggeration.”

Five days later, junior foreign minister Christopher Mayhew would take to the floor in parliament and state: “Early reports of widespread massacre in the town [of Haifa] are untrue and were merely rumours caused by panic.”

Eventually, a few days later, British officials admitted in classified memos that the vast majority of Palestinian inhabitants had indeed left Haifa. The officials were nevertheless keen to promote the idea that those residents would return immediately.

“There are 6,000 Arabs in Haifa and many more are returning. Others wishing to return may be assured that under present conditions their security is guaranteed and that there is every reason to think that after 15th May they will be safe there,” said Alan Cunningham, then British High Commissioner in Palestine. 

“We are giving publicity to the fact that many are returning in the hope that this will spread confidence.”

They did not return. The Palestinian population of Haifa was reduced from 70,000 to around 6,000 in a matter of days.

There are at least 250,000 registered refugees from Haifa living around the world, according to figures from 2008. 

British officials parrotted the claim, which proved wholly untrue, that Jewish leaders would not allow for the mass evacuation of Palestinians due to the adverse impact it would have on the local economy. 

“If the Jews press their terms too harshly the Arabs would be likely to evacuate Haifa, a course not welcome to the Jews as the life of the town would be interrupted,” a 23 April memo sent from Palestine to London stated.

“It is probable therefore that the Jews will temper their terms to prevent total evacuation.” 

Britain appeared to be presenting a narrative contrary to the reality on the ground. 

It asked its various envoys in the Middle East to remind Arab governments that British troops had engaged Jewish mortars, referring to military action taken against Zionist fighters in Jaffa. 

British troops briefly halted Operation Hametz, an ultimately successful attempt to blockade Palestinian towns around Jaffa. 

It was the first direct battle between British forces and Irgun, the militant right-wing Zionist organisation that had bombed the British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem two years earlier. 

Following that confrontation, British officials claimed several times that “the morale of the Jews had considerably deteriorated, as Arab morale had risen”. 

Palestinian existence will ‘become precarious’

Any such high morale was short-lived. Zionist advances on Jaffa were only halted temporarily.

Britain knew, and admitted in private, that Palestinians stood no chance of remaining in the port city that would become part of Israel’s Tel Aviv.

In a top-secret telegram memo from late April, the commanders-in-chief of the Middle East Land Forces (MELF) predicted what would happen once its forces left the city.

“The Jewish community is firmly and securely established and once our own security forces withdraw there will be little question of the Arabs seriously threatening Jewish life or property,” they told the defence ministry back in London.

“Indeed, the existence of Arabs will become precarious.” 

That assessment was correct. Jaffa was completely obliterated, with around 96 percent of Arab villages there destroyed by May 1948. Its entire population of over 50,000 Palestinian inhabitants were expelled, according to Ilan Pappe‘s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

There are now over 230,000 refugees from Jaffa living across the globe.

In total, those expelled from Palestine in 1948 and their descendants number 5.8 million refugees, mostly living in neighbouring countries.

They have never been allowed to return, making it the longest unresolved refugee crisis in modern history.

British commanders in Palestine knew that Jewish groups would take control, not just of Jaffa, but in towns and cities across Palestine. 

“Between now and the surrender of the Mandate[,] clashes are likely to intensify in numbers, scope and duration. In these clashes the Jews are likely to hold their own,” the Land Forces central command said.

“Ultimate success is likely to be with the Jews with their far greater material resources and intense unity of purpose.”

That superiority did not occur in a vacuum: during the Arab Revolt of the late 1930s, British forces weakened Palestinian society, including gutting its paramilitary forces. 

Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi argues in The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, that Palestine was not lost in the 1940s, but the decade prior, by the British crushing of its civil and military institutions. 

Britain blames Arab ‘ineptitude’

In the final days of the Mandate, in several different memos across a number of days, Britain’s ambassador claimed that Palestinians and their allies only had themselves to blame. 

“Arab military forces in Palestine are now suffering the inevitable consequences of incompetent leadership and lack of discipline and morale,” said Cunningham. 

“In their hearts the Arabs realise that their much vaunted Liberation Army is poorly equipped and badly led; they feel that their monetary subscriptions have been squandered and they themselves misled. 

“They must pin blame on someone and who more deserving than the British!” he added sarcastically. 

British military leaders also took aim at other Arab governments in the region, blaming them for provoking Zionist miltias.

“Foreign Arab irregular forces, having stirred up a hornets’ nest have now been prudently withdrawn, leaving unfortunate Palestine Arabs to be stung,” said Cunningham.

“The Jews for their part can hardly be blamed if in the face of past Arab irregular action and of continued threats of interference by Arab regular forces, they take time by the forelock and consolidate their position while they can.” 

The military central command agreed with Cunningham’s appraisal of Arab forces, hitting out at their “cowardly behaviour” and “refusal to follow our advice to restrain themselves”.

On 15 May, Marriott, the consular-general in Haifa, was one of the few Brits to remain in the territory, after 100,000 officers had left in the days and weeks prior.

He gives a mistakenly optimistic final assessment. 

“Jews control the town but their armed forces are little in evidence. They obviously want the Arab labour force to return and are doing their best to instil confidence,” Marriott said. 

“Life in town is almost normal even last night[,] except of course for the absence of Arabs. I see no reason why Palestine Arab residents of Haifa and neighbourhood should not return.”

Seventy-five years later, those residents of Haifa and their descendants are still waiting for that return.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: ETHNIC CLEANSING: Palestinian refugees in 1948 Photo: Public Domain

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

On May 16, 2023, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement signed by 15 U.S. national security experts about the war in Ukraine. It was headed “The U.S. Should Be a Force for Peace in the World,” and was drafted by the Eisenhower Media Network.

While condemning Russia’s invasion, the statement provides a more objective account of the crisis in Ukraine than the U.S. government or The New York Times has previously presented to the public, including the disastrous U.S. role in NATO expansion, the warnings ignored by successive U.S. administrations and the escalating tensions that ultimately led to war.

The statement calls the war an “unmitigated disaster,” and urges President Biden and Congress “to end the war speedily through diplomacy, especially given the dangers of military escalation that could spiral out of control.”

This call for diplomacy by wise, experienced former insiders—U.S. diplomats, military officers and civilian officials—would have been a welcome intervention on any one of the past 442 days of this war. Yet their appeal now comes at an especially critical moment in the war.

On May 10th, President Zelenskyy announced that he is delaying Ukraine’s long-awaited “spring offensive” to avoid “unacceptable” losses to Ukrainian forces. Western policy has repeatedly put Zelenskyy in near-impossible positions, caught between the need to show signs of progress on the battlefield to justify further Western support and arms deliveries and, on the other hand, the shocking human cost of continued war represented by the fresh graveyards where tens of thousands of Ukrainians now lie buried.

It is not clear how a delay in the planned Ukrainian counter-attack would prevent it leading to unacceptable Ukrainian losses when it finally occurs, unless the delay in fact leads to scaling back and calling off many of the operations that have been planned. Zelenskyy appears to be reaching a limit in terms of how many more of his people he is willing to sacrifice to satisfy Western demands for signs of military progress to hold together the Western alliance and maintain the flow of weapons and money to Ukraine.

Zelenskyy’s predicament is certainly the fault of Russia’s invasion, but also of his April 2022 deal with the devil in the shape of then-U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Johnson promised Zelenskyy that the U.K. and the “collective West” were “in it for the long run” and would back him to recover all of Ukraine’s former territory, just as long as Ukraine stopped negotiating with Russia.

Johnson was never in a position to fulfill that promise and, since he was forced to resign as prime minister, he has endorsed a Russian withdrawal only from the territory it invaded since February 2022, not a return to pre-2014 borders. Yet that compromise was exactly what he talked Zelenskyy out of agreeing to in April 2022, when most of the war’s dead were still alive and the framework of a peace agreement was on the table at diplomatic talks in Turkey.

Zelenskyy has tried desperately to hold his Western backers to Johnson’s overblown promise. But short of direct U.S. and NATO military intervention, it seems that no quantity of Western weapons can decisively break the stalemate in what has degenerated into a brutal war of attrition, fought mainly by artillery and trench and urban warfare.

An American general bragged that the West has supplied Ukraine with 600 different weapons systems, but this itself creates problems. For example, the different 105 mm guns sent by the U.K., France, Germany and the U.S. all use different shells. And each time heavy losses force Ukraine to re-form survivors into new units, many of them have to be retrained on weapons and equipment they’ve never used before.

Despite U.S. deliveries of at least six types of anti-aircraft missiles—Stinger, NASAMS, Hawk, Rim-7, Avenger and at least one Patriot missile battery—a leaked Pentagon document revealed that Ukraine’s Russian-built S-300 and Buk anti-aircraft systems still make up almost 90 percent of its main air defenses. NATO countries have searched their weapons stockpiles for all the missiles they can provide for those systems, but Ukraine has nearly exhausted those supplies, leaving its forces newly vulnerable to Russian air strikes just as it prepares to launch its new counter-attack.

Since at least June 2022, President Biden and other U.S. officials have acknowledged that the war must end in a diplomatic settlement, and have insisted that they are arming Ukraine to put it “in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” Until now, they have claimed that each new weapons system they have sent and each Ukrainian counter-offensive have contributed to that goal and left Ukraine in a stronger position.

But the leaked Pentagon documents and recent statements by U.S. and Ukrainian officials make it clear that Ukraine’s planned spring offensive, already delayed into summer, would lack the previous element of surprise and encounter stronger Russian defenses than the offensives that recovered some of its lost territory last fall.

One leaked Pentagon document warned that “enduring Ukrainian deficiencies in training and munitions supplies probably will strain progress and exacerbate casualties during the offensive,” concluding that it would probably make smaller territorial gains than the fall offensives did.

How can a new offensive with mixed results and higher casualties put Ukraine in a stronger position at a currently non-existent negotiating table? If the offensive reveals that even huge quantities of Western military aid have failed to give Ukraine military superiority or reduce its casualties to a sustainable level, it could very well leave Ukraine in a weaker negotiating position, instead of a stronger one.

Meanwhile, offers to mediate peace talks have been pouring in from countries all over the world, from the Vatican to China to Brazil. It has been six months since the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, suggested publicly, after Ukraine’s military gains last fall, that the moment had come to negotiate from a position of strength. “When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it,” he said.

It would be doubly or triply tragic if, on top of the diplomatic failures that led to the war in the first place and the U.S. and U.K. undermining peace negotiations in April 2022, the chance for diplomacy that General Milley wanted to seize is lost in the forlorn hope of attaining an even stronger negotiating position that is not really achievable.

If the United States persists in backing the plan for a Ukrainian offensive, instead of encouraging Zelenskyy to seize the moment for diplomacy, it will share considerable responsibility for the failure to seize the chance for peace, and for the appalling and ever-rising human costs of this war.

The experts who signed The New York Times statement recalled that, in 1997, 50 senior U.S. foreign policy experts warned President Clinton that expanding NATO was a “policy error of historic proportions” and that, unfortunately, Clinton chose to ignore the warning. President Biden, who is now pursuing his own policy error of historic proportions by prolonging this war, would do well to take the advice of today’s policy experts by helping to forge a diplomatic settlement and making the United States a force for peace in the world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: President Zelenskyy meets Pope Francis at the Vatican on May 13, 2023. Photo credit: EFE

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Phoenix, AZ – 56 yo Officer Mark Aker died after a medical emergency while at work on May 10, 2023, he was not handling a call when he had a “medical event” (click here) 

Phoenix, AZ – Sergeant Tim Wheeler died suddenly from a medical event while at home, on May 9, 2023 (click here) 

UK (Chelmsford) – 51 year old Timothy Bourke died on May 7, 2023, two weeks after being diagnosed with cancer (click here)

Newark, NJ – 47 year old Officer Richard Weber died unexpectedly on May 1, 2023, his cause of death not released (click here) 

Inver Grove Heights, MN – 35 year old Officer Ben Bidon, a US Army Veteran, died April 30, 2023 after collapsing in his garage off-duty on Friday night, he died two days later (click here)

Los Angeles, CA – 39 year old LAPD Officer Paul Ahn died on April 28, 2023 after suffering a medical emergency while off-duty (click here)

Coeymans, NY – 43 year old Sergeant Marc Langlais died unexpectedly at his home on April 19, 2023 (click here)

Miami, FL – 41 year old Miami Police supervisor Nicole Clark-Davis collapsed at work, had a heart attack and died suddenly on April 19, 2023 (click here)

La Vergne, TN – 53 year old Lieutenant Robert “Bob” Hayes died on April 17, 2023 after a month-long battle with pancreatic cancer (Turbo cancer?) (click here) 

Bayonne, NJ – 46 year old Transit Officer Brendan Burke died suddenly on April 15, 2023 (click here), cause of death not made public 

Palm Beach, FL – 50 yo Former US Marine and Lieutenant Daniel Picciolo died unexpectedly on April 14, 2023, cause of death not released (click here)

Broseley, UK – 43 year old Police Officer Andy Boardman collapsed while responding to a call and died suddenly on April 11, 2023

Athens, GA – 62 year old Chief Deputy Ricky Brown died unexpectedly on April 10, 2023, cause of death not released (click here)

My Take…

As always, this article was not meant to be in multiple parts, but there were too many sudden deaths to be contained in one article.

Look at these police officer deaths: suffered medical emergency or collapsed while on duty, medical emergency off duty (usually at home), turbo cancer or cause of death not released.

I believe we are in a wave of sudden deaths that are the result of 2021 and 2022 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine mandates, which were universal across police forces in the United States and Canada.

These are longer term adverse effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Without proper autopsies being done, we are blind as to the mechanisms of sudden deaths at this time, given that most people have stopped taking COVID-19 mRNA booster shots.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Died Suddenly: Police Officers Who Died Suddenly Recently, Possibly Due to Injuries Caused by COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

In a victory for environmentalists, scientists and vulnerable agricultural communities across California, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced yesterday the withdrawal of a permit request for a mass release of experimental genetically engineered mosquitoes in the Central Valley.   

The withdrawal of the biotech corporation Oxitec’s request halts the controversial proposed release of billions of genetically engineered insects. Scientists and other experts in the field have raised concerns about Oxitec’s proposal to release genetically engineered mosquitoes due to inadequate scientific review and lack of appropriate and relevant regulations, pressuring the company to disclose data critical to assessing potential public health and environmental impacts.  

Oxitec applied in April 2022 for a research authorization permit to release genetically engineered mosquitoes in Tulare County. In separate letters to DPR earlier this year, scientists and legislators urged DPR to deny the Oxitec permit because of concerns about risks posed to  human health, wildlife and vulnerable ecosystems, and the lack of regulations to control billions of genetically engineered mosquitoes released into an open-air environment.  

“All Californians should be relieved that this permit request has been withdrawn for the foreseeable future,” said Dana Perls, senior program manager at Friends of the Earth. “Significant scientific research on genetically engineered mosquitoes is still needed to understand the potential public health and environmental threats associated with the release of this novel genetically engineered insect.”   

Earlier this year, Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) stated in her office’s press release that “there are too many unknown factors when it comes to how (GE mosquitoes) could affect our biodiversity in the long run, including how this might influence populations of birds, bats, fish species, and other insects.” 

“The withdrawal of Oxitec’s application is a victory for California residents and wild species,” said Rebecca Spector, west coast director at Center for Food Safety. “This withdrawal in in line with leaders from our state legislature who demanded a more comprehensive review of the impacts of these genetically engineered mosquitoes before the approval of this permit.” 

“This is a significant opportunity for California’s state agencies to hit pause and craft meaningful regulations that fully comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We must do a full CEQA review of this proposal, and we need regulations governing the release of any genetically engineered animal in our state,” said Nan Wishner, founding board member of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Health Initiative. “A full CEQA analysis requires thorough exploration of environmental harm and identification of less potentially harmful alternatives.”    

“Genetically engineered mosquitoes are an environmental justice issue for Tulare County residents who should not be human experiments,” said Angel Garcia, co-director of the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform and Tulare County resident. “We are already impacted by some of the worst pollution problems in the state and deserve prior informed consent to being part of an open-air biopesticide experiment. Ahead of any future proposal for genetically engineered insects, DPR needs to have robust regulations in place that protect community members, and meaningful, inclusive public participation in any decision making.”    

Before an unregistered pesticide can be field tested in the state, U.S. EPA would need to approve an experimental use permit ahead of any field release, and DPR would need to approve a research authorization application. With the withdrawal of the Oxitec application, there is no pending research authorization request for the study of genetically engineered mosquitoes in California. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Sustainable Pulse

The Rollback of Child Labor Protections Is Well Underway

May 16th, 2023 by Marty Hart-Landsberg

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The hunt for profits is driving ever more despicable labor laws and practices. A case in point: the sharp rise in the number of states seeking to rollback restrictions on the use of child labor. We need to fight this trend and if we are to succeed we must be clear on who we are fighting. Advocates for the relaxation of child labor protections are not some fringe wackos; they include some of the most powerful rightwing foundations and profitable corporations in the United States. 

Legislative trends

The Economic Policy Institute offers the following overview of recent developments:    

Already in 2023, eight bills to weaken child labor protections have been introduced in six Midwestern states (Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and South Dakota) and in Arkansas, where a bill repealing restrictions on work for 14- and 15-year-olds has now been signed into law. One bill introduced in Minnesota would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work on construction sites. Ten states have introduced, considered, or passed legislation rolling back protections for young workers in just the past two years.

The Iowa bill, which was approved by the state’s Senate in April, gives a sense of where things could be heading nationally.  Among other changes, it drops restrictions on dangerous work allowing teens as young as 14 to work in meat coolers and industrial laundries and teens as young as 15 to work on assembly lines. It also authorizes the creation of special permits that would allow teens as young as 14 ½ to drive themselves to work between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.  

That bill makes the one recently signed into law in Arkansas, which eliminates work permits and age verification for workers younger than 16, seem positively enlightened.  But we are only at the beginning of what will likely be a competitive race by state legislatures to deliver the most advantageous legislation for business and it is likely the Iowa bill will exert a strong influence on other state efforts.

Money talks  

Supporters of the Arkansas bill argued that they were motivated only by their desire to relieve parents of “obsolete” and “arbitrary burdens” that interfered with their right to decide what was best for their children.  And we can expect to hear this argument repeated in other states. 

The reason is that the push to gut child labor protections is largely planned and funded by major rightwing foundations and think tanks such as the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) and the State Policy Network, as well as business associations such as The National Federation of Independent Business, The Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association, and the list goes on.  These groups, working together, develop the proposals, often tailoring them to specific state conditions, and then offer conservative legislators the arguments and lobbying support needed to win their approval in exchange for future campaign contributions.   

Our challenge

According to Department of Labor statistics, there has been a 69 percent increase in the number of minors illegally employed since 2018, including a 37 percent increase over the last year. In 2022, the Department of Labor cited 835 companies for employing more than 3800 children illegally.  Of course, these are only the violations caught by onsite inspections; the actual number is certain to be much higher.  At the same time, as the bills highlighted above become law many of the same workplace practices will become legal.  

The drive to exploit our youth is being driven by the same actors that seek to destroy unions, weaken state regulatory bodies, and defund social services.  For example, one of the firms cited in 2022 for violating child labor laws was Packers Sanitation Services, which is owned by the Blackstone Group, the world’s largest private equity firm; it had illegally employed 100 children, many of whom were unaccompanied migrants, in hazardous occupations at meatpacking facilities owned by some of the biggest and most anti-union firms, including Cargill and Tyson. 

We need to speak out loudly against this offensive against children, highlighting the political and economic interests driving it.  Unions, in particular, have a critical role to play in organizing workplace and community opposition to the unsafe and inappropriate employment of children; it is a matter of defending the wellbeing of their future members.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Rollback of Child Labor Protections Is Well Underway
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The bottom line: In addition to the many, many people who have died in combat during the post-9/11 wars, more still have died in these same warzones from the indirect, reverberating effects of war.

An important note: This research sheds new light on the devastating indirect toll of war on human health in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. These countries have experienced the most violent wars in which the U.S. government has been involved in the name of counterterrorism since 2001, though many warring parties and many intensifying factors have contributed to these deaths and the report does not attribute direct responsibility to any single combatant, cause, or time period. Additionally, the report points out that the true impacts are so vast and complex that they are unquantiiable and thus does not generate a precise mortality igure, but instead provides a reasonable and conservative estimate.

1. At least 4.5 million people have died in the post-9/11 war zones

There are many reverberating consequences of the post-9/11 wars that have led to indirect deaths, and they often overlap, but four under-appreciated primary ones that this study delineates are:

  • Economic collapse, loss of livelihood, and food insecurity;
  • Destruction of public services and health infrastructure;
  • Environmental contamination; and
  • Reverberating trauma and violence.

Other compounding factors like natural disasters, climate chaos, and forced displacement intensify these effects. Again, while this research does not ascribe blame to any single warring party or factor, and neither does it suggest the full death count is quantiiable, a reasonable and conservative estimate suggests that at least 4.5 million people have died in the major post-9/11 war zones.

2. Wars often kill far more people indirectly than in direct combat, particularly young children

War’s destruction often includes environmental contamination and collapsed economies, public services, and infrastructure. These consequences in turn can lead to mass impoverishment, loss of access to food and clean water, loss of healthcare and medicine, and other essential pathways to preserving health and life. Children under age ive are particularly vulnerable, as demonstrated by high rates of child malnutrition in warzones.

Cumulatively, the report’s calculation is that more than 7.6 million children under ive are suffering from acute malnutrition, also known as wasting, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia.

3. The reverberating impacts of war affect some more intensely than others.

Men are more likely to die in combat, but women and children are more often killed indirectly. Those who live in rural areas are
especially vulnerable when public services, especially healthcare, are disrupted or destroyed. And, with or without war, people who suffer from societal injustices due to their poverty, gender, race, ethnicity, and/or colonial legacies have a higher risk of death. Women in particular suffer from gender-based violence, worsened in wartime. The post-9/11 wars have occurred in countries whose populations are largely Black and brown, and are often waged by countries with histories of white supremacism and Islamophobia.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Death Outlives War: The Reverberating Impact of the Post-9/11 Wars on Human Health

Involuntary Servitude in Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S.

May 16th, 2023 by Jacob G. Hornberger

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

One of the interesting aspects of the Russia-Ukraine war is that the regimes in both countries have resorted to conscription to get soldiers to “serve their country.” One would think that if a war is just, citizens would not have to be forced to fight in it. 

With conscription, the state commands a citizen to report to a military facility, where he is forced to become an employee of the state, at a wage set by the state. Even worse, his forced labor consists of killing people. Thus, conscription is really just a fancy form of military slavery because the citizen is being forced to provide his time and labor in the killing service of the state. 

One might be tempted to conclude that the United States is different from Russia and Ukraine. Not so. Just like those two countries, the U.S. government also relies on conscription. 

Oh sure, U.S. officials are not currently conscripting people but that simply is because they don’t currently need cannon fodder for one of their incessant foreign wars. They have been successful in inducing a sufficient number of men and women to voluntarily “serve their country.”

But the fact is that there is a system of conscription in place here at home, just as there is in Russia and Ukraine. That’s why young men are required to register for the draft when they reach the age of 18. 

If anyone fails or refuses to do so, he will be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated. That’s what they did to draft resisters during the Vietnam War. Mohammad Ali was a good example of how they target people who refuse to comply with their system of involuntary servitude.

Make no mistake about it: If the Pentagon and the CIA succeed in embroiling the United States in a war with Russia or China or both, U.S. officials will not hesitate to do what Russia and Ukraine are doing. They will immediately resort to conscripting both American men and women to “serve their country.” 

If that day comes, there will inevitably be a number of grieving parents who will wonder why they remained passive in the face of U.S. foreign interventionism. That’s assuming, of course, that the wars don’t turn nuclear, in which case those grieving parents will likely be dead.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Featured image: A Ukrainian servicemen stands by a burned military vehicle near Sytniaky, Ukraine, March 3, 2022. Photo courtesy General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine/Facebook.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

This week, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) tried to do the impossible. After he and his colleagues presented a labyrinth of LLC shell companies and accounts used to funnel as much as $10 million to Biden family members, Donalds tried to induce the press to show some interest in the massive corruption scandal. “For those in the press, this easy pickings & Pulitzer-level stuff right here,” he pleaded.

The response was virtually immediate. Despite showing nine Biden family members allegedly receiving funds from corrupt figures in Romania, China and other countries, The New Republic quickly ran a story headlined “Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden.”

For many of us, it was otherworldly. A decade ago, when then-Vice President Joe Biden was denouncing corruption in Romania and Ukraine and promising action by the United States, massive payments were flowing to his son Hunter Biden and a variety of family members, including Biden grandchildren.

Last year, I wrote a column about how the media were preparing a difficult “scandal implosion” to protect the Bidens and themselves from the backlash from disclosures of this influence peddling operation.

The brilliance of the Biden team was that it invested the media in this scandal at the outset by burying the laptop story as “Russian disinformation” before the election. That was, of course, false, but it took two years for most major media outlets to admit that the laptop was authentic.

But the media then ignored what was on that “authentic laptop.” Hundreds of emails detailed potentially criminal conduct and raw influence peddling in foreign countries.

When media outlets such as the New York Post confirmed the emails, the media then insisted that there was no corroboration of the influence peddling payments and no clear proof of criminal conduct. It entirely ignored the obvious corruption itself.

Now that the House has released corroboration in actual money transfers linking many in the Biden family, the media is insisting that this is no scandal because there is no direct proof of payments to Joe Biden.

Click here to read the full article on The Hill.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s State Media: The Blackout on Biden Corruption Is Truly ‘Pulitzer-level Stuff’

È in corso, a livello internazionale, una grande operazione politico-mediatica per cancellare l’Anniversario della Vittoria sul nazismo. Il discorso del Presidente Putin alla parata militare del 9 Maggio a Mosca, per il 78° Anniversario della Vittoria, è stato presentato in Occidente come un discorso in tono  minore senza farne conoscere il contenuto reale. In Lettonia e altri paesi dell’Est la polizia ha identificato e anche arrestato coloro che rendevano omaggio ai caduti nella guerra contro il nazismo. In Ucraina è stato imposto il divieto assoluto di ricordare l’Anniversario della Vittoria sul nazismo, pena l’arresto o peggio.

Contemporaneamente si intensifica l’azione per estirpare tutto ciò che è russo. Si distruggono – in Ucraina, Lettonia e altri paesi dell’Est – monumenti che ricordano il prezzo pagato dalla Russia per liberare l’Europa e il mondo dal nazismo: 27 milioni di morti, per oltre la metà civili, corrispondenti al 15% della popolazione (in rapporto allo 0,3% degli USA in tutta la Seconda guerra mondiale); circa 5 milioni di deportati in Germania; oltre 1.700 città e grossi centri abitati, 70 mila piccoli villaggi devastati; 30 mila fabbriche distrutte.

In Lettonia si nega ai 550 mila russofoni, che costituiscono oltre un quarto della popolazione, il diritto di usare la propria lingua, imponendo loro un difficile esame di lettone: coloro che non lo superano vengono espulsi dal paese. Ciò avviene nonostante che la Lettonia sia membro dell’Unione Europea, che garantisce alle minoranze il diritto di esprimersi nella propria lingua.

La UE ha fatto di più: ha decretato che il 9 Maggio è la “Giornata dell’Europa”.  La Ursula von der Leyen è andata a celebrarla a Kiev, per “dimostrare che l’Unione Europea è al fianco dell’Ucraina che sta combattendo per gli ideali dell’Europa che oggi celebriamo”. Lo ha detto al presidente Zelenski, il quale ha appena firmato una legge per cancellare qualsiasi simbolo russo dall’Ucraina, cancellando in tal modo la stessa storia dell’Ucraina. Contemporaneamente la Corte Suprema Ucraina ha decretato che i simboli della divisione SS Galizia, macchiatasi di orrendi crimini, non sono nazisti e possono quindi essere usati oggi anche nelle manifestazioni.

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO :

Saboteurs Planned to Attack Belarus During May 9 Celebrations

May 16th, 2023 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Kiev continues to try to bring Belarus into the conflict through terrorist tactics and illegal attacks. In a recent operation by Minsk’s security forces, pro-Ukrainian Belarusian saboteurs were arrested and confessed that they were planning a terrorist attack to be carried out during the May 9 celebrations. The orders for the attack were reportedly given directly by Kiev regime’s officials. The case shows how the anti-Russian side really wants Minsk to be directly involved in the conflict.

In a recent statement by the Belarusian Telegraph Agency, it was reported that some “young people” were detained by the intelligence service while organizing terrorist actions in the country. The attacks were planned to take place during the May 9 festivals, when Belarus honors the victory of the Russian people in the Great Patriotic War. Most saboteurs were identified and had their photos released with their faces blurred and their real names hidden. One of the participants, who would be the head of the team, managed to escape before the operation and, according to sources, is already in Kiev.

The attack would occur through the use of bombs disguised as household appliances. The equipment was allegedly given to the saboteurs by the team’s leader, who then fled back to Ukraine. The order was for the bombs to be placed in a place with a large number of people, with the aim of making the attack as large as possible, causing many deaths and injuries.

The age of the agents is particularly curious. In fact, they are very young people and probably inexperienced in clandestine operations. The ages of the arrested saboteurs are 23, 24 and (two aged) 29. Commenting on the case in social media, spokespersons for the Belarusian TV channel ONT said that the saboteurs were probably not even aware of the seriousness of their acts and the severity of the punishments they are about to receive if they are convicted. Certainly, they acted under the influence, coercion, or sponsorship of experienced Kiev’s agents, but they failed to carry out the attacks and were easily neutralized due to their low expertise.

“The youngsters were simply used. But they understood what they were signing up for. They didn’t know their probable punishment. If convicted, they can face penalties up to capital punishment,” ONT’s spokespersons said on a Telegram channel.

In jail, the young people gave their confessions about how the plan was being prepared. They informed that they were acting under the commands of the Central Intelligence Office of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. In fact, the case reflects a practice that has become commonplace among Ukrainian and Western intelligence agencies, which is the recruitment of young opponents in countries considered enemies, such as Russia and Belarus. These people are called for missions by foreign agents, operating sabotage actions in their own countries, which is seen as a faster and cheaper mechanism to foment terrorism abroad, avoiding the need to send agents from one country to another.

As well known, this is not the first time that the Kiev regime has coordinated terrorist and sabotage actions abroad. In addition to Russia, Belarus, Transnistria and other regions have been constant targets of attacks by internal dissidents influenced and sponsored by Ukrainian intelligence. Most of these attacks have been properly neutralized due to the efficient work of the local security services, but this does not change the fact that there is a constant effort on the part of the neo-Nazi regime to extend the damage of the conflict to the greatest possible number of people.

This situation must be analyzed considering the strategy behind such actions. For the West and its proxy regime, it is important that the conflict escalate to the international level as soon as possible. With the potential involvement of Belarus, the neo-Nazi regime will use the rhetoric of fighting two countries at the same time to try to receive even more weapons from NATO.

On the other hand, the West wants Russia to be as busy and distracted as possible with multiple frontlines in Eurasia. Many analysts believe that, in order to save the American unipolar order, Washington will try to enter into direct conflict against China, which is seen as a weaker target militarily, but for that it will be necessary to prevent Russia from intervening to help Beijing hence the “need” to maintain multiple fronts in Eurasia.

As far as Belarus is concerned, however, it is possible to say that the western calculation is wrong.  NATO’s strategists believe that involving Belarus in the war will further “distract” the Russians, since it will make them to intervene to help Minsk. But given the disastrous situation of the Ukrainian armed forces, the most likely scenario is that Belarusian involvement will accelerate the end of the neo-Nazi regime.

Minsk has persistently maintained its pro-peace stance, avoiding direct military involvement. The country has been carrying out a nationwide anti-terrorist operation, as well as cooperating with Russian forces within its territory, but does not want to be openly participating on the battlefield, as that would cost the lives of Belarusian citizens. However, the more provocations happen, the more difficult it becomes to avoid this type of escalation.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Saboteurs Planned to Attack Belarus During May 9 Celebrations
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island;

Who controls the World Island commands the World”

— Sir Halford John Mackinder, 1919

The term geopolitics was first used by the Swedish political scientist Rudolf Kjellén (1864−1922) in 1899, but the term did not become popular in academic circles until it became used in the early 20th century by British geographer and strategist Halford Mackinder.

Nevertheless, the concept of geopolitics as a theoretical approach to global politics and international relations (IR) was soon used firstly in Germany and later in the USA. The concept itself was stressing a set of constraints of different nature but focuses on foreign policy by both geographical location and geographical environment in general.

The term itself is derived from two words coming from the ancient Greek language: land and politics. In other words, the simple essence of the concept of geopolitics derived from the linguistic viewpoint is how the nature (feature) of the land (geography) can influence the politics of international relations on different levels from the local, to global. Or to say in short: geopolitics is the geography of international relations.

Nevertheless, in a broader concept of meaning, geopolitics can be understood as an approach to foreign policy analysis that understands the actions, relationships, and significance of states in terms of geographical factors, such as location, climate, natural resources, physical terrain, and population.

The forefather of the field of geopolitics was most probably Alfred Mahan (1840−1914). He argued that the state which is in control of the seas (having naval power) is going to control global politics (in fact, the UK at that time). However, Halford John Mackinder was in a different opinion: the control of the land mass between Germany and Siberia is the key to controlling international relations (IR) and world politics.

It can be said that the establishers of the concept and academic discipline of geopolitics in IR and global politics are the German, Karl Ernst Haushofer (1869−1946), the British Sir Halford John Mackinder (1861−1947), and two Americans: Nicholas John Spykman (1893−1943) and Saul Bernard Cohen (1925−2021). For all of them that was a common focal idea that control of the Eurasian landmass or in other words – the Heartland, is a prerequisite for global hegemony by any power pretending to be a super or hyperpower in IR and global politics. In fact, the crucial portion of the Heartland was controlled by the USSR and today by the Russian Federation.

The US administration became preoccupied with the geopolitics of Heartland during the Cold War 1.0 (1949−1989) understanding that the destruction of both the USSR and Russia is the only way to establish American control and dominance over the Heartland and therefore over the rest of the world. During the Cold War 1.0, Washington, and its Western satellites (collective West today) have been mainly preoccupied with fighting against Communist expansion into the Rimlands of South-East Asia, East, and South-East Europe, and the Middle East (land masses surrounding the Heartland).

The focal features among many others concerning geopolitics can be described as:

  • Resource security – Security that is commonly understood in terms of access to energy and other resources sufficient in order to meet a state’s economic and military needs.
  • Resource war – A war that is fought to gain or retain control of natural resources which are important to economic development and consequently political power in both inner and external policies of the state.
  • Resources curse – The tendency of states with an abundance of significant natural resources to experience low growth, blocked development, and in some cases, civil conflicts (wars).

All theoreticians of geopolitics will argue that a nation’s most important territorial assets include its geographical features: size, location, climate, and physical components. It is very easy to understand such arguing if we use a simple glance at the globe that is clearly showing how geography, in fact, benefits, for instance, both the US and Russia:

  • The US is separated from both Europe and Asia by oceans. This fact is providing convenient trade routes but at the same time is making any military invasion to be very difficult.
  • Russia’s vast land mass is straddling Europe and Asia and gives it a strong strategic position in both.
  • Historically, the territorial expansion of both the US and Russia gives them control over huge natural resources – an advantage shared by other large nations like Canada, Brazil, China, India, and Australia.

In IR, states have been and still are focal actors for the very reason that they have power – the ability not only to influence others but at the same time to control outcomes to produce results that would not have occurred naturally. States have power in relations with other states as well as with respect to those actors within their own state. However, power itself is multidimensional as there are different kinds of power. One of them is the relationship of geography and power. In other words, geographic size, position, and natural resources can decisively influence the level of the state’s power in IR. For instance, a large geographic expanse gives a state automatic power (Russia, USA, China, Brazil, India, Canada). But on the other hand, long state borders, however, may be at the same time a weakness as they must be defended which is both an expensive and technically problematic task.

In essence, behind the theoretical concept of geopolitics was the wish to promote the study of human geography as a kind of statecraft’s assistance with a belief that geopolitics can offer a way in which geographers could inform the practices of IR. Henceforth, the academic discipline of geopolitics is focusing on the ways in which different geographical factors can shape the character of international politics including a balance of power between the states too. The main geographical factors are including 1) the spatial layout of continental masses; and 2) the distribution of natural and human resources. Therefore, taking geography into consideration, for instance, 1) some territories can be seen as either easier or harder to defend; 2) physical distance has effects on politics; and 3) some topographical characteristics of the land can promote security or lead to vulnerability.

It has to be stressed that the issue of security is, in fact, crucial to the study of geopolitics and the practice of the politics of geography. In other words, this is the question of maintenance of the state in the face of threats but usually from other states or some other external powers. Geopolitics as a discipline can help national security by explaining the effects of a state’s geographical characteristics, and, therefore, of potential aggressors, on future power-political relations. Geopoliticians have to be able to predict which territory could strengthen a state, helping it to rise to prominence, and which areas might leave the state to be vulnerable to a certain degree. They claim (like Nicholas Spykman, for instance) that geography is a focal factor in IR and global politics as it is the most permanent.

Finally, for geopoliticians, the world is one close and interdependent system. In practice, the emergence of geopolitics as a discipline happened, actually, at the same time when global space became totally explored by Western colonists and imperialists and therefore became all available for state territorial and economic expansion. That was the time when, in fact, West European colonial expansionism had reached its height. Practically, geopolitics offered an academic way West European imperialistic states could protect their territorial acquisitions around the world. For instance, British geopolitician Halford Mackinder believed that controlling the territory of the Heartland provided an almost impenetrable position in global politics and, therefore, leads to global domination. His suggestion was that British policy would need to be wary of powers occupying the Heartland, and should create a “buffer zone” around the Eurasian Heartland in order to prevent the further accumulation of power that might challenge the hegemony of the global British Empire. The same policy of the creation of a “buffer zone” around Russia is on agenda by the collective West led by the USA since the end of the Cold War 1.0 up today.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi announced that his country is considering opening a NATO liaison office, demonstrating that Tokyo is deepening its ties with the US and becoming more hostile to China and Russia. Tokyo’s rapprochement with NATO would strengthen the anti-China/Russia alliance and advance the US plans to create a NATO-styled organisation in the Far East.

“We are already in discussions, but no details (have been) finalised yet,” Hayashi said on May 10.

He specifically referenced Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine as something with repercussions far beyond Europe’s borders that made Japan rethink regional security.

“The reason why we are discussing about this is that since the aggression by Russia to Ukraine, the world (has) become more unstable,” he claimed. “Something happening in East Europe is not only confined to the issue in East Europe, and that affects directly the situation here in the Pacific. That’s why a cooperation between us in East Asia and NATO (is) becoming … increasingly important.”

However, the foreign minister failed to explain how events in Ukraine affect those in East Asia. Rather, Hayashi is using this as a weak justification for why Japan is militarising, which directly relates to Tokyo’s claims against sovereign seas and territories belonging to China and Russia.

The opening of a NATO office in Japan does not mean that the country will join the Alliance, but it does open a path for Japan to become a member of an expanded AUKUS (Australia-United Kingdom-United States). This, in turn, will require Tokyo to strengthen its contacts with NATO.

It is recalled that NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, went to Japan and South Korea in January 2023 to lay the groundwork for strengthened ties. This is one of the reasons why Tokyo is already involved in conflicts that are not directly related to the region, despite some of the mental gymnastics it procures to create a justification.

The Japanese government is also providing $5.5 billion in aid to Ukraine, which can be seen as a step forward for the country to join AUKUS and confirms Tokyo’s intentions to strengthen its relationship with NATO. However, NATO will not officially expand to include Japan because members of the Alliance, such as Hungary, do not always align their position for the sake of serving US interests.

At the same time, France, at least in rhetoric, is seeking a degree of autonomy from the US. French President Emmanuel Macron said on April 9 that Europe needs to limit its dependence on the US.

In this way, the expansion of NATO to Asia is not likely since this initiative could lead to a further weakening of unity within the military alliance. The Americans are aware of this, and for this reason, they are working on a separate Eastern bloc to strengthen relations between NATO and Japan, most likely through the AUKUS format.

Suppose the AUKUS bloc includes Japan and intends to become the equivalent of NATO in Asia, with which the Western military alliance will cooperate closely; it would be a significant step in pressuring China and Russia since Japan’s technological and military potential exceeds that of many European countries.

It must be borne in mind that Tokyo’s rapprochement with NATO would reinforce the anti-Chinese/Russian ideology prevailing in the West. However, Tokyo’s actions come at a time when many countries in Asia and even some in Europe do not fully agree with this course of action.

The opening of the NATO office in Japan clearly indicates that the US plans to create a so-called “NATO of the Far East” and is making concrete steps towards this goal.

It cannot be overlooked that Japan’s reestablishment of overly friendly relations with South Korea attests to these plans, mainly as they have unexpectedly gone to a new qualitative level in a single leap. The President of South Korea has already visited Japan, and there are plans for Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to visit South Korea soon, as well as their impending G7 summit meeting in Hiroshima. This has occurred in recent times despite Tokyo and Seoul being embroiled for many years in mutual accusations on various historical occasions.

The leaders of both East Asian countries now hold a distinctly pro-American stance. If the opening of a NATO liaison office in Tokyo is successful, it can be expected that one will open in Seoul too, especially since the country’s leadership has taken on a provocative position against Beijing and Moscow, including the drawing of red lines concerning the war in Ukraine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Japan to Open NATO Liaison Office: Provocation Against China and Russia
  • Tags: ,

Assassinating Vladimir Putin?

May 16th, 2023 by Ron Unz

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Early on the morning of May 3rd the Kremlin was attacked by two explosive drones, and although these were destroyed by the defenses, the Russian government claimed that the incident had probably been an assassination attempt against President Vladimir Putin.

I was skeptical at the time, but when Ray McGovern was interviewed a few days later he seemed to take the accusation seriously. Given his 27 years as a CIA Analyst, including serving as head of the Soviet Policy Group, I tend to trust his judgment on such matters:

Although pro-Ukrainian forces had likely been responsible for the drone attack, our government provides all their funding, intelligence, and control, and such a momentous act must have been fully authorized by top American officials. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is the Neocon responsible for Ukraine issues and McGovern believed she would have been the one who signed off on the strike against the Kremlin.

Russia’s nuclear arsenal is the most formidable in the world, somewhat larger than our own, while its revolutionary hypersonic delivery systems are entirely unstoppable. This currently gives Moscow a measure of strategic superiority and if Putin or his successor gave the order, the bulk of our population could be annihilated within hours. Although he came into office at the end of 1999 and has spent more than twenty years in power, Putin’s current approval rating is over 80%, more than twice that of President Joseph Biden, so his death or serious injury might have world-shattering consequences.

Given the ongoing Russia-NATO military confrontation in the Ukraine war, an American sponsored drone strike against the Kremlin and Putin is an extraordinarily reckless and foolish action. What would we think if the Soviets had attacked the White House at the height of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis? But extraordinarily reckless and foolish actions have become an American specialty in recent years, notably including our destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, perhaps Europe’s most important civilian energy infrastructure.

Indeed, soon after the outbreak of the Ukraine war in early 2022, our bipartisan political and media elites began vilifying Putin as “another Hitler,” with leading media figures and top U.S. Senators loudly calling for the assassination of the Russian president.

Such statements are particularly provocative given that just two years earlier we had publicly assassinated a top Iranian leader in a drone attack. At the time I had warned of the extremely dangerous implications for our future relations with Russia:

The January 2nd American assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran was an event of enormous moment.

Gen. Soleimani had been the highest-ranking military figure in his nation of 80 million, and with a storied career of 30 years, one of the most universally popular and highly regarded. Most analysts ranked him second in influence only to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s elderly Supreme Leader, and there were widespread reports that he was being urged to run for the presidency in the 2021 elections.

The circumstances of his peacetime death were also quite remarkable. His vehicle was incinerated by the missile of an American Reaper drone near Iraq’s Baghdad international airport just after he had arrived there on a regular commercial flight for peace negotiations originally suggested by the American government.

Our major media hardly ignored the gravity of this sudden, unexpected killing of so high-ranking a political and military figure, and gave it enormous attention. A day or so later, the front page of my morning New York Times was almost entirely filled with coverage of the event and its implications, along with several inside pages devoted to the same topic. Later that same week, America’s national newspaper of record allocated more than one-third of all the pages of its front section to the same shocking story.

But even such copious coverage by teams of veteran journalists failed to provide the incident with its proper context and implications. Last year, the Trump Administration had declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard “a terrorist organization,” drawing widespread criticism and even ridicule from national security experts appalled at the notion of classifying a major branch of Iran’s armed forces as “terrorists.” Gen. Soleimani was a top commander in that body, and this apparently provided the legal fig-leaf for his assassination in broad daylight while on a diplomatic peace mission.

But note that Congress has been considering legislation declaring Russia an official state sponsor of terrorism, and Stephen Cohen, the eminent Russia scholar, has argued that no foreign leader since the end of World War II has been so massively demonized by the American media as Russian President Vladimir Putin. For years, numerous agitated pundits have denounced Putin as “the new Hitler,” and some prominent figures have even called for his overthrow or death. So we are now only a step or two removed from undertaking a public campaign to assassinate the leader of a country whose nuclear arsenal could quickly annihilate the bulk of the American population. Cohen has repeatedly warned that the current danger of global nuclear war may exceed that which we faced during the days of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and can we entirely dismiss his concerns?

I went on to note that this American policy represented a radical change from the practice of past centuries, with the major Western countries having abandoned the use of assassination in the 17th century after the end of the bloody Wars of Religion.

The 1914 terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was certainly organized by fanatical elements of Serbian Intelligence, but the Serbian government fiercely denied its own complicity, and no major European power was ever directly implicated in the plot. The aftermath of the killing soon led to the outbreak of World War I, and although many millions died in the trenches over the next few years, it would have been completely unthinkable for one of the major belligerents to consider assassinating the leadership of another.

A century earlier, the Napoleonic Wars had raged across the entire continent of Europe for most of a generation, but I don’t recall reading of any governmental assassination plots during that era, let alone in the quite gentlemanly wars of the preceding 18th century when Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa disputed ownership of the wealthy province of Silesia by military means. I am hardly a specialist in modern European history, but after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and regularized the rules of warfare, no assassination as high-profile as that of Gen. Soleimani comes to mind.

During our Revolutionary War, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and our other Founding Fathers fully recognized that if their effort failed, they would all be hanged as rebels by the British. However, I have never heard that they feared falling to an assassin’s blade, nor that King George III ever considered using such an underhanded means of attack. During the first century and more of our nation’s history, nearly all our presidents and other top political leaders traced their ancestry back to the British Isles, and political assassinations were exceptionally rare, with Abraham Lincoln’s death being one of the very few that comes to mind.

Unfortunately, the use of such lethal measures was eventually revived amid the bitter ideological struggle of World War II, at least in some quarters. According to renowned historian David Irving, when Hitler’s secret service suggested that an attempt be made to assassinate the Soviet military leadership, the German Fuehrer immediately forbade any such practices as contrary to the laws of warfare.

But his Western opponents had fewer such scruples. In 1941 Czech agents with Allied assistance successfully assassinated Reinhard Heydrich in Prague and in 1943 the US military intercepted and shot down the plane of Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. However, some of the highest profile targets the Allied leadership selected for elimination seem to have been within their own ranks.

Curtis B. Dall was a New York stockbroker who had been FDR’s son-in-law during the early 1930s and he later spent decades as a leading figure in various anti-Semitic Far Right political organizations. In 1967 a fringe Christian group published his memoirs in a cheap paperback edition, and I happened to read that book three or four years ago.

Most of the incidents and stories Dall recounted seemed reasonably plausible, but I was very surprised when he claimed that late in the war the American government, possibly under Communist influence, had decided to assassinate Chinese President Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the largest Allied nation. Although the effort fell through and the project was later abandoned, I’d never previously seen a hint of that story anywhere else and I was very skeptical of such an astonishing claim from a rather doubtful source. However, when I read Prof. Sean McMeekin’s outstanding 2021 history Stalin’s War a year or two later, he provided the same account, drawing upon the memoirs of a high-ranking American military commander based in the Chinese theater.

The plan had been to eliminate Chiang by means of a plane crash, and according to Irving the American and British governments also intended the same fate in 1943 for Charles de Gaulle, who was proving very uncooperative in his subordinate role as Free French leader in exile. However, de Gaulle survived the near-fatal accident caused by the sabotage of his plane and thereafter became much more cautious in his air travel.

Other Allied leaders were less fortunate. Like de Gaulle, Gen. Władysław Sikorski was based in London as leader of the Polish government in exile, and at first his relationship with the Allied leaders was good, with many thousands of Polish troops and airmen serving side-by-side with the British forces. However, in 1943 the Germans discovered and publicized the 1940 Katyn Forest massacre, revealing that Stalin had executed some 20,000 Polish officers whom he held as POWs. Sikorski was outraged at that enormous wartime atrocity and demanded a full Red Cross investigation while refusing to be fobbed off by Soviet denials or the implausible claim that the Germans themselves had been responsible. This led Stalin to break relations with the Polish exile government, and Irving makes a strong case that the top Allied leaders eventually decided that preserving the vital Soviet wartime alliance required Sikorski’s elimination, leading to the latter’s death in a suspicious airplane crash on Gibraltar a couple of months after de Gaulle had narrowly avoided the same fate.

Irving also explains that the previous year Gen. Dwight Eisenhower had made a deal with Admiral François Darlan, commander of all Vichy French forces, recognizing his authority in return for his joining the Allied cause; but the Allied leadership then nullified that controversial agreement by apparently arranging Darlan’s assassination a few weeks later.

During World War II America’s government had also put very substantial resources into the development of biological weapons and this continued after the end of the conflict although all these facts were kept completely secret at the time. There was considerable overlap of technology and personnel with the poisons and other assassination methods developed by the recently-established CIA during that period, as was discussed in a 2019 book by respected journalist Stephen Kinser, who also mentioned some of the prominent world leaders that our government attempted to assassinate during that era.

However, this climate of media avoidance has recently begun changing. Another strong endorsement of Baker’s book came from Stephen Kinzer, who just a year earlier had published Poisoner in Chief, primarily focused upon the notorious MK-ULTRA mind-control projects of Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the CIA researcher described in the title. Kinzer’s book attracted glowing accolades from Pulitzer Prize winners Seymour Hersh and Kai Bird, both writers with great experience on intelligence matters, and received quite favorable reviews in the elite mainstream media.

At first glance, mind-control and biological warfare might seem entirely dissimilar topics, but they actually share considerable areas of overlap. Both required the creation and use of dangerous biological or biochemical agents, which for maximal effectiveness must then be tested upon unwilling human subjects, often in dangerous or lethal ways. Since in this regard they obviously operate outside the boundaries of normal legality, especially in peacetime, their use must be kept entirely secret, naturally matching them with the proclivities of an intelligence agency such as the CIA. Throughout his book Kinzer emphasized the considerable overlapping personnel and resources between these two domains. Indeed, as the CIA’s “chief poisoner,” Gottlieb developed a wide range of deadly biological compounds which he deployed in a number of mostly unsuccessful attempts to assassinate foreign leaders such as Prime Ministers Zhou Enlai of China and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, as well as Cuba’s Fidel Castro.

However, unlike today’s climate of bold public declarations, all those previous American assassination plots of the 1950s and 1960s were kept secret from the American people. And as I explained in an an article, their eventual disclosure during the post-Watergate era produced a huge public backlash:

At the height of the Cold War, our CIA did involve itself in various secret assassination plots against Cuba’s Communist dictator Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders considered hostile to US interests. But when these facts later came out in the 1970s, they evoked such enormous outrage from the public and the media, that three consecutive American presidents—Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan—all issued successive Executive Orders absolutely prohibiting assassinations by the CIA or any other agent of the US government.

Although some cynics might claim that these public declarations represented mere window-dressing, a March 2018 book review in the New York Times strongly suggests otherwise. Kenneth M. Pollack spent years as a CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, then went on to publish a number of influential books on foreign policy and military strategy over the last two decades. He had originally joined the CIA in 1988, and opens his review by declaring:

One of the very first things I was taught when I joined the CIA was that we do not conduct assassinations. It was drilled into new recruits over and over again.

Yet Pollack notes with dismay that over the last quarter-century, these once solid prohibitions have been steadily eaten away, with the process rapidly accelerating after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. The laws on our books may not have changed, but

Today, it seems that all that is left of this policy is a euphemism.

We don’t call them assassinations anymore. Now, they are “targeted killings,” most often performed by drone strike, and they have become America’s go-to weapon in the war on terror.

The Bush Administration had conducted 47 of these assassinations-by-another-name, while his successor Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar and Nobel Peace Prize winner, had raised his own total to 542. Not without justification, Pollack wonders whether assassination has become “a very effective drug, but [one that] treats only the symptom and so offers no cure.”

Thus over the last couple of decades American policy has followed a disturbing trajectory in its use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, first restricting its application only to the most extreme circumstances, next targeting small numbers of high-profile “terrorists” hiding in rough terrain, then escalating those same killings to the many hundreds. And now under President Trump, the fateful step has been taken of America claiming the right to assassinate any world leader not to our liking whom we unilaterally declare worthy of death.

Pollack had made his career as a Clinton Democrat, and is best known for his 2002 book The Threatening Storm that strongly endorsed President Bush’s proposed invasion of Iraq and was enormously influential in producing bipartisan support for that ill-fated policy. I have no doubt that he is a committed supporter of Israel, and he probably falls into a category that I would loosely describe as “Left Neocon.”

But while reviewing a history of Israel’s own long use of assassination as a mainstay of its national security policy, he seems deeply disturbed that America might now be following along that same terrible path. Less than two years later, our sudden assassination of a top Iranian leader demonstrates that his fears may have been greatly understated.

So in recent years assassination has become a standard tool of American policy, often publicly declared. This has naturally lowered the threshold for its use, perhaps leading our government to now target the political leader controlling the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, a possibility that would have been utterly unimaginable during the original Cold War.

There may be another contributing factor to this disturbing trend of American behavior. As I’ve recently discussed, over the last three decades the Neocons have gained a bipartisan stranglehold over our national security policy, and whether or not the particular individuals are Jewish, they have all been closely aligned with support for Israel and the Zionist ideological cause.

One particularly problematical aspect of this powerful Israeli ideological influence has been the long Zionist history of the use of assassination, both before and after the creation of the State of Israel. In early 2020 our Solemaini killing prompted me to publish a very lengthy presentation of this important yet long concealed history, from which this paragraph and many of the preceding extracts were drawn:

Indeed, the inclination of the more right-wing Zionist factions toward assassination, terrorism, and other forms of essentially criminal behavior was really quite remarkable. For example, in 1943 Shamir had arranged the assassination of his factional rival, a year after the two men had escaped together from imprisonment for a bank robbery in which bystanders had been killed, and he claimed he had acted to avert the planned assassination of David Ben-Gurion, the top Zionist leader and Israel’s future founding-premier. Shamir and his faction certainly continued this sort of behavior into the 1940s, successfully assassinating Lord Moyne, the British Minister for the Middle East, and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, though they failed in their other attempts to kill American President Harry Truman and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin, and their plans to assassinate Winston Churchillapparently never moved past the discussion stage. His group also pioneered the use of terrorist car-bombs and other explosive attacks against innocent civilian targets, all long before any Arabs or Muslims had ever thought of using similar tactics; and Begin’s larger and more “moderate” Zionist faction did much the same.

We should also recognize the reality that during the last seventy years America has maintained the world’s largest and best-funded biological warfare program, with our government spending many tens of billions of dollars on biowarfare/biodefense across those decades. And as I’ve discussed in a long article, there is even considerable evidence that we actually used those illegal weapons during the very difficult first year of the Korean War.

Soon after their invasion, the Russians publicly claimed that the U.S. had established a series of biolabs in Ukraine, which were preparing biological warfare attacks against their country. Last year one of their top generals declared that the global Covid epidemic was probably the result of a deliberate American biowarfare attack against China and Iran, echoing the accusations previously made by those countries.

Russian security concerns over our advanced biowarfare capabilities and the extreme recklessness with which we might employ them may explain the rather strange behavior of President Putin when he met in Moscow for talks with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz shortly before the outbreak of the Ukraine war.

At the time many observers were puzzled why in each case the two national leaders were seated at opposite ends of a very long table, with Putin blandly suggesting that the placement was meant to symbolize the vast distance separating Russia and NATO’s Western leaders. Perhaps that innocuous explanation was correct. But I think it far more likely that the Russians were actually concerned that the Western leaders meeting him might be the immunized carriers of a dangerous biological agent intended to infect their president.

Considering the total madness that America’s ruling elites have exhibited in recent years, we can hardly blame the Russians for taking such unusual precautions to ensure Putin’s safety. This is especially true because in today’s Russia nominal and actual political power are conjoined, a very different situation than is often found in America or much of the West, as I’d noted in 2015.

Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia’s entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.

Given this situation, I think it is very fortunate for the world—and our own country—that both Russia and China are currently led by extremely cautious and pragmatic individuals willing to forego any cycle of retaliatory escalation. But the ruling political elites of DC should recognize that their own persons are hardly likely to remain permanently sacrosanct from the terrible forces they seem all too eager to set into motion.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All images in this article are from TUR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On 11th of March 2020, the World Health Organization has confirmed that the spread of COVID-19 is the pandemic. However, the WHO, governments and non-governmental organizations worked on that newly identified threat at least since January 2020.  According to the WHO, 13 billion doses have been given as of 3 May 2023. There have been 765,222,932 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,921,614 deaths, reported to WHO. On 5th of May 2023, the WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced ‘the UN health agency was downgrading Covid’s alert status’, but at the same time also delivered ‘a stark warning about its persistent threat’. ‘The disease still killed someone every three minutes’ he said. In the meantime, however, people have begun to die from more old-fashioned reasons, like war.

When did the pandemic end?

Because for the most Europeans the pandemic ended much earlier, 24th February 2022, with the start of Russia-Ukraine war. Thank you, Mr Putin, you have stopped that! Millions of Ukrainian immigrants, with no masks, not vaccinated made all the regulations more evident than a day before. Let’s remember, that for weeks before this military conflict the main topic of the North-Western discussions was how to punish the unvaccinated, what services should be limited to them and how to promote these disciplined citizens obediently receiving a booster after booster. And in almost one night, everything disappeared. What a lucky coincidence!

Some at war, others still under COVID…

During the last 15 months we could observe clear division between the sides at war and those still with COVID-19.  Let’s take the example of Italy, which was initially much less involved in the policy of Western sanctions for the war in Ukraine.  As a result, strict COVID-19 restrictions were still in force in Italy in the summer of 2022 (masks on beaches, ‘green passports’, etc.), when the rest of Europe already forgot about the pandemic.  Asian countries, distancing themselves from Euro-Atlantic problems, also continued their consistent anti-pandemic policy. Thus, the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is characterised by self-centrism typical of the USA and Europe, recognising one’s own experiences and experiences as valid for the rest of the world. It is enough to consider previous, especially American experience (attempts?) with Bird Flu and West Nile fever or treating AIDS as a training ground for the pandemic policy in the North-Western World, while ignoring its epidemic significance in Africa.

Systemic racism

It was similar with COVID, when stories of ‘global solidarity in the face of a pandemic’ were accompanied by a brutal refusal to suspend sanctions against Iran at least for medicines and medical products. The WHO has equally consistently downplayed real health crises, like true pandemic outbreaks in Africa, unluckily related to real diseases such as polio (in Mozambique for the first time in 30 years), tuberculosis (return in 2020 to the level from three years ago), malaria killing the most people in 20 years, or cholera recorded in 2020 and 2021 in eight African worlds led by Nigeria, and finally Ebola which in 2022 returned to Uganda.  No attention was given to the total collapse of the African routine-immunisation, as like inviting real epidemics to spill over to the rest of the world with immigrants and refugees. The systemic racism of the COVID policy, therefore, affected not only racial and ethnic minorities in developed countries, but was also clearly directed against the majority of humanity, currently inhabiting Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. COVID-19 thus only highlighted who is the beneficiary of the capitalist World-System and who manages the form of hegemony: the pandemic started when it was convenient for the centres of the West, and they too decided to end it.

Two ways of capitalist transformismo

Therefore, it can be argued that the distinction between ‘war or pandemic’ is only an expression of a broader division between geopolitics and state geoeconomics, or transnationalist management of global crises, such as climate change or biological threats. Of course, these tendencies can be competitive as well as complementary on other level.  We can see that dialectical interrelation recognising the clear indications of the SARS-CoV-2 human origin, virus almost certainly produced in the military laboratories and knowing about American biolabs discovered during the war in Ukraine.

In all these cases, however, we are dealing with manifestations of the struggle for the future of capitalism. On the one hand, there are transnationalists, the Transnational Capitalist Class, who, thanks to their solidarity and aspirations for a Global Management (rather than the World Government), pushed for the universality of COVID-19, although due to the discredit of present transnational organizations, the strategies still had to be implemented by the again fragmented states. For the TCC, however, this is certainly not the end of trials, but at most the end of the beginning. Actions for a capitalist Superhegemony, strengthened by the global financial response to COVID, make look differently final Ghebreyesus’ words: “In most cases, pandemics truly end when the next pandemic begins”.

Albeit there is also the trend of traditional, rival imperialist (like we know from Lenin and Bukharin), implemented by the national ruling classes running competitive states. In the North-West we can identify these groups mainly with the national military-industrial complexes. Their traditional method remains war. And such one ‘happily’ broke out: first in Ukraine, soon perhaps in Taiwan. What’s worse, we know that, to paraphrase “In most cases, wars truly do not  end, but only the new ones begin”. This is also completely realistic future.

Let us repeat this: interests intersect, and both trends can exchange not only personnel, but also methods among each other.  It is not a coincidence that the United States, interested in the Superhegemony, unquestionable priority within the capitalist World-System, but still managed in a Lockean manner by the depoliticised economic level (especially financial), reach for such an old-fashioned method as war, and China, today the most representative for the Hobbesian stronger relations between economics and politics,  played willingly the COVID card, although it was clearly on the table to beat all Chinese assets.

Sovereign response

Answering the title question ‘What new perspective to the World after COVID-19’, answer could be rather short-term pessimistic: possibly biological threat and for sure other wars, that is our devil’s alternative. The only doubt is whenever we can organise and in a long-term resist to the imperialist and capitalist transformismo processes. Are we able replace the declining hegemony with our own narration and regime of truth, but most of all with our activity? That is the challenge. Less even for  transnational civil society, dreamed of by those disillusioned with the loss of influence on the politics of their own states, and more for exactly these nation states reviving sovereignty.

So, let’s take back control!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Konrad Rękas is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Life After COVID-19: Perspectives of the World Security

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

For decades the development of the separatist movement within Quebec proved most instrumental in threatening Canada’s confidence and coherence as a viable federation. This dynamic, however, is changing. These days the most direct challenge to Canada’s unified future is the growing constituency within Alberta starting to consider the possibility of moving towards sovereign independence.

The unfolding emergency swirling around the clash between the governments of Canada and Alberta comes down in large measure to the uncertain prospects attending the future of the oil and gas industry. Especially since 2020, that clash has crossed the threshold of an existential emergency for Canada as we have known the country so far.

The minority federal government of the Trudeau Liberals depends for its survival on the decisions made in Parliament by New Democratic Party MPs. Under the instructions of their leader, Jagmeet Singh, these NDP MP’s consistently vote in the House of Commons to bring into a majority position all legislation brought forward by the Liberal minority. The NDP thus holds the balance of power. Because of the way the Party is organized, Rachel Notley is Jagmeet Singh’s Alberta Lieutenant.

In the current electoral contest to form the next Alberta government, Rachel Notley is presently going head to head with United Conservative Party leader, Danielle Smith. Election day is May 29. In the course of the campaign the message is becoming increasingly clear that Trudeau, Singh and Notley have basically made a collective decision to deep six all but a remnant portion of the Alberta-based oil and gas sector.

The course of action being advanced for Alberta by the Liberal Party-NDP alliance strikes at the very heart of the existing life support systems that many in this province have adopted as integral to their businesses and investment plans as well as their planning in families and communities.

The record of voting in the federal election of 2021 speaks eloquently of the alienation felt by most Albertans towards Canada’s ruling Liberal-NDP alliance. Of the 34 federal ridings in Alberta, the Trudeau Liberals won only two of them and Singh’s NDP won only one. The other 31 federal ridings in Alberta all went uniformly to the Conservative Party of Canada now led by Pierre Poilievre.

In the place of good jobs in the oil and gas sector— jobs that often include much latitude for research and development—- the Liberal-NDP plan substitutes a nonsensical obsession with abolishing “carbon footprints” while continuing massive emissions of industrial pollution like glyphosate contamination combined with the further genetic modification of our food sources.

The plan to wind down Alberta’s oil and gas industry forms a classic illustration of a worldwide pattern. A core aspect of this pattern advances a very problematic and simple-minded interpretation of climate change, one that fails to take into account even the regular geo-engineering of weather patterns let alone the constant tampering with other forms of environmental alteration. This geo-engineering is often conducted with military-style precision, organization, force and secrecy. “Climate change” is only one small part of the much larger canvass of military operations containing ample evidence of many forms of transformative geo-engineering

It was reported that recent earthquakes in Turkey were most likely manufactured with the intervention of HAARP technology whose role in the geo-engineering of massive environmental modifications has become a widely-known secret. See this.

This phenomenon was not an isolated incident. Part of the pervasive menaces facing humanity at this juncture in our history is that corporatist lords are effectively governing us without transparency, accountability or any level of reasonable government regulation on behalf of the public interest. The regulators have all been captured by the industries they are supposed to police even when it comes to the corporate destruction of the basis of public health. Those in charge of the corporatist leviathans face no push back from their subversive decisions to alter even the genetic character of our inner beings let alone the environmental conditions determining the quality of our lives, deaths and illnesses.

The Contours of a Fitting Response of Conservative Resolve in Alberta and Saskatchewan

There is no upside to going full-on Greta Thunberg. All the evidence points to the fact that alternative energy sources are expensive and ineffective with nowhere near the capacity to replace the massive industrial muscle that intelligently developed oil and gas have brought to society. The move away from oil and gas would stimulate further destruction of the middle class, a process that jumped ahead with the COVID lockdowns, a process meant to continue in the climate change lockdowns being planned for the future

The independence and economic creativity of the self-sufficient middle class runs against the plans being hatched for us by unaccountable billionaires and their agents that dominate the Davos-based World Economic Forum. The WEF, with its attendant fleet of private jets for corporate tycoons, has effectively replaced many of the functions once performed by national legislatures including the Canadian Parliament. Indeed, the WEF founder and head, Klaus Schwab, has bragged that over half the members of the Canadian cabinet as well as Singh and Trudeau are products of the indoctrination associated with the WEF’s notorious young leaders program.

Under the Trudeau minority government, Parliament is becoming something of a museum artifact harkening back to an era when our national institutions still had some sovereign clout. In what Trudeau characterizes as “postnational Canada,” that time is fast fading further into the past. Indeed, if Trudeau and his fellow globalists get their way, national jurisdiction even over health care will be uploaded to further empower the medical tyranny entailed in the corrupt impositions of the World Health Organization.

The woke policies being pushed by Trudeau, Singh and Notley are shaping the contours of a fitting response of Conservative resolve in Alberta and also in neighbouring Saskatchewan. The resentments being cooked up in this clash over the ingredients of the Canadian political economy of Canada are spilling over into many types of conflict. This phenomenon is giving rise to an extremely grave crisis in the ongoing work-in-progress known as Canadian federalism.

Canadian federalism figures prominently in the politics of the criminal justice system in Alberta. Many of the top officials in Alberta’s criminal justice system are appointed by the Office of the Canadian Prime Minister. Trudeau has made no secret of the fact that he holds a very contemptuous view of the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy.

Trudeau seems persuaded that the parking protest in Ottawa had nothing to do with vaccine mandates and the thinking that produced them. Instead, the Trudeau propaganda apparatus and its venues in both the media and the criminal justice systems seem to have decided that the Trucker protest was really a cover to disguise the activities of neo-nazi terrorists and White Supremacists seeking to ignite and accelerate a violent insurrection aimed at overthrowing the Canadian and US governments. What an outrageous response… a betrayal of democratic process and the truth?

Entirely justified was the Freedom Convoy campaign to attempt to bring a measure of needed reform to the federal handling of the manufactured COVID crisis. Moreover, the campaign was peacefully navigated by the Truckers and their supporters especially in light of all the provocations they faced in Ottawa. To try to reframe the matter as one involving the apprehension of a violent revolutionary movement represents a total insult to the intelligence of thinking Canadians. See this.

This kooky interpretation has been picked up as fact by the Trudeau-sponsored media empire that extends far beyond Canada’s discredited public broadcaster that currently has a very large budget and a minuscule audience. This weird interpretation was taken up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who culminated its own procedures of entrapment by pressing charges on four men for the alleged crime of having conspired to commit the murder of RCMP officers. The arrests took place in the area of the Montana-Alberta border crossing at Coutts Alberta.

The arrests happened on the very day that the Justin Trudeau-Chrystia Freeland government declared Canada’s version of martial law in preparation for seizing control of the bank accounts of Truckers. By 14 Feb. the Truckers had inspired a Canada-wide protest movement that cast serious doubt on the quality of the Liberal Party’s management of Canada’s version of the WHO-declared global pandemic.

The four men were taken into custody on 14 Feb., 2022. They were all denied bail. Having been convicted of nothing, the Coutts Four have been kept in jail for well over a year now. Nowhere in sight is the end of the continued incarceration of the Coutts Four in the deep bowels of Alberta’s penal establishment. The date of their planned show trial keeps being pushed deeper into the future, probably sometime in 2024.

The identification of Alberta with the jailing of federally-targeted political prisoners is indicative of the visceral quality of animosity between Ottawa and the movement that has coalesced in the wake of the cross-Canada pilgrimage of the Freedom Convoy project. This project originated largely in Alberta.

The treatment of the Truckers as culprits whose bank accounts were seized without due process seems well lined up with the treatment of Christian Pastors in Alberta as criminals to be prosecuted for holding church services during the lockdowns. The government’s prosecution of Pastors James Coates, Arthur Pawlowsky and Tim Stevens illustrates a pattern of persecution that has put Canada on a US-based religious freedom watch list. See this.

An Open Season for Medical Experimentation on Human Subjects? 

The emergency embodied in the clash between the supporters of the Alberta oil and gas industry and those who want to abolish it, or, at the very least, to cut it back, has unfolded with growing ferocity especially since 2020. This local emergency has unfolded within the context of a global emergency that I often describe as the manufactured COVID crisis. The primary basis of this crisis has been the predatory impositions of governments together with the public hysteria purposely whipped up by conniving media venues.

A key development in the genesis of the manufactured COVID crisis was the decision of the World Health Organization on 11 March, 2020 to declare that COVID-19 forms the basis of a “global pandemic.” The WHO’s declaration was made with insufficient evidence and proof in order to meet an agenda already set in motion largely by the Bill and Melinda Gates-backed group of vaccine-promoting “philanthropies.” Bill Gates’ capacity to purchase a lion’s share of influence over the WHO is indicative of the sorry state of the United Nations as, in case after case, it fails to deliver justice and truth.

With the WHO’s granting of a license for a global pandemic based on the arrival of a supposedly novel coronavirus, the way was opened to making “COVID-19” the basis for the introduction of many new medical products and procedures. The worldwide imposition of many uniform impositions of various emergency measures provided a framework for what followed. Many emergency measures were set in place by governments, states, provinces, municipalities, corporations, schools, universities, unions, professional associations, and military agencies. The list of participating institutions that took part in the “global pandemic” is massive. Almost all the decisions made to help put things right only made matters worse, often much worse.

The global lockdowns inflicted tsunamis of economic annihilation on a scale far beyond anything experienced in history so far. Millions of small businesses employing large numbers of workers were ruined worldwide. Supply chains of many kinds in many places were severed and rendered defunct. Suicides, depressions, addictions, domestic violence and such went through the roof. So too did bankruptcies.

The fuller financial ramifications of what transpired are still coming to light. Many financial institutions are still being shattered leaving chunks of wreckage probably to be absorbed by a few giant entities. Such entities, including prominently the Bank for International Settlements, are already moving to take control of all cashless digital transactions to be regulated according to the outcomes of AI-driven social credit scoring.

During the lockdowns, surgeries and other treatments of all kinds were put on hold. Masks not only did not work but they harmed people by making them fearful and compliant. The masks contributed to physical harm by lessening oxygen intake and creating the basis for bacterial infections and spreads. The masking of young children was particularly injurious to their long term development. The closing down of in-person schooling caused many youths to part company with formal education in ways that will have lifelong impacts that will be almost impossible to repair.

The horrendous impacts on health and morbidity of the gene-modifying mRNA injections are a huge topic whose global impacts will long remain the subjects of major contention and, no doubt, litigation as well. Some of this litigation will probably result in cases involving the media’s decision to deny people access to scientific information they require to make crucial life and death decisions. Millions of unnecessary fatalities have resulted from the wide dissemination of disinformation. Most big media outlets simply did not do their part in providing the public with the necessary information to give or withhold informed consent when it came to meeting the requirements of the Nuremberg Code concerning medical experiments on human subjects.

The utter contempt shown by almost all authorities by failing to meet the requirements of the Nuremberg Code raises big questions requiring serious investigation. This failure of enforcement has set many disastrous precedents opening the way for an open season on medical experimentation on human subjects without even their knowledge let alone their informed consent.

The method of trying to treat disease by modifying the genetic makeup of sick people is suddenly being made to seem as if it has passed tests of viability. This perception is not based in fact although its application, however unjustified, would produce lucrative outcomes for BIG Pharma. Before treating humans as walking talking platforms of genetic experimentation, precautionary breaks must be applied immediately. The enforcement of the precautionary principle demands that we must not go down roads of more genetic experimentation on people. Such experimentation should be seen as criminal at this point.

Saving the United Conservative Party from Humiliation and Disgrace 

The province of Alberta was much like many other jurisdictions in displaying representative patterns throughout the WHO-declared pandemic. One Alberta story, however, captured major global attention. In the summer of 2021 a category described as “ill-defined and unknown causes” appeared out of nowhere to become the leading cause of death in Alberta. While authorities in the province had plenty of possible explanations, none included the possibility that the most probable source of the unexplained deaths was the mass application of mRNA/lipid nanoparticle jabs. These jabs were administered on the basis of the fictional claim that they were “safe and effective.” See this.

This effort to make “unknown causes” the leading source of death in Alberta has been seen by many as part of a much larger scheme to point attention away from the casualties and injuries emanating from the mass dissemination of the genetic modification procedures done in the name of fighting COVID-19. This objective of hiding, disguising and under-representing the negative effects of the supposed COVID remedies continues in many concerted media campaigns. This classic misrepresentation of reality with the goal of avoiding the encouragement of “vaccine hesitancy” is a sinister crime against humanity that, over time, will come back to haunt the perpetrators of the lies.

Jason Kenney was elected the UCP Premier of Alberta in 2019. In Alberta’s top job Kenney drew much negative attention to himself by making and breaking promises concerning the WHO-declared pandemic. Kenney’s ineptitude in Office during a time of emergency created extra anxieties for Albertans generally, but especially for those worried about saving the reputation of the United Conservative Party from humiliation and disgrace. As the problems with Kenney’s leadership became increasingly apparent, more and more members of the United Conservative Party mobilized in the effort to block him from continuing as Premier.

In May of 2022 Kenney finally resigned of his own accord opening up a race within the UCP that Danielle Smith would go on to win in October. The current electoral campaign took an unexpected twist in early May when many of the forested areas in the mid-regions of Alberta burst into flames causing about 25,000 people to be evacuated from their homes.

In the face of these developments Premier Smith declared a state of emergency opening up various options for the provinces and its counties to deal with the eruption.

Trying to Be Worthy of the True North Strong and Free 

Wildfires are extremely common in Canada as are emergency declarations when these burns get out of hand especially in areas of human settlement. What makes this declaration somewhat different, however, is the timing of this state of emergency that comes after almost three years devoted to the supposed fight to conquer and quell COVID-19. It comes after Alberta and much of the rest of the world has been subjected to tremendous abuses heaped on people by authorities sometimes unwilling to reveal their real motivations for directing certain policies and actions.

Some of these authorities have exploited emergency measures to enrich themselves personally and to exercise new forms of power sometimes involving sketchy political tactics. Under these circumstances there is every cause to be skeptical about the possibility of hidden agendas lurking beneath initiatives that may appear perfectly benign on the surface.

The world has changed dramatically since the events of 2020 were spun by media hucksters in ways that invested executive branches of government with the appearance of justification for sweeping assertions of new powers in the name of defending public health. As the supposed custodians of the collective interests of people, governments directed various authorities to override whole panoplies of individuals rights and freedoms including freedom of assembly, mobility, association, religion, speech and autonomy of the person. It seems that government officials and their spin doctors in the media have no intention of lessening their grip on power by forgoing, for instance, the censoring of their critics on the Internet.

As a consequence, many of those who survived the recent rounds of tyrannical invasion on our God-given rights have learned very difficult lessons. We have seen and experienced the near-uniform failures of those responsible for upholding the integrity of those institutions charged to protect our rights and freedoms. We have witnessed the collapse of so major pillars of our supposed democracies just when we needed them the most.

Our governments have failed, our parliament and our legislatures have failed, our courts have failed, our universities have failed, our schools have failed, our unions and professional associations have failed, many of our churches have failed, and most of our media has failed on a grotesque scale by pretending that business is continuing as usual. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

While some citizens seemingly still seem willing to trust authority figures even after all that has transpired to demonstrate that they do not deserve such trust, there is a major new constituency coming onto the scene who are not inclined to give the system that failed us so conspicuously a second chance. In the eyes of this constituency, the times demand a return to basics on the sacred ground of a new start for those who have learned the hard way of the perils and dangers assailing us.

Some people are feeling enticed to formulate new ways of working together; to build new kinds of community bonds and working environments with a real capacity to provide the kind of protections and productivity we need to survive. The imperative to survive before we can thrive comes about because of the persistence of the predator class that continues to seek our diminishment, enfeeblement and demise.

We can expect continued manoeuvres to manipulate new pandemics and the all-purpose boogeyman of global warming. Many of the new frontiers of the concerted wars on our freedoms, however, lie in the realm of the digital manipulation of cashless money and of massive new data banks containing elaborate conglomerations of our personal information. All signs point to the prospect that the new forms of digital ID will be deployed to subjugate us in an era to be dominated by AI, robotization, and endless experiments in transhumanism.

In a world where computers and robots are slated to do most of the work, many of the surviving humans will face the fate of being unemployed and dependent on state subsidies that can be withdrawn at any time. What strategies can we develop to avert this outcome that the attentive, but especially those in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, can readily see coming at us with intensifying animosity?

The Preference in the Wildfire Zones is For Local Inhabitants to Stay in Place if It Is Possible to Do So 

The communities in Alberta that have been besieged in the sudden emergency of flash fires are starting to indicate just how many people are not willing to continue going along with the kind of treatments they have been receiving from governments. This kind of impatience with government was put on display in a citizen’s intervention at a public forum in Grande Prairie. The idea is being pressed in many ways that people have become impatient with authorities who they no longer trust to have their best interest in mind especially when it comes to the protection of what is most valuable.

Click here or the photo view the video

One of the areas of the province that was especially hard hit was the Wildwood area in Yellowhead County. Wildwood was established in 1908 as a so-called block settlement by a group of 20 African-Americans from Oklahoma and Texas. Among the people who responded to the evacuation notice to leave the Wildwood area was the family of Irina Liedtke. They moved to the region from Calgary several years ago. On the advice of a friend I telephoned Irina seeking a first-hand account from the scene of one of the more dramatic wildfires.

Irina explained that briefly after responding affirmatively to an evacuation request covering the Wildwood region she and her family soon opted to return to their property to assure themselves that all was well with their habitations, wooded areas, livestock and machinery. They were far from alone in emphasizing these priorities. The emphasis throughout many of the burn zones in Alberta has been for local inhabitants to stay in place if it is at all possible to do so.

A strong undercurrent of desire for self-sufficiency is running throughout many in the farming communities in Alberta who had to contend with the strange phenomena of fires bursting into flame almost simultaneously with the end of the melting winter snows. As Irina Liedtke sees it, governments have a role but one that should be secondary to the collaboration of community members in taking care of their properties themselves. As she tells it, recent developments have helped her to see the importance of neighbours, co-operative community projects, and the central roles of Church groups in the kind of environment she now calls home.

Irina and her husband have taken part in local organizing that came in response to local authorities in Yellowhead County “sorely letting down their firefighters” by “tying their hands.” This failure in the response of officialdom caused community members to take action to protect themselves and their property. In the process they formed “The Farmers Fighting Fires Alliance,” with a GiveSendGo page

Under current circumstances there is plenty of cause for skepticism. It is perfectly legitimate to ask questions especially given the failure of most media venues to do so. Is there a plan to cause families to start the process of picking up stakes and moving to urban centres? Why was it made so difficult for families to gain access to roads in order to return to their properties? Some made accusations that they were faced with unreasonable demands for unobtainable permits incorporating references to broad arrays of regulatory requirements involving many trifling details.

Some of the skeptics are well aware that the climate change obsessives in many parts of the world have extended to sharp hostility to farming communities, often bastions of independence, technical knowhow, and common sense. Where these qualities have rightfully been revered in the past, it seems that these days they are often perceived as obstructions to compliance with government dictates. When decisions seem to have been made to make sure that food is scarce and expensive, the productivity of farmers is sometimes not appreciated. Moreover, family farms are often seen as obstructions to the growth of corporate farms that specialize in the large-scale cultivation of commercial monocultures.

In rural Alberta the independence of farming communities is often well integrated with the labour needs of those running rigs in the oil and gas industry. This synergistic balance in the production of food and energy is apparently not what the doctors of political correctness would seem to prefer these days.

The wildfire emergency in Alberta is becoming a factor in the Alberta election campaign. It is also providing a brief break from that campaign as Danielle Smith and Rachel Notley were pictured together at the Edmonton Expo Centre attending to the needs of the evacuees. Maybe this time, the emergency can create the conditions for regaining the God-given freedoms and liberties of Alberta.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Anthony Hall is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

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

All images in this article are from the author

This War Is the Big One: “The Objective Is to Destroy Russia and the Russian Empire”

By Irwin Jerome, May 15, 2023

Every uncompromised world politician and citizen of the world, who against great odds, have kept themselves informed and abreast of the complicated historical geo-politics that exists in Ukraine, already know what can only be the ultimate outcome of the war in Ukraine.

“Bold Goals”: Biden’s Executive Order Will Have Us Bioengineering Everything

By Marie Hawthorne, May 15, 2023

In September 2022, President Biden released an Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology. Then, In March 2023, he released a document entitled Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing, outlining specific areas of focus in this bioengineering manifesto.

Outrage Over WHO Guidance on “Sexuality for Infants”

By Will Jones, May 15, 2023

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is under pressure to withdraw guidance for schools recommending that toddlers “ask questions about sexuality”, “explore gender identities” and learn about “enjoyment” of “early childhood masturbation”. The Telegraph has the story.

US-backed Military Once Again Targets Deposed Pakistani PM Imran Khan

By Ahmed Afzaal, May 15, 2023

The arrest of former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan and leader of the Pakistan Movement for Justice (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI) caused thousands of Pakistanis to take to the streets and protest. However, Pakistan’s Supreme Court ordered on May 11 his release, offering a significant victory for the onetime leader responsible for bringing Islamabad closer to Moscow and away from US dominance until his removal from power.

“The Dividing Line” the Corona War Propaganda Has Created

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, May 15, 2023

Like most everyone I regarded vaccines as preeminent in the history of medicine, a majestic achievement resulting in untold benefit. I myself still remember the sugar cubes through which the Sabin oral polio vaccine was administered when I was a child, and when my children were born they received the usual shots.

Video: The Corona Crisis: Canadian Doctors Testify, “Speak Out Against the Lies”

By Children’s Health Defense, May 15, 2023

In the wake of tyrannical pandemic measures and other threats to public health, medical health professionals have a choice to make. Will they continue to fall for the false ‘safe and effective’ narratives? Or will they acknowledge reality, stand up and speak out against the lies? These ‘Good Morning CHD’ doctors have resolved to do the latter. Listen in!

Pilot Died: Air Transat and Former Air Canada Pilot Eddy Vorperian, Age 48, from Montreal, Canada, Died Suddenly on May 3, 2023

By Dr. William Makis, May 15, 2023

This information comes to me from two private messages. It is not on the news. It can’t be found anywhere, other than in the messages of those who knew him personally. A pilot for Air Canada and Air Transat, with 25 years experience dies suddenly at the age of 48 and this doesn’t warrant even a paragraph in the mainstream media?

As Donetsk Civilians Live in Constant Fear of Ukrainian Shelling, a Reporter on the Ground Details the Terror

By Eva Bartlett, May 15, 2023

Heavy Ukrainian shelling of central Donetsk on April 28 killed nine civilians – including an eight-year-old girl and her grandmother – and injured at least 16 more. The victims were burned alive when the minibus they were in was hit by a shell.

Slava? No, Not Glory But Shame on Ukraine!

By Stephen Karganovic, May 15, 2023

There is virtually no chance that the Nazi regime in Kiev will feel either shame or remorse for what it has just done. That however does not alter the obligation of decent people everywhere to speak up and brand it with the shame it abundantly deserves.

Mass Shooting and Psychiatric Medications

By Mike Whitney, May 15, 2023

Here are a few short excerpts from a Midwestern Doctor’s excellent article at Substack titled The Decades of Evidence That Antidepressants Cause Mass Shootings. I strongly recommend that anyone who is interested in the topic, read the entire article. All of the excerpts below are from the article.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: This War Is the Big One: “The Objective Is to Destroy Russia and the Russian Empire”

Sollen Erzieher Heranwachsenden Grenzen setzen?

May 15th, 2023 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie die Schaltfläche Website übersetzen unterhalb des Namens des Autors aktivieren.

Um den täglichen Newsletter von Global Research (ausgewählte Artikel) zu erhalten, klicken Sie hier.

Klicken Sie auf die Schaltfläche “Teilen”, um diesen Artikel per E-Mail an Ihre Freunde und Kollegen weiterzuleiten. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.

***

 

Einleitung

Aufgrund von Angriffen auf andere Menschen (Amoktaten) in den USA, Deutschland und Serbien werde ich aus der Perspektive der personalen Psychologie Antworten auf wichtige Fragen geben, die in der Vergangenheit von der gesamten Gesellschaft nicht zu Ende gedacht worden sind.

Dabei beziehe ich einen Diskussionsbeitrag mit ein, den ich bereits vor 21 Jahren als Leiter der „Staatlichen Schulberatungsstelle für die bayerische Landeshauptstadt München“ anlässlich eines Amoklaufs in Deutschland verfasste und den ich immer noch für zeitgemäß halte.

Der Beitrag hatte den Titel „Für eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung“ (1).

Beantworten werde ich zunächst nur die Frage: Sollen Erzieher Heranwachsenden Grenzen setzen?

Wichtige Fragen zu Ende denken!

  1. Sollen den Heranwachsenden Werte vermittelt werden und wenn ja, welche und durch wen? Oder müssen Kinder und Jugendliche selbst herausfinden, was gut für sie ist?
  2. Sind Anstand, Rücksichtnahme, Zuverlässigkeit, Leistungsbereitschaft, Fleiß, Verantwortungs- und Gemeinschaftssinn noch erstrebenswerte Tugenden, die wir der Jugend vermitteln sollten? Oder stehen sie im Widerspruch zum Ziel der „Selbstverwirklichung“ und führen nur zu blinder Unterordnung unter autoritäre Strukturen?
  3. Soll man Kindern und Jugendlichen Grenzen setzen? Oder sollen sie durch Ausprobieren selbst an ihre Grenzen stoßen? Sollten also Erzieher einschreiten, wenn Kinder und Jugendliche ihre Konflikte mit Gewalt „lösen“ wollen? Oder sollte man auf „Selbstregulierung“ vertrauen?
  4. Tut es jungen Menschen gut, den ganzen Tag über auf allen Kanälen Gewalttaten in sämtlichen Variationen anzuschauen? Oder wirkt sich dieser Einfluss schädlich auf ihre Entwicklung aus und sollte deshalb unterbunden werden?

Sollen Erzieher Heranwachsenden Grenzen setzen?

Es gehört selbstverständlich zur Aufgabe des Erziehers, dem Heranwachsenden Grenzen zu setzen. Durch die Befunde der Forschungen zu den Entwicklungsbedingungen positiven Sozialverhaltens – insbesondere die Ergebnisse der Erziehungsstilforschung – wissen wir heute, welcher Erziehungsstil einen hohen Grad an Kooperationsfähigkeit, Hilfsbereitschaft, Freundlichkeit und Sicherheit beim Kind hervorbringen kann.

Diesen Erziehungsstil nennt die US-amerikanische Entwicklungspsychologin und führende Forscherin auf dem Gebiet der Kindererziehung Diana Baumrind (1927-2018) „autoritativ“ (2). Gemeint sind elterliche Erziehungspraktiken, die durch Wärme und Zuneigung, aber auch durch wirksame Kontrollmechanismen gekennzeichnet sind, die auf Härte und körperliche Strafen verzichten, aber konsequent argumentative Durchsetzungsstrategien einsetzen, die Einhaltung von vereinbarten Regeln kontrollieren, bei Fehlverhalten einschreiten sowie das Kind durch Vorbild und Einbeziehung in positive soziale Aktivitäten anleiten.

Zur Überraschung mancher Anhänger der sogenannt antiautoritären Erziehung wurde festgestellt, dass der permissive, gewähren-lassende Erziehungsstil bei Kindern zum gleichen unkameradschaftlichen, unkooperativen und aggressiven Verhalten führte wie der vernachlässigende und autoritäre Erziehungsstil.

Der Erwachsene, der Zeuge eines gewalttätigen Verhaltens eines Kindes oder Jugendlichen wird, muss daher unter allen Umständen dagegen Stellung beziehen und Wiedergutmachung fordern, denn die fehlende Stellungnahme und ein Maßnahmenverzicht werden vom jungen Menschen als Zustimmung zu seiner Tat interpretiert.

Ein Erzieher, der Gewalt zulässt, missachtet ein grundlegendes Menschenrecht. Auch muss das Opfer einer Gewalttat durch das entschiedene Einschreiten des Erziehers erleben, dass die Tat verurteilt, es selbst geschützt wird und Genugtuung erfährt.

Ein Gewalttäter, der „ungeschoren“ davonkommt, also erfolgreich Gewalt angewandt hat, lernt außerdem durch diese Verstärkung, dass Gewalt sich lohnt und wird sie wieder anwenden. Muss er sich dagegen mit seiner Tat auseinandersetzen, einen echten Weg zur Wiedergutmachung entwickeln, so fühlt er sich in sein Opfer ein und baut eine Hemmschwelle gegen erneute Gewaltanwendung auf.

*

Hinweis an die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie auf die obigen Schaltflächen zum Teilen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research erneut zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen. 

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Schul-Rektor, Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe. Nach seinen Universitätsstudien wurde er wissenschaftlicher Lehrer in der Erwachsenenbildung. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zu Gemeinsinn und Frieden. Für seine Verdienste um Serbien bekam er 2021 von den Universitäten Belgrad und Novi Sad den Republik-Preis „Kapitän Misa Anastasijevic“ verliehen.

Er schreibt regelmäßig für Global Research.

Noten 

1) Dr. Hänsel Rudolf (2002). Für eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Wertevermittlung. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zu Erfurt. Zentrale pädagogisch-psychologische Beratungsstelle für die Schulen in der Landeshauptstadt und im Landkreis München

2) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Baumrind

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Sollen Erzieher Heranwachsenden Grenzen setzen?

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

A major political-media operation is underway at an international level to cancel the Anniversary of the Victory over Nazism. President Putin’s speech at the May 9 Military Parade in Moscow, on the 78th Anniversary of the Victory, was presented in the West as a low-key speech without revealing its real content.

In Latvia and other eastern countries, the police identified and even arrested those who paid tribute to those killed in the war against Nazism.

In Ukraine, in the commemoration of the Anniversary of the Victory over Nazism, an absolute ban and threat of arrest or worse has been imposed.

At the same time, the action to eradicate everything Russian intensifies. Monuments commemorating the price paid by Russia to liberate Europe and the world from Nazism are being destroyed – in Ukraine, Latvia, and other Eastern European countries: 27 million people died, over half of them were civilians corresponding to 15% of the population (compared to the 0.3% loss of the US in all of WWII); about 5 million people were deported to Germany; over 1,700 cities and large towns, 70,000 small villages were devastated; 30,000 factories were destroyed.

In Latvia, the 550,000 Russian speakers, who compose over a quarter of the population, are denied the right to use their own language, imposing a difficult Latvian exam on them: those who do not pass it are expelled from the country. This occurs despite the fact that Latvia is a member of the European Union, which guarantees minorities the right to express themselves in their own language.

The EU has done more: it has decreed that the 9th of May is “Europe Day”. Ursula von der Leyen went to celebrate it in Kyiv to “demonstrate that the European Union stands by Ukraine which is fighting for the ideals of Europe that we celebrate today“. She told this to President Zelenski, who just signed a law to erase any Russian symbols from Ukraine, thereby erasing Ukraine’s own history.

At the same time, the Ukrainian Supreme Court ruled that the symbols of the SS Galicia division, which was guilty of horrendous crimes, are not Nazi and can therefore also be used today in demonstrations.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on byoblu in Italian.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from The Unz Review

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

In September 2022, President Biden released an Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology. Then, In March 2023, he released a document entitled Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing, outlining specific areas of focus in this bioengineering manifesto.

The goals in these documents sound very nice.  They’re all about using new technology to fight climate change, increase the food supply, cure diseases, and strengthen national security by increasing domestic manufacturing.

Is that really the goal?

However, I believe that these goals will be used to grab land from existing farmers and ranchers.  Farmers and ranchers need to turn a profit to pay taxes on their land; as actions are taken to achieve these goals all but the largest will be driven out of business.  This will occur via a combination of oppressive regulations in the name of climate change, and lawsuits regarding patent-protected crops.

This probably sounds a little crazy, but the crazy people have been getting a lot right lately.  Let’s look at these documents and see what they actually contain.  Then we’ll look at what this actually means for people involved in food production and some of the precedents that have already been set.

Here’s what’s in the executive order.

The EO promotes bioengineered solutions for everything.  There will be a push to replace petroleum-based plastics with biomanufactured products.  So, for example, developing more plant-based compostable bags, rather than those old plastic ones at the grocery store.

The EO also addresses retaining intellectual rights to everything developed and emphasizes domestic manufacturing.  Supply chain problems have impacted everyone; these documents claim that switching to supposedly environmentally friendly bioengineered products will solve those problems.  This document tries to make promoting biotechnology companies into a national security issue.

What are these Bold Goals?

The Bold Goals document addresses more specific actions and lays down goals through 2040. It actually has five sections:

(1) Climate change solutions,

(2) food and agriculture innovation,

(3) supply chain resilience,

(4) human health, and

(5) cross-cutting advances. 

These are all areas in which the federal government believes bioengineering holds a great deal of promise. But I’ll focus on the food and agriculture innovation section because I think that one most relates to who owns farmland.

Goals within the agricultural section cover a variety of topics.  Many of them make sense; they relate to reducing waste and improving breeding strategies.  However, many of the other goals sound like power grabs that have been discussed before.

By 2030, the stated goal of this document is to reduce agriculture-related methane emissions by 30%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 50%.  2030 is only seven years away; this document has some interesting high-tech-sounding solutions, but realistically, the only way to reduce methane emissions so dramatically will be to shrink herd sizes.  Considering that our beef cattle herd is down to its lowest level in over 60 years, I’d say we’re well on our way there.

Within 5 years, American farmers are supposed to reduce agriculture-related nitrogen emissions.  The document does not give a specific amount, but does nitrogen reduction sound familiar?  If you’re a regular reader, it should.  That’s been the big excuse given for seizing Dutch farms.

So, what happens next?

Goals such as these don’t ban meat outright, but they make it more expensive.  They also make it harder for farmers and ranchers to pay their own bills.  As they are driven out of business, it becomes easier for people like Bill Gates to buy up that agricultural land.

Another goal addresses reducing food waste, which is indeed admirable, but all discussions revolve around high-tech engineering solutions.  Why do they not address teaching home economics in middle and high schools, to encourage young people to plan their meals and use their food more wisely?

Public authorities seem to think that trying to teach the general population about taking better care of their health and resources is a waste of time.  But they believe in the power of marketing when it comes to convincing people to eat all kinds of garbage.

Beef or bugs?

The first section of Goal 2.1 is to “make novel foods more palatable, affordable, easier to prepare, and more easily incorporated into manufactured foods.”

We’ve talked about eating bugs on this website before The Bold Goals document doesn’t address eating bugs directly, but it does refer repeatedly to “novel food sources” and “new protein sources.”  I would bet a bison burger that these are just euphemisms for insects.

They also want to promote “alternative protein sources,” such as those that are plant-derived, the result of fermented processes, or cell-cultured.  So, along with the push toward insects, they want to push people toward the consumption of highly-processed fake meat items, as well.

This is also something we’ve talked about on this website. Government and industry have been pushing fake meat for a while now, and people just don’t want it.  But they’re not taking “no” for an answer; they intend to keep pushing it.

Marketing is everything.

Goal 2.2 wants to address “nutrient density” in foods.  They want to do this with more genetic engineering (of course), expanding the “range of organisms that can be used for nutritional purposes” (probably more insect- and algae-eating), and research into traditional medicinal foods.

Traditional medicine’s great.  Ethnobotany was one of my favorite college classes, and Sally Fallon’s Nourishing Traditions is one of my favorite books. But a big drive behind both the EO and the Bold Goals document is scaling up production of everything between food and industrial products; traditional food production methods are something individuals can replicate, but they don’t lend themselves to large-scale production.

For example, look at manoomin, the wild rice grown in Michigan, where it is the most culturally significant food source to Native Americans living in the area.  Groups like Native Harvest collect wild rice in canoes and process it in the traditional way.  It’s delicious, nutritious, and $24/lb.  I bought some once because I was curious, and it is wonderfully unique.  But anything that expensive can’t be a regular part of my diet, and I would guess it’s not realistic for most other people, either.

Is the government trying to replace farmers with AI?

This makes me think that either the federal government is just tossing this language into the document as a nod toward “diversity,” rather than any real attempt to expand the availability of traditional, nutritious food.

There is also a drive to get AI into farming.  In some ways, this isn’t surprising; large-scale farms have had a very difficult time finding employees that can monitor the various systems needed to keep animals in large confinement operations reasonably healthy.  Aden just had an article about AI getting into everything; I think this proves his point.

To facilitate all these goals, the government plans various initiatives for public-private partnerships, as well as incentive programs for people working in the alternative proteins sector.  These documents emphasize developing new technologies for food production and then scaling up.  There is no discussion of looking at models that work well, and then broadly replicating them.  There is no whisper of supporting existing environmentally friendly, biodiverse farms.

Bio-engineering results in patents.

You can probably see how the increase in regulations and financial incentives are lining up to drive meat producers out of business.  But let’s also look at how patent protection could potentially be used to drive many other conventional farmers out of business, as well.

Both of these documents reveal a mechanistic view of life as we know it.  A theme throughout these documents is the desire to pick plants apart and then re-engineer them to meet scientists’ exact goals.  Goal 1.2 is to:

Expand upon biorefinery technologies to efficiently break down biomass into its components (e.g., lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose); to convert lignin and hemicellulose into plastics, adhesives, and low-energy building materials; and to convert cellulose fiber into nanomaterials and cellulose derivatives for fibers, coatings, renewable packaging, and other products. [Source]

There is also the continued assumption that we can hack into cell mechanisms the exact same way people hack computer systems.  The fourth paragraph of the EO states:

We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlocking the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence. . . [Source]

The people behind this see life as something that can be stripped down into its individual components and then rearranged in exactly the way they see fit.  This stripping down of plants into their individual components, this precise engineering, makes them patentable products.  And you can sue people for patent violations.

Patenting plant genetics has been on the rise since the 1980s. Monsanto has a history of suing farmers over patent violations, even when the use is unintentional. For example, a huge percentage of corn grown worldwide is Monsanto’s Roundup Ready.  All corn is wind-pollinated, which means that even if you’re growing heirloom corn from seed you’ve saved yourself, if your neighbor grows Roundup Ready, that pollen will get into your heirloom corn plants.  And Monsanto can sue you for it.

Monsanto is not alone.

Bill Gates, the largest owner of farmland in the U.S., has been notorious for suing competitors for patent violations. Considering that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has dumped many hundreds of millions of dollars into various biotechnology ventures over the years, it’s probably safe to assume they have business interests in these Bold Goals, too.

The EO and the Bold Goals document make it clear that intellectual property protection will be a high priority with these emerging technologies.  We have no reason to assume that the developers of these new technologies will not continue to file lawsuits against independent farmers at least as aggressively as they have in the past.

Any business owner knows that constant threats of legal action make it harder to stay profitable.  Behind these nice-sounding goals are the tools to get independent people off the land.

The government is “going all Stalin” on farmers

Totalitarian governments have always dramatically shaken up who uses what land. Farmers are obnoxiously independent; their wide variety of useful skills makes them hard to herd into the 15-minute cities we’re all supposed to be living in.  This push toward bioengineering everything is designed to shake up agriculture, get independent people off the land, and turn control of agricultural processes over to technicians.

Farmer-punishing actions are being taken by governments all over the world.  The Dutch farmers have been in the news for a while now. Canadian farmers also have a very stringent new set of emissions laws that will likely drive many of them out of business.

This “solution” doesn’t benefit the average person.

The agricultural sector does face real challenges, but there are low-tech solutions, many of which are practiced by the people that read this website.  Do we need healthier food?  Absolutely.  But we know that highly processed food is a cause of, not a solution to, the health crisis.

Don’t be fooled by promises of high-tech solutions coming down the pipes.  Solutions such as the ones outlined by the Bold Goals are designed to enrich a few favored industries.  If you value your health and your independence, growing, preserving, and preparing your own food has never been more important.  (Learn how to grow food with this course.)

Are there other ramifications to this that aren’t mentioned here?

Do you think this is an agenda similar to the one that Dutch farmers are facing? How are you going to prepare yourself for this?

What, if anything, do you think we can do about it? 

***

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

A lover of novels and cultivator of superb apple pie recipes, Marie Hawthorne spends her free time writing about the world around her.

Featured image is from The Organic Prepper

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is under pressure to withdraw guidance for schools recommending that toddlers “ask questions about sexuality”, “explore gender identities” and learn about “enjoyment” of “early childhood masturbation”. The Telegraph has the story.

The guidance says that “sexuality education starts from birth” and is described as a “framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists”.

Its advice on how to “talk about sexual matters” with young children was aimed at policymakers across Europe, and was translated into several European languages and promoted at national and international events, according to the WHO.

The document was also cited in a report consulted by Welsh ministers who last year rolled out a mandatory sexual education syllabus to schools in Wales, and has led to a backlash from the Government, MPs and activists.

The advice proposes that four-to-six year-olds should be taught to “talk about sexual matters” and “consolidate their gender identity”.

It recommends that children under the age of four should be told they have “the right to ask questions about sexuality” and “the right to explore gender identities”.

The WHO guidance also says that children aged four and under should be taught about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation”.

These topics are described as the “minimal standards that need to be covered by sexuality education”.

A Government spokesperson said: “The U.K. Government does not recognise this WHO guidance and we don’t agree with its recommendations. We have not distributed or promoted it to schools. We offer our own guidance to help schools to teach children and young people about relationships and health.”

However, the WHO guidance, first published in 2010, was cited in a 2017 report commissioned by Welsh ministers entitled ‘Informing the Future of the Sex and Relationships Curriculum in Wales‘.

Worth reading in full.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Outrage Over WHO Guidance on “Sexuality for Infants”
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Imran Khan poses the greatest threat to Pakistan’s military monopoly on political power.

The arrest of former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan and leader of the Pakistan Movement for Justice (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI) caused thousands of Pakistanis to take to the streets and protest. However, Pakistan’s Supreme Court ordered on May 11 his release, offering a significant victory for the onetime leader responsible for bringing Islamabad closer to Moscow and away from US dominance until his removal from power.

On May 9, Khan was detained and arrested for the alleged embezzlement of 50 billion Pakistani rupees  ($240 million). This unleashed a wave of violent demonstrations in several cities in the country and threatens to unravel the fragile state.

The current situation is taking place against the background of several military coups because the army continues to play an essential role in the critical decisions of state policy. These internal factors had an even more substantial effect on the situation than the fact that Khan was trying to pursue an independent course in foreign policy, particularly with Moscow, whilst deepening his country’s dependency on Beijing. In addition, his domestic policy is rejected by elite military circles that maintain close ties with Britain and the US.

The former prime minister at first did not depend on any political party, and, in fact, he challenged traditional political and military circles. In Pakistan, there are two older parties: the Pakistan Muslim League and the Pakistan People’s Party, which, apart from the military, have maintained political power.

Khan, a former cricket star, emerged as a “revolutionary” by deciding that Pakistan needed to choose another path and divorce itself from Western dominance.

Pakistani voters protested after Khan was removed from power in a soft coup on 10 April 2022 and continued to support him vehemently. Now, the protesters continue to demonstrate against his targeting. Through imprisonment, Khan would have been prevented from participating in the political struggle because the military had already made its position clear — preserving the status quo, i.e., their own personal interests.

As for the US relationship with Pakistan, the latter is vital for the Americans as it is a state that directly borders Afghanistan and influences what is happening there. In particular, they are interested in and very concerned about the multiple links between the Pakistani military and the Afghan Taliban. It is recalled that Pakistan was even part of the bloc that the Americans had created against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Imran Khan brought Islamabad closer to Moscow, and for this reason, the Americans needed him removed. However, due to his immense popularity, the Americans want assurances that he will never return to power so that Pakistan can stay in its orbit of influence. For this reason, the Pakistani military is using every method to keep him out of politics.

Given that Pakistan is at the crossroads between India, China and Iran, the Americans must keep the South Asian country under its control. In addition, Washington wants the Pakistanis to stop cooperating with Russia or limit their association. Effectively, Khan wanted to stop depending on the Americans and sought to develop a relationship with Russia, but he was prevented from doing so.

As for China, it is Pakistan’s traditional “all-time” ally, as the Pakistanis call it. Only on May 10, China delivered two Type 054A/P frigates to Pakistan, meaning that all four warships of this class, first announced in 2018, have been commissioned into the Pakistan Navy. Global Times reported that the program marks the China-Pakistan friendship and the high-level defence cooperation between the two countries.

In fact, the relationship between Pakistan and China is so deep that the latter objected to a recent proposal from India to add the leader of the Pakistan-based terror organisation Jaish-e Mohammed to the UN Security Council’s 1267 ISIL and Al Qaida Sanctions list. It is also recalled that China last year put on hold proposals to blacklist Pakistan-based terrorists Hafiz Talah Saeed, Lashkar-e-Taiba leader Shahid Mahmood, and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba terrorist Sajid Mir under the Al Qaeda Sanctions regime.

Although the Americans will find it difficult to break the Pakistan-China relationship, especially as the East Asian country is one of the few states around the world willing to invest in the financial blackhole that Pakistan has become, it will be an even more difficult task if Khan was in power. His arrest is related to the fact that even though the US-backed Pakistani military removed him from power, there is every chance he could return as Prime Minister if free and fair elections are held, which would be intolerable for Washington.

Khan’s arrest came hours after the military rebuked him for alleging that a senior officer was involved in a plot to assassinate him, something the army has denied. Crucially, criticism of Pakistan’s military is considered a redline, as the state apparatus is effectively controlled by it. Khan poses the greatest threat to their political monopoly, which is why his continued persecution should not be considered surprising.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ahmed Afzaal holds his doctorate in Religion and Society from Drew University, and is an assistant professor of Comparative Religion at Concordia College. Dr. Afzaal was born in Pakistan, where he studied science and attended medical school, and is the author of numerous articles on subjects including religion and social change. Read other articles by Ahmed.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-backed Military Once Again Targets Deposed Pakistani PM Imran Khan
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Years ago I interviewed for admission into the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine with a much-beloved and much-admired cardiologist. He conducted the session with grace and kindness, and somehow we eased  into a spontaneous discussion, which was rare on those formal occasions, about Medicine. 

It went beyond the usual questions about what motivated my decision to try to become a doctor and actually veered into this eminent clinician’s revelation of his own influences, chief of which was Vallery-Radot’s biography of Pasteur. I recall that the distinguished doctor specifically mentioned Pasteur’s discoveries in vaccination and their enormously beneficial effect for humankind. Soon thereafter I searched for and found a copy of the biography in one of Philadelphia’s treasured antiquarian bookstores and read it avidly. I have it here in New Zealand on the bookshelf within the study where I write.

Like most everyone I regarded vaccines as preeminent in the history of medicine, a majestic achievement resulting in untold benefit. I myself still remember the sugar cubes through which the Sabin oral polio vaccine was administered when I was a child, and when my children were born they received the usual shots.

During medical school I learned virtually nothing about vaccination, but I availed myself of the flu vaccine twice. The yearly flu injections were in a different category from the bedrock of the childhood vaccination schedule: we knew they wouldn’t be completely effective, but we took them anyway for the promise of partial protection. But both times, two years in succession, I was bedridden after having contracted a severe case of the flu. Thereafter I avoided this particular vaccine, preferring to take my chances with vitamin C and natural immunity. 

Until 2020 I will confess that I really didn’t think about vaccines: I assumed they were good, I knew nothing about the adjuvants within the injections, and aside from avoiding the yearly flu jab, I was firmly in what some now call the ‘pro-vax’ camp.

The advent of the Corona War changed everything. Even as a psychoanalyst and psychiatrist I could discern that the liberticidal measures adopted to ‘manage’ the ostensibly lethal pandemic were groundless. I was greatly disturbed by the lack of virtually any governmental or institutional encouragement of early treatment and prevention, and when the emphasis on a vaccine solution emerged as the only way out, I realized that the fix was in. As a consequence I was compelled to educate myself with a less hagiographic and more realistically informed history of immunization and vaccinology.

The eminently useful (but horribly titled) book edited by Zoey O’Toole and Mary Holland, ‘Turtles All the Way Down’, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s magnificent ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’, probably contain within themselves the highlights of my new-found understanding of vaccines and their enormous influence on the practice of medicine.

But my purpose here is not to write about these medical treatments and interventions so much as to emphasize the dividing line the Corona War propaganda has created. It is a line that separates those who accept a gene-altering injection as a bona fide vaccine, when it prevents neither infection nor transmission of covid, from those who do not.  A line that separates those who sanctify all childhood inoculations from those who have concerns. A line that divides proponents of jab apartheid from those who assert inviolable autonomy over body and soul.

In fact, the line has become a wall.

Anyone who dares to raise questions about the association of childhood vaccines with autism and other reactions, anyone who hesitates to line up for yet another covid booster, anyone who is bold enough to forego the imposition of the covid injections even at the cost of losing his or her livelihood – well, these folks are clearly designated ‘anti-vaxxers’, an appellation that earns them ostracism, ridicule and scorn.

Thus the world, in keeping with the dry digital dualistic logarithmic ‘logic’ of globalist technocrats, may be conveniently divided into two: the virtuous and the selfish, the clean and the unclean, the good and the bad, the pro-jabbers and the despicable anti-jabbers.

These kinds of divisions ignore subtlety, scholarship and complexity, of course, which is why, for propagandists, they are so useful.

Personally speaking, I have no intention of taking any vaccination, legitimate or illegitimate: that’s my unalienable right. If I step on a rusty nail, so be it.

And as far as choice goes, I choose not to define myself by decisions about vaccination or any other medical treatment for that matter. I prefer to be defined by what I do to contribute, in whatever measure, according to my abilities, to the prevailing goodness within our human potential.

The genius of the Corona War propagandists has been to arouse the dormant hypochondriac within us all, to appeal to profound universal fears of sickness and death, fears that motivate submission, the acceptance of control and the relinquishment of fundamental rights – selling one’s soul for a bowl of potage, as it were.

The emerging genius of our Resistance lies in the appeal to living life, whose preciousness and value are all the more enhanced by its inevitable end. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Pandemic.news

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Since President Joe Biden came into office in 2021, he has described a “battle between democracies and autocracies” in which the U.S. and other democracies strive to create a peaceful world. The reality, however, is that the Biden administration has helped increase the military power of a large number of authoritarian countries. According to an Intercept review of recently released government data, the U.S. sold weapons to at least 57 percent of the world’s autocratic countries in 2022.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world’s biggest weapons dealer, accounting for about 40 percent of all arms exports in a given year. In general, these exports are funded through grants or sales. There are two pathways for the latter category: foreign military sales and direct commercial sales.

The U.S. government acts as an intermediary for FMS acquisitions: It buys the materiel from a company first and then delivers the goods to the foreign recipient. DCS acquisitions are more straightforward: They’re the result of an agreement between a U.S. company and a foreign government. Both categories of sales require the government’s approval.

Country-level data for last year’s DCS authorizations was released in late April through the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. FMS figures for fiscal year 2022 were released earlier this year through the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency. According to their data, a total of 142 countries and territories bought weapons from the U.S. in 2022, for a total of $85 billion in bilateral sales.

How many of those countries were democracies, and how many were autocracies? That question can be answered by comparing the new U.S. arms sales data to political regime data from the Varieties of Democracy project at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, which uses a classification system that’s called Regimes of the World.

The system classifies regimes into four categories: closed autocracy, electoral autocracy, electoral democracy, and liberal democracy. For a country to be classified as a democracy, it must have multiparty elections and political freedoms that make those elections meaningful. According to this methodology, the dividing line between democracies and autocracies is whether a country’s leaders are accountable to their citizens through free and fair elections.

Of the 84 countries codified as autocracies under the Regimes of the World system in 2022, the United States sold weapons to at least 48, or 57 percent, of them. The “at least” qualifier is necessary because several factors frustrate the accurate tracking of U.S. weapons sales. The State Department’s report of commercial arms sales during the fiscal year makes prodigious use of “various” in its recipients category; as a result, the specific recipients for nearly $11 billion in weapons sales are not disclosed.

The Intercept's review of recently released government data found that the U.S. sold weapons to 57 percent of the world’s autocracies in 2022.

The Intercept’s review of recently released government data found that the U.S. sold weapons to 57 percent of the world’s autocracies in 2022. Graphic: The Intercept

The Regimes of the World system is just one of the several indices that measure democracy worldwide, but running the same analysis with other popular indices produces similar results. For example, Freedom House listed 195 countries and for each one labeled whether it qualified as an electoral democracy in its annual Freedom in the World report. Of the 85 countries Freedom House did not designate as an electoral democracy, the United States sold weapons to 49, or 58 percent, of them in fiscal year 2022.

These findings contradict Biden’s preferred framing of international politics as fundamentally a struggle in which the world’s democracies, led by the United States, are on “the side of peace and security,” as he called it in last year’s State of the Union address. Opposing the United States and its democratic allies are the autocracies that collude to undermine the international system, Biden has stated. In a speech in Warsaw last year, he said the battle between democracy and autocracy is one “between liberty and repression” and “between a rules-based international order and one governed by brute force.” The White House’s 2022 National Security Strategy adds, “The most pressing strategic challenge facing our vision is from powers that layer authoritarian governance with a revisionist foreign policy.”

Despite that rhetoric, a review of the new data suggests instead a business-as-usual approach to weapons sales. Former President Donald Trump based his arms sales policy primarily on economic considerations: corporate interests above all else. In his first foreign trip as president, he traveled to Saudi Arabia and announced a major arms deal with the repressive kingdom. Trump’s business-first approach resulted in a dramatic upturn in weapons sales during his administration.

U.S. arms sales in 2022 exceeded Trump-era highs, according to data from the Congressional Research Service.

U.S. arms sales in 2022 exceeded Trump-era highs. Graphic: The Intercept

In Biden’s first full fiscal year as president, weapons sales from the United States to other countries reached $206 billion, according to the State Department’s annual tally, which uses an opaque but seemingly broader accounting of yearly FMS and DCS figures; Biden’s first-year total surpasses the Trump-era high of $192 billion. The multibillion-dollar effort to train and equip Ukraine doesn’t fully explain the dramatic rise in total arms sales last year, let alone to autocracies. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine didn’t occur until five months into fiscal year 2022, and much of the assistance from the United States to Ukraine took the form of grants (not sales) and the transfer of materiel from Pentagon stockpiles through the presidential drawdown authority.

Rather, the new figures reveal the continuity between Republican and Democratic administrations. While Biden signaled early on that his arms sales policy would be based primarily on strategic and human rights considerations, not just economic interests, he broke from that policy not too long after entering office by approving weapons sales to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other authoritarian regimes.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

In the wake of tyrannical pandemic measures and other threats to public health, medical health professionals have a choice to make.

Will they continue to fall for the false ‘safe and effective’ narratives?

Or will they acknowledge reality, stand up and speak out against the lies?

These ‘Good Morning CHD’ doctors have resolved to do the latter. Listen in!

Click here or the photo to view the video

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The Corona Crisis: Canadian Doctors Testify, “Speak Out against the Lies”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Introduction 

“COVID is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize, total biometric surveillance.”  — Yuval Noah Harari, World Economic Forum  

Using the fake “COVID virus” narrative as cover, the privileged, power-mad parasites who pilfer the world’s wealth have sharply accelerated their longstanding plan to create a single global empire that is completely under their command.  

This single global empire will ultimately employ the services of all the transnational institutions on the planet in order to regulate and control every aspect of human life.  

It is a global empire run by an exclusive club, perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 strong, whose members do not pledge allegiance to any national flag, who snobbishly view themselves as superior to their countrymen, and who are indifferent to political ideology so long as they can control the political structure from within. They aim to erase all national borders and are well on their way to shredding the constitutions of every nation-state.  

It is a global empire that, unlike days of yore, needs no standing army to wage war on a battlefield against an opposing empire. For, in this era of the single global empire, the enemy being subdued is each and every one of us.  

That mission is being accomplished through a sophisticated information warfare campaign, which is designed to monitor and manipulate our every thought, word, and deed.  

Importantly, this offensive attack on us is intended to suppress and stamp out freedom in every aspect of our lives—economic freedom; political freedom (particularly the freedom to impart and receive information and to accept or reject information); physical movement freedom; healthcare decision freedom; and, above all, the independence to think for ourselves—what can be called mental freedom.   

Before I expose this global empire in more detail, I would like to share with you, dear reader, a story about my parents. It serves to contrast the 1950s’ version of mass surveillance and harsh restrictions on individual freedoms in certain parts of the world with the 2020s version of repression, wherein all of humanity—regardless of where one lives—is steadily and surreptitiously being herded into an omnipresent totalitarian control grid. 

Harking Back To 1955  

In 1955, my parents, Maida and Janko, risked everything to leave their homeland, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It was not a decision they took lightly, for it meant losing everything—possibly even their lives—if Yugoslav authorities ever found out that my parents had no intention of ever returning after visiting neighboring Austria for what they told border guards was simply a fun weekend excursion.  

Image: Josip Broz Tito (Licensed under the Public Domain)

Josip Broz Tito uniform portrait.jpg

Since the end of the Second World War, Yugoslavia had been ruled by the communists under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito. Although Tito’s government tried to improve the living standards of the average person, his apparatchiks’ authoritarian rule left a lot to be desired.   

For instance, a major impediment to progress was the entrenched corruption at every level of the Yugoslav government. Members of the Communist Party received privileges and favors, while everyone else waited months on end for basic necessities, such as foodstuffs and housing. Among party members, kickbacks and bribery were commonplace. Advancement up the social and political ladder was based on party allegiance and on who you knew, not on merit.   

Another major drawback under Tito’s reign was the curtailment of individual freedoms. My parents had witnessed firsthand an erosion of their basic rights—their right to assemble; their right to speak freely; their right to travel; and their right to own a business. If anyone bravely spoke out, either publicly or privately, against these injustices, the state would monitor and track his every move. One could even be watched by a nosy neighbour, who might well be working as a snitch for the government.  

The surveillance net cast over Yugoslav society and the restrictions imposed on civil liberties became worse as the rift between Belgrade and Moscow intensified in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Starting in 1948, the Soviets actively tried to interfere with Yugoslavia’s domestic political affairs. They even sought to overturn the Yugoslav government, for Moscow disapproved of Tito’s desire to chart an independent course, separate from the Soviet-dominated Eastern Bloc.   

In June 1948, for example, the Soviets addressed the Yugoslav people with a call to overthrow their government. Yet, despite Moscow’s shadow permeating all levels of Yugoslavia’s internal political affairs, Tito’s communists managed to retain power. The USSR and its Eastern European allies refused to retreat, though. They still threatened to invade upon any pretext.  

At Stalin’s behest, the Soviets tried to assassinate Tito on several occasions. Meanwhile, once-friendly neighbors like Hungary and Romania, now in the grip of the USSR, blocked Yugoslavia’s borders and shot at—and sometimes killed—Yugoslav border guards.  

Against this backdrop, my parents made the fateful decision to leave their homeland. For years, they had been hearing through the grapevine about the “Promised Land”: the continent of North America. A land where the post-war economy was booming. A land of endless possibilities and countless opportunities. A land where, if one were willing to work hard, anything could be achieved. It was time for them to make their move. 

Fortunately, my mother had stayed in contact with Franc Kopitar, a close friend of her family since childhood. Franc, after having served with Tito’s partisans (his partisan code name was Silvo) during the Second World War, had joined the Yugoslav state tourist and transport agency Putnik. (The agency was later renamed Kompas—a name it holds to this day.)  

Although Franc was a patriot, ready to do whatever was necessary to defend his nation against an invading military force, he deeply distrusted the communists. Thus, he was willing to secretly help my parents escape Tito’s iron fist to seek a better life.  

In 1955, through his connections in the government, Franc was able to secure the requisite visa and travel documents that enabled my parents to visit Graz, Austria, on a “temporary weekend pass.” The documents were the real deal: They bore the required stamps of authorization and other markings that would mislead the authorities into believing that my parents would return after their weekend sojourn in neighboring Austria.  

Franc had instructed my parents to fully furnish their apartment with newly purchased furniture before they left. He knew this would mislead anyone who might be prying into my parents’ travel plans. After all, why on earth would anyone spend all of their meagre earnings to buy brand new furniture for their apartment if they planned to permanently leave the country?   

With the deceptive scene of decorated rooms set in place and their deceptive scheme set in motion, my by-now-virtually-penniless parents packed everything they treasured into two small suitcases and set out for the Ljubljana train station on a cold January afternoon in 1955.           

Filled with hope and trepidation, they boarded the train that would take them to the Yugoslav/Austria border. Not knowing how this momentous day would end, three questions weighed heavily on their minds:   

Who and what was waiting for them at the border?  

If their papers were not in order, were they going to be taken to prison and interrogated for days on end?  

Worse, if their papers were not in order or their demeanor seemed suspicious, would they be hauled off the train and escorted to a nearby forest, never to be seen again? They knew such a tragic end had befallen many unfortunate souls who had tried to escape Tito’s reign. 

The train reached the border with Austria by nightfall. (Austria at the time was divided into four Allied occupation zones: British, American, French, and Soviet.) Before it was allowed to cross into the British occupation zone, Yugoslav military authorities boarded in search of anyone who looked remotely suspicious or was suspected of traveling without authorization.  

My parents had been instructed by Franc to look the soldiers straight in the eye and smile when asked to present their documents for inspection. It was imperative to make eye contact. If you were perceived to be avoiding the authorities’ direct gaze or if you looked nervous, you would immediately be ordered to disembark.  

But making eye contact was easier said than done. My parents watched helplessly as a passenger interrogated ahead of them was removed from their railway car and dragged into the adjacent forest. Within seconds, they heard the echo of gunshots.  

Years later, my parents told me it was one of the most difficult moments they ever had to endure. They recalled feeling morbid fear and dread as they forced themselves to sit calmly and not perspire—while their insides were turning to jelly.  

To their enormous relief, when it came time to have their documents examined, everything was found to be in order. Nothing about their papers, their countenance, or their actions betrayed their secret. And so they were allowed to remain on the train and proceed into Austria.   

Once they reached the Graz train station, they had no idea what to do or where to go. So they stood on the platform until a man in a grey trench coat approached and asked, in perfect Croatian (though with a British accent), “Are you visiting or escaping?”  

After hearing their answer, the man chaperoned them to a processing centre, where they were provided with food and water by the Catholic relief agency Caritas Internationalis. From there they were transported by bus, along with other refugees, to a Displaced Person Camp (DP Camp Nr. 1001) located in Wels, Austria, in the American occupation zone.  

There, my parents were interrogated and processed by American officials and then shown to their tight-but-blessedly clean accommodations in the crowded camp.  

Although the camp was crammed with refugees from all over Eastern Europe, everyone made a point of getting along. My parents met many wonderful people of every neighboring nationality—Hungarian, Ukrainian, Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian—and from all walks of life during their stay at the camp. In the evenings, everyone played cards and shared stories—always full of intrigue and often pathos—about their harrowing journey from Eastern Europe. 

After spending three months at the DP camp, my parents were invited to move into the home of a wonderful Austrian family as part of the Austrian government’s refugee sponsor program, which was coordinated through the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The program was intended to help refugees learn the German language while providing them with a trade so that they could better assimilate into and contribute to Austrian society. (On average, about ten percent of all refugees would end up permanently staying in Austria, while the remainder would move abroad.)   

Despite having forged an enduring bond of friendship during their sixteen months of lodging with the Austrian family, they nonetheless made the bold decision to voyage across the North Atlantic to the Port of Montreal, Canada, in 1957.   

And the rest, as they say, is history. 

Advancing To 2023 

Lately I’ve asked myself: If my parents lived today in the region now known as the former Yugoslavia and if they sought to move to a country that promised them an opportunity to improve their fortunes, where would they go?   

If they were looking for a place in which the inherent, inalienable rights of citizens are respected by the government, could they find such a place on any continent?   

Would they still travel to the Commonwealth country of Canada?  

Would they venture as far as the two southernmost Commonwealth nations—New Zealand and Australia?  

Would they flee to the ostensibly free United States? Or to a US-controlled European Union country?  

How about moving to one of the BRICs—say, to Brazil, Russia, or India? (No, they probably wouldn’t be tempted by China!) 

One way to answer these questions is to take a look at the current political and economic conditions in the aforementioned countries—and ascertain the “freedom factor”—or lack thereof—in each.   

As we make our way from country to country, we will examine the actions of their governments over the past three years and reach a conclusion on behalf of my parents.   

Let’s start with the country they adopted and the country I was born and raised in: Canada.  

A 2023 Look at Canada  

When my parents immigrated to Canada in 1957, it was indeed a land of opportunity and of plenty. It was possible for a middle-class, single-income family with two children to own a house, a couple of vehicles, and perhaps a summer cottage.  

My parents had only a sixth-grade education, but they were willing to work hard. In a span of two years, they earned and saved enough to start their own business—a beauty salon. By 1963, they were able to buy their first detached home for $10,000, with a $5,000 down payment. Five years later, they managed to pay off the mortgage from the proceeds of their modest income. Looking back, I find their determination and savings skills incredible! 

Now, imagine what that same scenario would look like today. The average selling price of a Canadian detached home in January 2023 was $612,204. If we apply what my parents did, putting down half the price, we would shell out a whopping $306,000 up front then pay off the remaining $306,000 over the next five years.  

That works out to approximately $61,200 in annual mortgage payments, not including interest. If we calculate the cost of food, clothing, and fuel—another $40,000 per year for an average four-person family—we would have to earn around $100,000 a year plus another $100,000 or so to cover property and income taxes and mortgage interest.   

Thus, we would have to earn around $200,000 in pre-tax annual income to live a fairly moderate lifestyle, afford our mortgage, taxes, and basic costs of living—all to achieve what my parents were able to do in the early 1960s on an at-the-time much more modest income. Does such a scenario seem even remotely possible today? I think not.  

The truth of the matter is that in Canada, as in most of the world, the cost of living has skyrocketed. The broad middle class that existed in Canada and most of the Western world from the 1950s through the 1980s, three decades when the average worker could own his own home, is being squeezed out of existence.  

Rapid inflation has eaten away the purchasing power of both Canadian and US dollars even as housing costs have helium-ballooned up, up, and away. Making matters worse, rising energy, food, household goods, and healthcare prices have contributed to spiraling inflation, which is aggravating an already serious decline in real wages.  

On the political scene, the present conduct of the Canadian government is virtually unrecognizable compared to the conduct of its predecessor government in the 1950s. The current regime in Canada, like most of the so-called “Western liberal democracies,” has shown disdain for truth and for individual freedom ever since the pseudopandemic was unleashed on the world in March 2020.  

Like most countries, Canada’s federal and provincial governments implemented reprehensible COVID measures—lockdowns, physical distancing, masking, quarantines, QR codes, and experimental mRNA gene therapy mandates—to combat the alleged “deadly COVID virus.”  

Source: David Skripac

When Canadians from all walks of life revolted peacefully against the assault on their inalienable and constitutional rights by forming and participating in the Truckers Freedom Convoy, the regime retaliated. Full of spite, the thuggish Trudeau found an extreme way to remove protesters’ right to peacefully assemble. On February 14, 2022, he invoked the Emergencies Act—the first time it had ever been enacted in Canadian history.  

The invocation of the Emergencies Act enabled Ottawa police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to forcibly dismantle the four-week-long, thousands-strong peaceful demonstration in the nation’s capital. Despite being orderly, respectful, and nonviolent, these unarmed citizens were beaten by brutal, rifle-wielding officers. Two elderly protesters were trampled by police horses, and journalists were pepper-sprayed and shot. 

Using the pretext of the Emergencies Act, the federal government even went so far as to freeze the bank accounts of some Canadians who had either organised or financially supported the convoy.  

Then, on April 27, 2023—more than a year after the protest was broken up—Bill C-11, officially known as the Online Streaming Act, became law. Cowardly Canadian senators voted for it despite all their previously recommended amendments to it having failed. The new law will enforce sweeping internet censorship legislation that silences everyday Canadians on social media platforms.  

In sum, Canada has completely lost its sense of humanity. The compassion and kindness that Canadians are known for throughout the world still exists, but it is being suppressed and buried under a mountain of lies propagated by the government and its handlers, who are part and parcel of the aforementioned global dictatorship.  

CONCLUSION: Maida and Janko would not find economic freedom, political freedom, physical freedom, healthcare freedom, or mental freedom in today’s Canada.   

We’ll now take a peek at three other Commonwealth of Nations countries. 

A 2023 Look at Australia, New Zealand, and the UK 

The rulers of the other fifty-five nations in the Commonwealth couldn’t engineer an excuse for following Canada’s freeze on bank accounts, but some of them adopted especially savage measures to eradicate an alleged novel disease called COVID-19.  

The Australian government not only mandated curfews, masking, physical distancing, and the shutdown of the economy through lockdowns, but it ordered the army to patrol city streets during the lockdowns. In the Northern Territories, soldiers forcibly removed residents who were suspected of having the dreaded disease and transported them to Quarantine Camps.   

In two major Australian cities, the political puppets controlled by the global oligarchs may not have frozen the bank accounts of lockdown protestors, but they did order police in riot gear to attend protests in Melbourne and Sydney, where they shot rubber bullets at unarmed fleeing people and pepper-sprayed the face of a 70-year-old woman who had fallen and was lying helpless in the street.  

New Zealand, likewise, turned into a full-fledged police state, enforcing home detentions and citywide quarantine zones. Whoever was found breaching the government’s draconian lockdown orders faced arrest and even a prison sentence. In March 2023, for example, Pastor Billy Te Kahika and his colleague, Vincent Eastwood, were sentenced to four months and three months imprisonment, respectively, for illegally organising and attending a protest in front of TVNZ. 

Aside from implementing ruthless COVID measures similar to Australia’s, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern arbitrarily mandated “vaccination” for public health officials , pharmacists, barbers, teachers, and community support service employees. (More on Ardern below.)  

The UK government, while not as harsh as its Aussie or Kiwi counterparts, nonetheless behaved repressively and reprehensibly in its anti-COVID efforts. Police were ordered to enforce a limit on gatherings of no more than six people in pubs, restaurants, cinemas, and outdoor spaces.   

Like its Commonwealth partners, Britain didn’t shy away from using dubious tactics to manipulate a subset of its population. Its “nudge unit,” set up by the Cabinet Office in 2010, has been applying behavioural science principles—aka the pressure of propaganda—to steer public policy on everything from paying taxes to insulating homes. During the scamdemic, this unaccountable and unethical “nudge unit” scared, shamed, and scapegoated the public into taking the COVID jab.  

We mustn’t forget that the UK is home to one of the world’s leading technocrats, the newly crowned King Charles III. In January 2020, then-Prince Charles returned to Davos for the first time in thirty years to speak at a World Economic Forum annual meeting—this one was celebrating the WEF’s 50th anniversary. And what subject did this pseudo-environmentalist address? Why, of course, his passion for adopting decarbonization and other sustainable development initiatives, which he had to know were designed to further impoverish the poor and further enrich His Royal Highness and his avaricious buddies around the globe.   

CONCLUSION: Maida and Janko would not find economic freedom, political freedom, physical freedom, healthcare freedom, or mental freedom in today’s Commonwealth of Nations countries.  

We’ll pause here to inquire: Who are the actors reading their lines from the same worldwide script and performing identical roles as enforcers for the emerging global government?  

In Canada, the most notable cast members are Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland. Both are lackeys of Klaus Schwab and graduates of his Young Global Leaders (YGL) academy—the indoctrination arm of the World Economic Forum (WEF).   

Other characters in this unfolding drama—YGL graduates all—include New Zealand’s dictatorial former Prime Minister-turned-Harvard-fellow Jacinda Ardern, France’s equally despotic President Emmanuel Macron, Russia’s Prime Minister-President-Prime Minister-President-since-1999 Vladimir Putin, and tech tyrants Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. According to one source, there are approximately 3,800 YGLs—and counting.    

The YGLs’ chief raison d’être, it would appear, is to carry out the WEF’s Great Reset/Fourth Industrial Revolution initiatives. The WEF agenda is being aided and abetted by the secretive Bilderberg Group, by Malthusian depopulationists at the eugenical Club of Rome, and, most notably, by the globe-wide organization that fathered the WEF: the United Nations.   

Through its deceptive Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its sinister Agenda 2030—the latter saddled with admirable-sounding-but-actually-imprisoning Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—the UN has put in place a system designed to subjugate the entire population of the planet by transforming every human being into a feudal serf and an technocratic slave and a bug-and-synthetic-meat-eating transhuman—or topsoil!    

As I write this, Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals are being instituted across the globe through the WEF’s Great Reset and its transhumanist Fourth Industrial Revolution.  

And, as I write this, the installation of those SDGs is being abetted by numerous central banks—most notably the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, the European Central Bank (ECB), the People’s Bank of China (PBC), the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (CBR), and the US Federal Reserve (the Fed). These and other nations’ central banks are coordinating their efforts with what Tragedy and Hope author Carroll Quigley referred to as the “apex of the central bank network, the Basel, Switzerland-based Bank for International Settlements (BIS).  

The central bankers intend to unleash, eventually in every nation on earth, the most extensive, oppressive social control mechanism ever devised: the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). (In the beginning, each country will have its own CBDC, but it makes sense that ultimately they would be merged into a single global digital currency.)  

The implementation of CBDCs, combined with the rollout of a digital ID system, country by country, will spell the end of human freedom. Both the CBDCs and the digital IDs will be sold by the central banks to the unsuspecting public as a safeguard to protect the user’s anonymity and data. However, that pitch will be a deception designed to obscure the malicious intent and dictatorial bent of this monumental control grid.  

Of the 208 nations with central banks, 119 of them are currently developing their own form of digital currency.   

And that brings us to the United States of America, its all-seeing, all-knowing, all-controlling Federal Reserve Bank, and its other forms of imprisonment and enslavement. 

A 2023 Look at the US   

In addition to the planned rollout of the Federal Reserve-issued CBDC, there is movement afoot to launch a nationwide digital ID in the US.  

US Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming have introduced Senate Bill 884, also known as “the Improving Digital Identity Act of 2023.” If this bill passes both chambers and is signed into law, it will require all Americans to have a valid digital ID if they want to connect to the internet, open and maintain a bank account, obtain a passport, and gain access to medical care. In essence, it will mimic the social credit score system the government of China uses to track and control its citizens. It is the very vehicle that the WEF is so eager to deploy across the rest of the world. 

SB 884 is the latest, most obvious, and most concerning evidence of the US governments ongoing public-private partnership with Big Tech. It points to the intent of the corporate-controlled, highly centralized and security-conscious government to surveil the movements of the entire US population.   

Of course, the panopticon created by the Improving Digital Identity Act will allow US federal and state agencies to not only monitor everyone’s actions but also to block, silence, and sideline dissenters who disagree with the official narrative. All layers of government will be able to openly, actively, legally censor citizens and ignore their rights as codified by the constitutions of the US and its 50 states.  

This is exactly what Google and its YouTube, Meta and its Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms have been doing to their users in their attempts to silence anyone who presents inconvenient facts about COVID or any other politically sensitive agenda.    

For those of you who think the State of Florida is a shining example of preserving liberty and human rights, think again. Gov. Ron DeSantis has just sidelined Florida’s Senate Bill 222, the Protection of Medical Freedom Bill. SB 222 would have ended all discrimination against the unvaccinated, ended all existing and future vaccine mandates, and ended all existing and future vaccine passports for all Floridians, regardless of the vaccines being mandated by the federal government or by the eugenicists at the World Health Organization (WHO)—which, like the WEF, is allied with the UN.   

In its place, Gov. DeSantis is promoting SB 252, which would end vaccine mandates and passports only for existing “COVID-19 vaccines.” Under SB 252, citizens in Florida would not be protected from future “pandemics,” future vaccine mandates, or future vaccine passport requirements. 

Therefore, in the future, when the director (read: dictator) of the WHO declares a new pandemic under the vague requirements stipulated in the upcoming new global “Pandemic Treaty”—without even a shred of evidence of the existence of a contagious disease—Floridians would be required to surrender their bodily autonomy to an entirely new set of draconian mandates.  

In some ways, the US is the worst in the world when it comes to stripping citizens of the right to make their own healthcare decisions and safeguard their mental and physical sovereignty. For, besides working intimately with the transhumanist ideologues at the WHO, the Rockefeller Foundation, the WEF, and other UN agencies for several years, the US federal government has been at the epicenter of development, testing, and deployment of the experimental mRNA gene therapy “countermeasures.” This research and the resulting products have adversely affected the lives of not only Americans but of people throughout the world.   

Looking back, we recall that in early 2020 the US government, as part of Operation Warp Speed (OWS), worked hand-in-hand with the Department of Defence (DoD) and its US Army Contracting Command branch, plus the National Security Council (NSC) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), to award clinical development and manufacturing contracts to each of the “vaccine” manufacturers—Pfizer, ModernaAstrazeneca, Novavax, GlaxsoSmithKline (GSK), and Jansen—even before deployment of the dangerous COVID-19 experimental gene therapies to the 50 states and the rest of the world could proceed. 

The DoD went so far as to design, oversee, and organise the highly sensitive clinical trials for these experimental products. These steps are typically taken by the vaccine manufacturers themselves. They traditionally take years and years to complete, compared to the few weeks in which the COVID-19 trials were apparently conducted.   

CONCLUSION: Maida and Janko would not find economic freedom, political freedom, physical freedom, healthcare freedom, or mental freedom in today’s United States of America.    

But what if my parents decided to move to today’s Germany or the German part of Switzerland?  

Or what if they chose to join the defiant anti-Macron protesters in France instead of departing, as they did, from the port at Le Havre on a ship bound for the Port of Montreal?  

Or what if they felt for—and elected to fight side-by-side with—the persecuted farmers in The Netherlands?  

Or what if they opted to stay put in 2020s’ Austria?   

Would they find any aspect of freedom left in the European Union countries? 

A 2023 Look at the EU  

The simple answer: No! The EU is a premeditated economic, political, and social failure.   

In fact, the EU was an idea dreamed up not by the citizens of any nation in Europe but by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and David Rockefeller’s Club of Rome. Their rationale for creating the EU was painfully obvious: It’s easier for intelligence agencies and avowed eugenicists to control one larger, dependent, compromised, and impotent entity than to control numerous smaller, still-independent, sovereign nation-states.  

The leaders—if they can be called that—of the European nations are EU sock puppets and shills. As such, they are doing everything in their power to deindustrialise and destroy their respective economies. As I just said, weakened national and regional governments are much easier to fold into a global empire than are strong, independent ones. The leaders of Germany, France, Austria, Spain, et al. have to know this, which means they have been corrupted to the core.   

Here’s a prime example. The so-called heads of state in Europe insist they are protecting their own country’s national sovereignty and security by imposing economic sanctions on Russia—at Washington’s behest. They pretend the sanctions are meant to injure the big bad bear who dared attack NATO-controlled Ukraine.  

But this is not true. The sanctions are actually decimating their own economies and peoples. The energy shortages, rising prices of goods, food shortages, and climbing interest rates throughout Europe are all intended results of those sanctions. I repeat: The leaders of Germany, France, Austria, Spain, et al. have to know this, which means they have been corrupted to the core.  

They also pretend that the structure of the EU’s central government in Brussels is a “representative democracy.” No, it isn’t. Not even close. At its heart is the European Commission (EC)—the EU’s executive body—which is made up of unelected officials. The current EC President, notoriously corrupt Ursula von der Leyen, sets policy for the entire EU behind closed doors. Once the EC formulates a new policy, it’s just a matter of time before the bureaucrats in the European Parliament give it their rubber stamp of approval.   

Secrecy, non-transparency, and no accountability are the name of the game. The EC is a farce and a failure through and through.  

Similarly, the purported independence of the European Central Bank (ECB) is a sham. Although its website says the ECB is not “allowed to seek or take instructions from EU institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body,” the ECB is heavily influenced by the bank that created it in 1999: the BIS.   

And, like the BIS, the ECB’s day-to-day operations are kept secret. It never releases a press release after a monetary policy meeting of its Governing Council, despite the European Parliament passing repeated resolutions demanding that it do so.  Moreover, its structure, method of operation, and lack of accountability mirror that of the BIS.   

In short, it’s hard to imagine a more undemocratic institution than the ECB. Yet this is the bank that Eurozone nations are asked to blindly trust when it comes to formulating their monetary policy. Simply mind-boggling!   

With such an autocratic structure already in place, it was oh-so-easy for EC members to go along with the “pandemic” narrative by making backroom deals with the pharmaceutical companies to purchase millions of doses of the COVID-19 “vaccine” and by recommending that all member states implement the criminal COVID-19 measures.    

Likewise, it was a snap to persuade EU member states to stand by in silence after Washington, the real power behind NATO, carried out a blatant act of war against them by destroying the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.    

We spoke earlier of a few graduates of Klaus Schwab’s YGL academy, mentioning one European alumnus, France’s Macron, by name. Other Young Global Leaders who have advanced through the political ranks in Europe include former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and current German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Not to be left out: EU President Ursula von der Leyen, who sits on the WEF’s Board of Trustees.      

Not surprisingly, the EU member states are following the US lead in pressing ahead with a digital ID system and basing it on China’s enslavement/imprisonment model.    

Image is from @Ver365_UK/Twitter

V E R I F Y 365 - Digital Onboarding Technology (@Ver365_UK) / Twitter

Croatia (once part of Yugoslavia), where my father, Janko, is from, plans to be the first EU member to roll out the digital ID system for travelers flying between Zagreb and Helsinki this summer. The “pilot project” is using the UK-based company Verify 365 to merge the electronic identity of passengers with the new MyID Digital Wallet system. As always, the scheme is being promoted to the public as “a safe, secure and convenient way to prove who you are.”  

Thankfully, some citizens in EU countries are rising up in defiance of the ruling oligarchy. In the Netherlands, for instance, thousands of Dutch farmers revolted against their government’s insane plan to cut nitrogen emissions by permanently closing more than 11,000 farms. The farmers created their own political movement, the Farmer-Citizen Movement—or  BoerburgerBeweging (BBB)—which recently triumphed in regional elections after months of widespread tractor protests.  

Then we have the millions of disgruntled citizens who have been regularly flocking to the streets of Paris and other major French cities to protest various economic and political “reforms.” Their initial complaint about higher fuel taxes (remember the yellow vest movement in 2019?) has evolved into a revolt against “Monarch” Macron’s decision to increase the legal pension age from 62 to 64. Macron’s invocation of Article 49.3—for the 11th time in his “reign”—allowed him to bypass the National Assembly (France’s lower house of Parliament). On May Day, protests against that perceived injustice got ugly.    

To be sure, these massive demonstrations and the BBB’s encouraging victory are positive steps. No major liberation of Europeans from their own governments will take place, however, until the entire edifice of the EU is torn down.Most importantly, Europe will not be fully emancipated until NATO is dismantled. Only then will the people of each European nation be truly freed from the shackles of the Washington establishment that dictates every aspect—military and economic and otherwise—of their lives.     

CONCLUSION: Maida and Janko would not find economic freedom, political freedom, physical freedom, healthcare freedom, or mental freedom in today’s European Union countries.       

In all fairness, we must point out that totalitarian control and surveillance mechanisms, such as digital IDs and CBDCs, are not unique to Western countries. Venturing into the Eastern countries, we would encounter the exact same control grid being developed, with the same globalist , imperialist players at the helm, all of them ensuring that the East, like the West, remains under their domination.    

One group of nations that is neither geographically East nor West but that has formed a bloc to counteract the dominance of the US and its allies is what Goldman Sachs ex-chief economist Jim O’Neill coined the BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.   

I wonder: Would my parents ferret out a haven of freedom in any of the BRICS nations? We’ll soon find out.  

A 2023 Look at the BRICS Nations    

Countless pundits and journalists in the alternative media have opined that the BRICS nations—particularly Russia, China, and India—are leading the charge in an anti-globalist, anti-global-governance, anti-single-global-empire crusade.  

On the contrary, nothing could be further from the truth. 

Here are some proofs that they misunderstand the geopolitical reality: 

  • All of the BRICS nations are firmly onboard the WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution and the UN’s Agenda 2030—notably its SDGs. 
  • The central banks of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa are all forging ahead with plans to roll out their programmable CBDCs as soon as possible. Among those five central banks, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) are considering putting expiration dates on their CBDCs. 
  • The BRICS are not challenging Western economic hegemony. Their financial initiatives are deeply connected to the World Bank and the IMF. Therefore, they must be seen as closely connected to the Washington establishment, not clashing with it (despite appearances to the contrary). 

When it comes to COVID-19, China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin have been leading the pack in enacting a biosecurity surveillance state.  

Indeed, ever since the scamdemic scare was announced in early 2020, the Kremlin has been complicit, just like the collective West, in carrying out harmful anti-human, anti-health measures under the direction of the WHO’s health tyranny.

Image is from InfoBrics

For example, President Putin and his Minister of Health (and WHO executive board member) Mikhail Albertovič Murashko have been promoting mass vaccination. Their Sputnik V injection is virtually identical to the British-Swedish pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca’s injection. In fact, the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF)—the Kremlin fund that finances Sputnik V—signed a memorandum of cooperation with AstraZeneca in December 2020.  

Moreover, Russia has introduced vaccination mandates for certain regions of the country and mandatory jabs for the military.   

Because Russia has no equivalent of the US CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), it’s difficult to ascertain exactly how many Russians are being injured or murdered by their experimental Sputnik V jab. Nevertheless, thanks to Argentina’s Ministry of Health, we do know that, of the three “vaccines” the Argentinian government has adopted for use—Sputnik V, AstraZeneca, and China’s Sinopharm—the Sputnik V injection has been the leader of the pack when it comes to causing adverse reactions, beating the other two contenders by a huge margin.  

Russian doctors are well aware of health risks associated Sputnik V, but they are labeled “terrorists” and are threatened by the state with excessive fines and prison time if they voice their concerns. Afraid of the consequences, most of them self-censor.  

If you think biometric surveillance is unique to China and the West, you are wrong. Herman Gref, the CEO of Russia’s Sberbank and a member of the WEF’s Board of Trustees (with Ursula von der Leyden, you will recall), has teamed up with Russian telecom titan Rostelecom to form Digital Identification Technologies JV, which will create a unified biometric system for all of Russia.   

Soon, the poor propagandized and punctured people of Russia will not be able to access any government services unless they hand over their biometric data—bypassing the need for pesky QR codes altogether.  

Should we be surprised that Putin and his functionaries are no more curbing individual freedoms than are the West’s tyrants? Why would we be? What would prevent Putin from following in the footsteps of his predecessors? Nothing I know of, unless the people of Russia begin to mobilise and protest in a big way, as their French brothers and sisters have done in Paris.   

Consider: When Mikhail Gorbachev presided over the former Soviet Union, he was avowed member of the globalist-eugenicist Club of Rome. He also partnered with Canadian globalist-eugenicist Maurice Strong to establish the Earth Charter global sustainability project in conjunction with Agenda 21. Both Gorbachev and Strong were leading figures in the UN’s early steps toward global governance.   

Just because the Soviet Union petered out and Gorby and Strong are no longer with us is no reason to assume that Russia’s ruler of twenty-four years has not been pursuing the same globalist ends. Indeed, Putin hardly seems the type to let other world leaders hog the limelight, take all the marbles, or grow dangerously bigger and stronger than he is.        

Truth be told, BRICS bloc members Russia and China are simply another version of the same totalitarian control grid set up by the technocrats in the West. Neither of them offers any out—any salvation from the harms of biologics, biometrics, and biosecurity—to their people.  

In fact, China has been the test bed for all of the totalitarian mechanisms that either have been or will be let loose on the rest of the world. During the pseudopandemic, China launched a series of vicious COVID-19 measures—inhumane lockdowns, mandatory QR codes, ubiquitous biometric surveillance, mass compulsory vaccination, forced—and enforced—masking rules, and constant testing. In short, China is a full-fledged scientific dictatorship, aka technocracy.

And what about the other three BRICS nations: Brazil, India, and South Africa?

Besides being onboard the WEF bandwagon, the WHO bandwagon, the CDBC bandwagon, the World Bank and IMF bandwagon, and thus the entire Western hegemonic bandwagon, have these three countries installed any politicians or policies or programs that are freedom-oriented and that would make my parents want to flee to them?    

First, Brazil. The largest South American country is now under the thumb of the globalist cabal with the election of Luiz Inácio Lulada Silva (commonly known as “Lula”), Brazil’s 39th President. Unlike his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who refused to sign an international pandemic treaty and resisted certain aspects of the scamdemic scheme, Lula fully embraces the monolithic, world-dominating agenda of the WHO, GAVI, and the WEF.   

To wit: In February 2023, Lula declared that for families to remain eligible for the famous Bolsa Family Program (BFP), a social program for the poorest of the poor families, they must vaccinate their children—specifically with the COVID-19 experimental gene therapy. Otherwise, they lose the benefits afforded them under the BFP.     

Next, India. Contrary to what both the mainstream and the alternative media have been claiming, the Gates Foundation never got “kicked out” of India. In fact, the opposite is true. In 2006, for example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with India’s former Prime Minister Manmohan, launched the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI).  

Over the years, the PHFI received funding from pharma companies (e.g., GSK, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson), from “philanthropists” (e.g., the usual suspects: Bill and Melinda Gates and the Rockefellers), and from NGOs (e.g., the World Bank and USAID). When the WHO declared the “pandemic” in early 2020, members of the PHFI were perfectly poised to create, advise, and direct the Indian government’s national COVID Task Force. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to conclude that the PHFI was pivotal in steering all COVID-19 measures and COVID-19 injection-related policies in India.

Last, South Africa. Working closely with the nation’s servile mass media, the South African government, headed by President Cyril Ramaphosa, imposed one of the longest, most severe lockdowns on the continent. The impact of closing small businesses on a populace that largely depends on weekly subsistence wages was catastrophic. Because the state failed to deliver subsides to the poor and self-employed for over a year, nearly one quarter of all small businesses went under, and unemployment skyrocketed. 

Brian Pottinger, writing for UnHerd, outlines what the consequences were for those brave individuals who dared challenge the South African government’s insane lockdown restrictions:

An entire section of the population was effectively criminalised: in the first four months of the outbreak, 230,000 citizens, 0.4% of the population, were charged with infringement of the Disaster Regulations for breaking the restrictions, 311 of them policemen. All the charges were later dropped: the criminal justice system simply could not cope.

Thus, there is no way to justify calling the BRICS economic model a non-globalisation alternative to the West’s globalisation push when, in reality, it is just another form of globalisation—a different approach to globalisation. 

Like the Western model, the BRICS model is structurally inflationary. Like the Western model, the BRICS model is not free market-based, but, rather, industrial policy-based. And, significantly, the BRICS model is part and parcel, as is the Western model, of the new international world order. They are the same dysfunctional plan, just with different brandings.

CONCLUSION: Maida and Janko would not find economic freedom, political freedom, physical freedom, healthcare freedom, or mental freedom in any of today’s BRICS nations.

Granted, there are great power rivalries taking place on the world stage. To the average person, it may actually look as if we are indeed living in a multipolar world, where the weakened nations of the West—led by the fading US empire—on one side of the divide are battling to retain supremacy over the energized nations of the East—led by Russia and China—on the other side of the divide.   

“But examples of multipolarity abound,” you insist.    

I understand: There’s the conflict in Ukraine, where innocent people on both sides are suffering and dying needlessly.  

I understand: Tensions are brewing off the coast of China, where the American Empire is trying in vain to prevent China’s inevitable takeover of Taiwan.   

I understand: That same slowly dying American Empire is feverishly trying to prevent European-Russian economic integration by blowing up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, thus enabling Washington to maintain its temporary grip on that region until its inescapable economic collapse is complete.  

Despite the veneer of multipolarity, however, there is—as I mentioned at beginning of this article—a single global empire operating at a higher level. Or, you could say, at a deep state level. The unipolar empire exists outside of the general field of perception of the majority of the worlds populace. It transcends not only the East-West partition but all other divides between nations. We will now find out how this is so. 

The Global Empire: A Unipolar Prison, a Digital Gulag   

At the top of the global empire is “the central bank of all central banks”—the highly secretive and unaccountable Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Its task is to direct and coordinate monetary and fiscal policy for all the central banks around the globe. This is how the BIS directly controls the world’s money supply and indirectly controls trade and national economies. 

By holding such an influential and prominent position, the BIS forms the apex of a pyramid-like structure that consists of a ladder-like hierarchy of organizations and institutions comprising the global empire. All of them are run by what I call the parasite class.

Source: Iain Davis

Per this Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) chart created by UK researcher and journalist Iain Davis, the global empire’s structure is designed so that the chain of command flows from the BIS to the world’s central banks and from them to . . .

. . . the policymakers at the think tanks. These include various Rockefeller funds and foundations, plus the Rockefeller-founded Club of Rome, the Rockefeller-founded Trilateral Commission, and the Rockefeller-founded Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Some of these think tanks actually have non-Rockefeller roots, among them the CFR’s UK equivalent, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), and the hardcore eugenicist Chatham House, founded by British diplomat Lionel Curtis in the aftermath of World War One.  

The think tanks work in partnership with the BIS and the central banks to set international public-private policy objectives. Once these big-picture objectives are formulated, they go to . . .  

. . . the policy distributors, such as the Rockefeller-founded United Nations, the UNs WHO and IPCC, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, ostensible philanthropists (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation comes to mind), global corporations, and NGOs.  

As their name implies, the distributors are tasked with disseminating the policies far and wide, to all corners of the world. They make sure the policies also get into the hands of officials on the next ladder rung down, who are called . . .   

. . . the policy enforcers. Their ranks include the various military branches, the judiciary, police and security forces, and any other enforcement arms built into all layers of government (national, provincial, state, local).   

These governmental law enforcement bodies work in conjunction with selected scientific authorities, such as . . . 

. . . the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).  

All of these agencies and authorities must justify the policies they are required to enforce. They often write rules and regulations and ordinances and codes for the policies and then pass them down to the organizations on the lowest rung of the ladder. Iain Davis calls them . . . 

. . . the “policy propagandists”—or, in polite terms, the perception managers. These media and public relations outfits, consisting of the mainstream media (“Establishment” newspapers, magazines, and television and radio stations), social media platforms (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter), and fact checkers (Full Fact, PolitiFact, Snopes, AP Fact Check, Poynter, etc.), work alongside hybrid warriors (77th Brigade and HutEighteen, for example) and anti-hate campaigners. The latter include the US-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).  

The propagandists’ job is to persuade the public—us billions of ordinary folks who stand beneath the ladder-like pyramid—to unthinkingly accept the lies we are being fed and to automatically acquiesce to the repressive policies.  

In summary, humanity has never in its entire history faced such an all-pervasive totalitarian, technocratic system of governance.   

The purpose of this despotic empire is to curtail, if not remove, humans’ fundamental freedoms, steal our wealth, sap our physical, moral, emotional, and spiritual strength, separate us from our friends and families, and thus control us from head to toe, from here to there and everywhere, all day and all night.    

Working behind the scenes, the BIS and the central banks are already causing some sizable banks (think Signature, Silicon Valley, and First Republic banks) to collapse. From here on in, the number of bank failures will only increase. Soon the biggest banks (think JPMorgan Chase & Co.) will start gobbling up not just large and mid-sized competitors but also smaller regional and local banks.    

Once the central banks have completely implemented their planned AI-controlled digital monetary and financial system, we will all be held hostage in their global empire, sentenced to their unipolar prison, confined in their digital gulag.   

The ailing American Empire will continue to exist for the time being. But that’s only because the parasite class that has been feeding off America’s wealth for centuries still needs the American military to do its bidding—its dirty work—abroad. Once the corporate controlled US Empire has served its purpose economically and militarily and is no longer a viable host, those same greedy parasites will have a feast to end all feasts—with the aim of draining that once-strong, swaggering nation to the last drop. No empire has withstood the generations of blood-suckers.   

Putin, too, is dispensable and disposable in the parasitic globalists’ eyes. He cannot curry their favor simply by playing along with their agenda, even though he may perceive himself to be one of them. If Russia is not careful, it will be dismembered, piece by piece. Its valuable resources will be snatched and sold off. It will be turned into a land of warring fiefdoms. Parasites are equal opportunity feeders.    

Even common folk like you and I are not immune from the parasitic class, which attaches itself to and absorbs anyone willing to be its host. Regardless of our location, we are all, in varying degree, already living within reach of the tentacles of the parasites’ global empire.   

And that brings us back to the question I asked at the start of this article: If my parents had stayed in their place of birth, the region now known as the former Yugoslavia, for the last 58 years and if only now, in 2023, they decided they’d had their fill of the technocratic state’s suppression of their rights, where would they go to find freedom?   

My 96-year-old father answered that question when I posed it to him recently. “Knowing what the world is like today,” he replied, “I would probably not go anywhere. Yes, Belarus holds the gold standard when it comes to not complying with the COVID narrative, but I would most likely stay in my home country of Croatia. I would join a network of likeminded people—someone like journalist Andrija Klarić of Slobodni podcast—so that together we can find solutions to this nightmare.”   

This article is written in memory of my mother, Maida, and in tribute to her childhood friend Franc, who saved her and her husband, Janko, from a life of repression in Yugoslavia and from possible death by firing squad during their escape.  

It also honors my father, Janko, who persuaded me to open my eyes to the ugly, if hidden, realities of the world. With perseverance and patience, he pounded into my teenage head that all is not as it appears to be. He told me to always question everything, to get as many different perspectives as possible when looking into any subject, and, above all, to “follow the money trail, for it never lies.”  

They would want me to expose and reject the global empire and its nefarious agenda. They would welcome a truly multipolar world. A world in which “we the people” live in peace, respect everyone’s God-given right to freedom, privacy, and individual sovereignty, and work together in ways that benefit all of humanity and bless our beautiful, abundant earth.   

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

David Skripac has a Bachelor of Technology degree in Aerospace Engineering. He served as a Captain in the Canadian Forces for nine years. During his two tours of duty in the Air Force, he flew extensively in the former Yugoslavia as well as in Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Djibouti.  

He is the author of the e-book Our Species Is Being Genetically Modified and a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


Our Species Is Being Genetically Modified. Are We Witnessing Humanity’s March Toward Extinction? Viruses Are Our Friends, Not Our Foes

By David Skripac

My hope is that I have succeeded in deconstructing the official narrative: first, by explaining how viruses have been blanketing the earth with their genetic codes for eons, creating biodiversity and allowing for adaptation throughout the ecosystem, and, second, by pointing out the myriad ways reckless human behaviour is creating a real environmental catastrophe—not the carbon-is-the-culprit con, but actual pollution and deforestation and species extinction, to name a few such scourges. These real problems are being ignored by the fake “climate change” crowd, who hide their mercenary motives behind euphemisms like “sustainable development goals” (SDGs) and “environmental, social, and governance” benchmarks (ESGs) and florid phrases such as the “Great Reset” and “Build Back Better.”

Click here to read the e-Book.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Moving Toward a Global Empire: Humanity Sentenced to a Unipolar Prison and a Digital Gulag
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

 

 

VIDEO: Air Transat performs Water Canon salute for the returning body of Pilot Eddy Vorperian. 

Click here or the photo to view the video

Four recent Pilot deaths

Ten recent Pilot incapacitations in-flight 

My Take… 

This information comes to me from two private messages. It is not on the news. It can’t be found anywhere, other than in the messages of those who knew him personally.

A pilot for Air Canada and Air Transat, with 25 years experience dies suddenly at the age of 48 and this doesn’t warrant even a paragraph in the mainstream media?

Is the media deliberately suppressing information about pilot deaths? It certainly looks that way.

At least one facebook posts mentions compelled COVID-19 vaccine injections.

Eddy Vorperian deserved better.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pilot Died: Air Transat and Former Air Canada Pilot Eddy Vorperian, Age 48, from Montreal, Canada, Died Suddenly on May 3, 2023

Los robos financieros de Estados Unidos

May 15th, 2023 by Hedelberto López Blanch

Anticlerical Rule Is on the Rise in Iran

May 15th, 2023 by Prof. Akbar E. Torbat

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The women-led anti-hejab movement that began after the death of Mahsa Amini on September 16, 2022, in Iran, is ongoing. Even though the street protests have subsided, many Iranian women defy to comply with wearing Islamic hejab in public.

Nonetheless, the Islamic government is fighting to enforce hejab by various means, including closing stores that admit women without headscarves and preventing women without wearing hejab from entering metros and other public service places such as schools and universities.

The government has also installed cameras in various places to monitor hejab enforcement. The enforcement of Islamic hejab has led to many anticlerical protests throughout Iran. The government has dealt with people’s protests by crackdowns, arrests, imprisonments, and executions. Consequently, a violent anticlerical wave has started in Iran. 

Several clerics have been killed or injured in various places in Iran in the past few weeks. A senior Islamic cleric Abbas-Ali Suleimani was assassinated by a security guard on April 26, 2023, inside Bank Meli in Babolsar in the Mazandaran Province.

Suleimani had previously served for 17 years as the representative of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the province of Sistan-Baluchestan. This province has been the site of many anti-government protests in recent months. According to people who knew Suleimani, he was pro-gender separation in all public places. On the same day, a junior mullah was purposely run over by a car, and on April 29, another cleric was stabbed in the city of Qum. On April 30, Lieutenant Alireza Shahraki, the head of the Saravan District Awareness Police Department, was assassinated. On May 5, the body of a mullah, Ibrahim Fazel, who had been missing for four days, was dragged out of the water in the coastal village of Goldasht in the Province of Mazandaran. On May 7, a mullah was injured after a young man attacked him with a knife in Ahmedabad village of Saveh city in the Central province.

The clerical oligarchy has claimed that the anticlerical incidents have been instigated by the reformists and celebrities inside Iran who are supported by the Western powers.

The pro-clerics daily newspaper Kayhan wrote: “These [terrors] and dozens of other examples are just a small part of the efforts of the pro-reform media or domestic-westernization process to complete the puzzle of the enemy in creating hatred in society and social disintegration of the country.”[i]

In recent years, the ruling clerics’ political base has shrunk tremendously. The Middle class is feeling resentment and has turned against the ruling clerics. The clerics and their family members have moved up to the wealthy upper class by accumulating wealth. They engage in rent-seeking activity under the guise of Islamic and anti-imperialist slogans. In contrast, the high rate of inflation has pushed down the middle class to become a part of the dispossessed underpaid laborer, and that has further intensified the anticlerical feelings.

The clerics opiate the masses with promises of rewards in another world after death. They preach to people to pray five times a day to be rewarded by God to go to heaven. Even so, most Iranians have turned against the ruling clergy, as they feel they have been deprived of basic living standards.

The young generation of Iranians does not listen to the clerics’ superstitious preaching. Two Iranian political prisoners, Yousef Mehrdad and Sadrollah Fazeli Zari, who had managed a cable channel called “Critique of Superstition and Religion,” were sentenced to death for the charges of “insulting the Prophet and religious sanctities,” “promoting atheism,” and “apostasy.” They were hanged on May 8, 2023. Many other people have been executed on various charges. According to Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, there have been 798 executions in Iran since the beginning of 2022 to this date.[ii]

Ebrahim Raisi became president in a low-turnout election engineered by Khamenei. The results of Raisi’s two years in office include the fastest decline in the national currency’s value, the highest growth of money supply, the highest historical rate of inflation, and the biggest historical collapse of Tehran’s stock indexes in a day.

The high rate of inflation has pushed down real wages, which has brought teachers and factory workers to the street to demand higher pay for their work. The country is struggling through the collapse of the nation’s currency, the rial. President Raisi has used printed money borrowed from the Central Bank of Iran (Bank Markazi) to spend on promises he had made two years ago during his presidential campaign. Inflation and financial corruption caused by the clerical leadership and their cronies have intensified anticlerical feelings throughout Iran.

The Islamic regime in Iran has become a Shi’a dictatorship by reactionary clerics. The clerics’ only concern is to remain in power. The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, controls all three branches of the government directly or indirectly. The ruling clerics have used nepotism and marriage schemes to limit the important positions to themselves and their family members. For example, the current head of the parliament (Majles) Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf is a nephew of the Supreme Leader’s wife. The Supreme Leader’s daughter is married to the son of Ayatollah Mohamad Golpayegani, who is the chief of the Supreme Leader’s office. The Supreme Leader’s son Mujtaba Khamenei is married to a daughter of Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, the former head of the parliament. President Ebrahim Raisi is the son-in-law of Ayatollah Ahmad Alamolhoda, the Friday Prayer leader in Mashhad, the hometown of Khamenei. Alamolhoda is also the city’s representative in the Assembly of Experts.

On April 30, 2023, Reza Fatemi Amin, the minister of Industry, Mines, and Trade, was impeached in the parliament to be questioned for providing wrong statistics and prioritizing the interests of two major Iranian automobile companies. The minister was dismissed by the Majles due to the high prices of automobiles and rent-seeking corruption.

So far, the mullahs have not given up their enforcement of hejab, believing that yielding on that issue will open the door to other demands, and those could pave the way for ending the clerical rules, which they are unwilling to accept.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Akbar E. Torbat ([email protected]) is the author of “Politics of Oil and Nuclear Technology in Iran,” Palgrave Macmillan, (2020). He received his Ph.D. in political economy from the University of Texas at Dallas.

Featured image: Raisi speaking at a presidential campaign rally in Tehran’s Shahid Shiroudi Stadium (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Anticlerical Rule Is on the Rise in Iran
  • Tags:

Geoffrey Hinton, AI, and Google’s Ethics Problem

May 15th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

 

 

 

Talk about the dangers of artificial intelligence, actual or imagined, has become feverish, much of it induced by the growing world of generative chat bots.  When scrutinising the critics, attention should be paid to their motivations.  What do they stand to gain from adopting a particular stance?  In the case of Geoffrey Hinton, immodestly seen as the “Godfather of AI”, the scrutiny levelled should be sharper than most.

Hinton hails from the “connectionist” school of thinking in AI, the once discredited field that envisages neural networks which mimic the human brain and, more broadly, human behaviour.  Such a view is at odds with the “symbolists”, who focus on AI as machine-governed, the preserve of specific symbols and rules.

John Thornhill, writing for the Financial Times, notes Hinton’s rise, along with other members of the connectionist tribe:  “As computers became more powerful, data sets exploded in size, and algorithms became more sophisticated, deep learning researchers, such as Hinton, were able to produce ever more impressive results that could no longer be ignored by the mainstream AI community.”

In time, deep learning systems became all the rage, and the world of big tech sought out such names as Hinton’s.  He, along with his colleagues, came to command absurd salaries at the summits of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft.  At Google, Hinton served as vice president and engineering fellow.

Hinton’s departure from Google, and more specifically his role as head of the Google Brain team, got the wheel of speculation whirring.  One line of thinking was that it took place so that he could criticise the very company whose very achievements he has aided over the years.  It was certainly a bit rich, given Hinton’s own role in pushing the cart of generative AI.  In 2012, he pioneered a self-training neural network capable of identifying common objects in pictures with considerable accuracy.

The timing is also of interest.  Just over a month prior, an open letter was published by the Future of Life Institute warning of the terrible effects of AI beyond the wickedness of OpenAI’s GPT-4 and other cognate systems.  A number of questions were posed: “Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth?  Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones?  Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us?  Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?

In calling for a six-month pause on developing such large-scale AI projects, the letter attracted a number of names that somewhat diminished the value of the warnings; many signatories had, after all, played a far from negligible role in creating automation, obsolescence and the encouraging the “loss of control of our civilization”.  To that end, when the likes of Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak append their signatures to a project calling for a pause in technological developments, bullshit detectors the world over should stir.

The same principles should apply to Hinton.  He is obviously seeking other pastures, and in so doing, preening himself with some heavy self-promotion.  This takes the form of mild condemnation of the very thing he was responsible for creating.  “The idea that this stuff could actually get smarter than people – a few people believed that.  But most people thought it was way off.  And I thought it was way off. […] Obviously, I no longer think that.”  He, you would think, should know better than most.

On Twitter, Hinton put to bed any suggestions that he was leaving Google on a sour note, or that he had any intention of dumping on its operations.  “In the NYT today, Cade Metz implies that I left Google so that I could criticize Google.  Actually, I left so that I could talk about the dangers of AI without considering how this impacts Google.  Google has acted very responsibly.”

This somewhat bizarre form of reasoning suggests that any criticism of AI will exist independently of the very companies that develop and profit from such projects, all the while leaving the developers – like Hinton – immune from any accusations of complicity.  The fact that he seemed incapable of developing critiques of AI or suggest regulatory frameworks within Google itself, undercuts the sincerity of the move.

In reacting to his longtime colleague’s departure, Jeff Dean, chief scientist and head of Google DeepMind, also revealed that the waters remained calm, much to everyone’s satisfaction.  “Geoff has made foundational breakthroughs in AI, and we appreciate his decade of contributions to Google […] As one of the first companies to publish AI Principles, we remain committed to a responsible approach to AI.  We’re continually learning to understand emerging risks while also innovating boldly.”

A number in the AI community did sense that something else was afoot.  Computer scientist Roman Yampolskiy, in responding to Hinton’s remarks, pertinently observed that concerns for AI Safety were not mutually exclusive to research within the organisation – nor should they be. “We should normalize being concerned with AI Safety without having to quit your [sic] job as an AI researcher.”

Google certainly has what might be called an ethics problem when it comes to AI development.  The organisation has been rather keen to muzzle internal discussions on the subject.  Margaret Mitchell, formerly of Google’s Ethical AI team, which she co-founded in 2017, was given the heave-ho after conducting an internal inquiry into the dismissal of Timnit Gebru, who had been a member of the same team.

Gebru was scalped in December 2020 after co-authoring work that took issue with the dangers arising from using AI trained and gorged on huge amounts of data.  Both Gebru and Mitchell have also been critical about the conspicuous lack of diversity in the field, described by the latter as a “sea of dudes”.

As for Hinton’s own philosophical dilemmas, they are far from sophisticated and unlikely to trouble his sleep.  Whatever Frankenstein role he played in the creation of the very monster he now warns of, his sleep is unlikely to be troubled.  “I console myself with the normal excuse: If I hadn’t done it, somebody else would have,” Hinton explained to the New York Times.  “It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: Geoffrey Hinton giving a lecture about deep neural networks at the University of British Columbia (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Geoffrey Hinton, AI, and Google’s Ethics Problem

Cries and Whispers Along the Russian Watchtowers

May 15th, 2023 by Pepe Escobar

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

“Whispers of an ‘evil power’ were heard in lines at dairy shops, in streetcars, stores, apartments, kitchens, suburban and long-distance trains, at stations large and small, in dachas, and on beaches. Needless to say, truly mature and cultured people did not tell these stories about an evil power’s visit to the capital. In fact they even made fun of them and tried to talk sense into those who told them.” — Mikhail Bulgakov, The Master and Margarita

To quote Dylan, who might have been a Bulgakov epigone: “So let us stop talking falsely now/the hour’s getting late.” By now it’s quite clear the delusion of a “peace” deal in Ukraine is the latest wet dream of the “non-agreement capable” usual suspects, always hooked on lies and plunder while deftly manipulating selected liberals among the Russian elite.

The goal would be to appease Moscow with a few concessions, while crucially keeping Odessa, Nikolaev and Dnipro, and safeguarding what would be NATO’s access to the Black Sea.

All that while investing in rabid, resentful Poland to become an armed to the teeth EU military militia.

So any “negotiations” towards “peace” in fact mask a drive to postpone – just for a little while – the original masterplan: dismembering and destroying Russia.

There are very serious discussions in Moscow, even at the highest levels, on how the elite is really positioned. Rougly three groups can be identified: the Victory party; the “Peace” party – which Victory would describe as surrenders; and the Neutral/Undecided.

Victory certainly includes crucial actors such as Dmitry Medvedev; Rosneft’s Igor Sechin; Foreign Minister Lavrov; Nikolai Patrushev; head of the Investigative Committee of Russia, Aleksandr Bastrykin; and – even under fire – certainly Defense Minister Shoigu.

“Peace” would include, among others, the head of Telegram, Pavel Durov; billionaire entrepreneur Andrey Melnichenko; metal/mining czar Alisher Usmanov (born in Uzbekistan); and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Neutral/Undecided would include Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin; mayor of Moscow, Sergei Sobyanin; Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office, Anton Vaino; First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential administration and media czar, Alexey Gromov; Sberbank’s CEO Herman Gref; Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller; and – special bone of contention – perhaps FSB supremo Alexander Bortnikov.

It’s fair to argue the third group represents the elite majority. This means they heavily influence the entire course of the Special Military Operation (SMO), which by now has metastasized into an Anti-Terror Operation (ATO).

The “counter-offensive” fog of war

These different Russian views at the very top predictably elicit frantic speculation among US and NATO Think Tankland. Hostages of their own excitement, they even forget what anyone with an IQ over room temperature is aware of: Kiev – stuffed with $30 billion in NATO weaponry – may come up with less than zero effects out of its much lauded “counter-offensive”. Russian forces are more than prepared, and Ukraine lacks the surprise element.

Collective West hacks, after feverish head scratching, finally discovered that Kiev needs to go for a “combined arms operation” to get something out of its new deluge of NATO toys.

John Cleese has noted how the coronation of Charles The Tampax King looked like a Monty Python sketch. Now try this one as a sequel: the Hegemon cannot even pay its trillions in debt while Kiev P.R. goons complain that the $30 billion they got is peanuts.

On the Russian front, the indispensable Andrei Martyanov – a maelstrom of wit – has observed how most alarmed Russian military correspondents simply have no idea “what type and volume of combat information is pouring to the command posts in Moscow, Rostov-on-Don or staffs of frontline formations.”

He stresses that “no serious operational level officer” will even talk to these guys, joyfully described as “voenkurva” (roughly, “military bitches”), and simply will not “divulge any kind of operational data which is highly classified.”

So, as it stands, all the sound and fury about the “counter-offensive” is shrouded by a thick fog of war.

And that only serves to add more fuel to the fire of US Think Tankland wishful thinking. The new dominant narrative in the Beltway is that the leadership in Moscow is “fragmented and unpredictable”. And that may be leading to “a conventional defeat of a major nuclear power” whose “command-and-control system broke down.”

Yes: they actually believe in their own silly (copyright John Cleese) propaganda. They are the American equivalent of the Ministry of Silly Walks. Incapable of analyzing why and how the Russian elite holds different views on the method and the extent of the SMO/ATO, the best they can come up with is “protecting Ukraine is a strategic necessity, since the Russian threat increases if Moscow wins in Ukraine.”

What’s behind Prighozin’s sound and fury

Trademark American arrogance/ignorance does not erase the fact there seems to be a serious power struggle among the siloviki. Yevgeny Prigozhin, a siloviki, in fact denounced Shoigu and Gerasimov as incompetent, implying they only keep their posts out of loyalty to President Putin.

This is as serious as it gets. Because it’s linked to a key question posed across several educated silos in Moscow: if Russia is widely known to be the strongest military power in the world with the most advanced defensive and offensive missiles, how come they have not wrapped up the whole deal in the Ukrainian battlefield?

A plausible answer is that only 200,000 members of the Russian army are currently fighting, and about 400,000 to 600,000 are waiting in reserve for the Ukraine attack. While they wait they are in constant training; so waiting works to Russia’s advantage.

Once the famous “counter-offensive” peters out, Ukraine will be hit with massive force. There will be no negotiated settlement. Only unconditional surrender.

What goin’ on right now – the Prigozhin drama – is subordinated to this logic, running in parallel to a quite sophisticated media operation.

Yes, the Ministry of Defense (MoD) made several serious mistakes, as well as other Russian institutions, since the start of the SMO. To criticize them in public, constructively, is a salutary exercise.

Prighozin’s tactics are a gem; he manipulates a degree of public outrage/indignation to put pressure on the MoD bureaucracy by essentially telling the truth. He could even go as far as naming names: officers who are abandoning different sectors of the frontlines. In contrast, his Wagner “musicians” are pictured as true heroes.

Whether Prigozhin’s sound and fury will be enough to fine tune the MoD’s entrenched bureaucracy is an open question. Still, media coverage of the whole drama is essential; now that these problems are in the public domain, people will expect the MoD to act.

And by the way, this is the essential fact: Prighozin has been allowed (italics mine) to go as far as he wants by the Higher Power (the St. Petersburg connection). Otherwise he would be in a revamped-gulag by now.

So the next few weeks are absolutely crucial. Putin and the Security Council certainly know what everyone else doesn’t – including Prighozin. The key take away is that the ground will start to be laid for US/NATO to eventually turn rump Ukraine, the Baltic lap dogs, rabid Poland and a few other extras into a sort of Fortress Eastern Europe engaged in a war of attrition against Russia with the potential to last decades.

That may be the ultimate argument for Russia to finally go for the jugular, as soon as possible. Otherwise the future will be bleak. Well, not so bleak. Remember Putin: “We haven’t even started anything yet.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Strategic Culture Foundation.

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

Featured image is licensed under the Public Domain

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The way mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin and his private army have been waging a significant part of Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine has been well covered in the American media, not least of all because his firm, the Wagner Group, draws most of its men from Russia’s prison system. Wagner offers “freedom” from Putin’s labor camps only to send those released convicts to the front lines of the conflict, often on brutal suicide missions.

At least the Russian president and his state-run media make no secret of his regime’s alliance with Wagner. The American government, on the other hand, seldom acknowledges its own version of the privatization of war — the tens of thousands of private security contractors it’s used in its misguided war on terror, involving military and intelligence operations in a staggering 85 countries.

At least as far back as the Civil War through World Wars I and II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the first Gulf War, “contractors,” as we like to call them, have long been with us. Only recently, however, have they begun playing such a large role in our wars, with an estimated 10% to 20% of them directly involved in combat and intelligence operations.

Contractors have both committed horrific abuses and acted bravely under fire (because they have all too often been under fire). From torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to interrogations at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, from employees of the private security firm Blackwater indiscriminately firing on unarmed Iraqi civilians to contractors defending a U.S. base under attack in Afghanistan, they have been an essential part of the war on terror. And yes, they both killed Afghans and helped some who had worked as support contractors escape from Taliban rule.

The involvement of private companies has allowed Washington to continue to conduct its operations around the globe, even if many Americans think that our war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere has ended. I tried looking for any kind of a survey of how many of us realize that it continues in Iraq and elsewhere, but all I could find was pollster Nate Silver’s analysis of “lessons learned” from that global conflict, as if it were part of our history. And unless respondents were caring for a combat-wounded veteran, they tended not to look unfavorably on sending our troops into battle in distant lands — so scratch that as a lesson learned from our forever wars. 

None of this surprises me. American troops are no longer getting killed in significant numbers, nor are as many crowding the waitlists at backlogged Veterans Affairs hospitals as would be the case if those troops had been the only ones doing the fighting.

At points during this century’s war on terror, in fact, the U.S. used more civilian contractors in its ongoing wars than uniformed military personnel. In fact, as of 2019, according to Brown University’s Costs of War Project, which I co-founded, there were 50% more contractors than troops in the U.S. Central Command region that includes Afghanistan, Iraq, and 18 other countries in the Middle East, as well as Central and South Asia. As recently as December 2022, the Pentagon had about 22,000 contractors deployed throughout that region, with nearly 8,000 concentrated in Iraq and Syria. To be sure, most of those workers were unarmed and providing food service, communications aid, and the like. Even more tellingly, roughly two thirds of them were citizens of other countries, particularly lower-income ones.

In 2020, retired Army Officer Danny Sjursen offered an interesting explanation for how the war on terror was then becoming ever more privatized: the Covid-19 pandemic had changed the Pentagon’s war-making strategy as the public began to question how much money and how many lives were being expended on war abroad rather than healthcare at home. As a result, Sjursen argued, the U.S. had begun deploying ever more contractors, remote drones, CIA paramilitaries, and (often abusive) local forces in that war on terror while U.S. troops were redeployed to Europe and the Pacific to contain a resurgent Russia and China. In other words, during the pandemic, Washington placed ever more dirty work in corporate and foreign hands.

(Not) Counting Contractors

It’s been a challenge to write about private security contractors because our government does anything but a good job of counting them. Though the Defense Department keeps quarterly records of how many civilian contractors it employs and where, they exclude employees contracted with the Central Intelligence Agency or the State Department.

When Costs of War first tried to count contractor deaths by searching official government sources, we came up short. The spouse of a gravely wounded armed contractor directed me to her blog, where she had started to compile a list of just such deaths based on daily Google searches, even as she worked hard caring for her spouse and managing his disability paperwork. She and I eventually lost touch and it appears that she stopped compiling such numbers long ago. Still, we at the project took a page from her book, while adding reported war deaths among foreign nationals working for the Pentagon to our formula. Costs of War researchers then estimated that 8,000 contractors had been killed in our wars in the Middle East as of 2019, or about 1,000 more than the U.S. troops who died during the same period.

Social scientists Ori Swed and Thomas Crosbie have tried to extrapolate from reported contractor deaths in order to paint a picture of who they were while still alive. They believe that most of them were white veterans in their forties; many were former Special Forces operatives and a number of former officers with college degrees).

Limited Choices for Veterans

How do people of relative racial, economic, and gendered privilege end up in positions that, while well-paid, are even more precarious than being in the armed forces? As a therapist serving military families and as a military spouse, I would say that the path to security contracting reflects a deep cultural divide in our society between military and civilian life. Although veteran unemployment rates are marginally lower than those in the civilian population, many of them tend to seek out what they know best and that means military training, staffing, weapons production — and, for some, combat.

I recently spoke with one Marine infantry veteran who had completed four combat tours. He told me that, after leaving the service, he lacked a community that understood what he had been through. He sought to avoid social isolation by getting a government job. However, after applying for several in law enforcement agencies, he “failed” lie detector tests (owing to the common stress reactions of war-traumatized veterans). Having accidentally stumbled on a veteran-support nonprofit group, he ultimately found connections that led him to decide to return to school and retrain in a new profession. But, as he pointed out, “many of my other friends from the Marines numbed their pain with drugs or by going back to war as security contractors.”

Not everyone views contracting as a strategy of last resort. Still, I find it revealing of the limited sense of possibility such veterans experience that the top five companies employing them are large corporations servicing the Department of Defense through activities like information technology support, weapons production, or offers of personnel, both armed and not.

The Corporate Wounded

And keep in mind that such jobs are anything but easy. Many veterans find themselves facing yet more of the same — quick, successive combat deployments as contractors.

Anyone in this era of insurance mega-corporations who has ever had to battle for coverage is aware that doing so isn’t easy. Private insurers can maximize their profits by holding onto premium payments as long as possible while denying covered services.

A federal law called the Defense Base Act (1941) (DBA) requires that corporations fund workers’ compensation claims for their employees laboring under U.S. contracts, regardless of their nationalities, with the taxpayer footing the bill. The program grew exponentially after the start of the war on terror, but insurance companies have not consistently met their obligations under the law. In 2008, a joint investigation by the Los Angeles Times and ProPublica found that insurers like Chicago-based CAN Financial Corps were earning up to 50% profits on some of their war-zone policies, while many employees of contractors lacked adequate care and compensation for their injuries.

Even after Congress called on the Pentagon and the Department of Labor to better enforce the DBA in 2011, some companies continued to operate with impunity visàvis their own workers, sometimes even failing to purchase insurance for them or refusing to help them file claims as required by law.  While insurance companies made tens of millions of dollars in profits during the second decade of the war on terror, between 2009 and 2021, the Department of Labor fined insurers of those contracting corporations a total of only $3,250 for failing to report DBA claims. 

Privatizing Foreign Policy

At its core, the war on terror sought to create an image of the U.S. abroad as a beacon of democracy and the rule of law. Yet there is probably no better evidence of how poorly this worked in practice at home and abroad than the little noted (mis)use of security contractors. Without their ever truly being seen, they prolonged that global set of conflicts, inflicting damage on other societies and being damaged themselves in America’s name. Last month, the Costs of War Project reported that the U.S. is now using subcontractors Bancroft Global Development and Pacific Architects and Engineers to train the Somali National Army in its counterterrorism efforts. Meanwhile, the U.S. intervention there has only helped precipitate a further rise in terrorist attacks in the region.

The global presence created by such contractors also manifests itself in how we respond to threats to their lives. In March 2023, a self-destructing drone exploded at a U.S. maintenance facility on a coalition base in northeastern Syria, killing a contractor employed by the Pentagon and injuring another, while wounding five American soldiers. After that drone was found to be of Iranian origin, President Biden ordered an air strike on facilities in Syria used by Iranian-allied forces. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stated, “No group will strike our troops with impunity.” While he later expressed condolences to the family of the contractor who was the only one killed in that attack, his statement could have more explicitly acknowledged that contractors are even more numerous than troops among the dead from our forever wars.

In late December 2019, a contractor working as an interpreter on a U.S. military base in Iraq was killed by rockets fired by an Iranian-backed militia. Shortly afterward, then-President Trump ordered an air strike that killed the commander of an elite Iranian military unit, sparking concern about a dangerous escalation with that country. Trump later tweeted, “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will.”

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Trump’s tweet was more honest than Austin’s official statement: such contractors are now an essential part of America’s increasingly privatized wars and will continue to be so, in seemingly ever greater numbers. Even though retaliating for attacks on their lives has little to do with effective counterterrorism (as the Costs of War Project has long made clear), bearing witness to war casualties in all their grim diversity is the least the rest of us can do as American citizens. Because how can we know whether — and for whom — our shadowy, shape-shifting wars “work” if we continue to let our leaders wage an increasingly privatized version of them in ways meant to obscure our view of the carnage they’ve caused?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Andrea Mazzarino, a TomDispatch regular, co-founded Brown University’s Costs of War Project. She has held various clinical, research, and advocacy positions, including at a Veterans Affairs PTSD Outpatient Clinic, with Human Rights Watch, and at a community mental health agency. She is the co-editor of War and Health: The Medical Consequences of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Heavy Ukrainian shelling of central Donetsk on April 28 killed nine civilians – including an eight-year-old girl and her grandmother – and injured at least 16 more. The victims were burned alive when the minibus they were in was hit by a shell.

The attack also targeted a major hospital, apartment buildings, houses, parks, streets, and sidewalks. All civilian areas – not military targets.

According to the Donetsk People’s Republic’s (DPR) Representative Office in the JCCC (Joint Monitoring and Co-ordination Center on Ukraine’s War Crimes), Kiev’s forces fired high-explosive fragmentation missiles “produced in Slovakia and transferred to Ukraine by NATO countries.” Regarding an earlier shelling on the same day, the JCCC noted that US-made HIMARS systems were used, targeting “exclusively in the residential, central quarter of the city.”

I was outside of Donetsk interviewing refugees from Artyomovsk (also known as Bakhmut) when both rounds of intense shelling occurred, the first starting just after 11am. I returned to see a catastrophic scene, with a burnt-out bus – still smoking – and some of its passengers’ charred bodies melted onto the frame. This tragic picture was sadly not a one-off event.

Elsewhere, city workers were already removing debris and had begun repaving damaged sections of the roads. I’ve seen this following Ukrainian shelling many times, including on January 1 this year, when Ukraine fired 25 Grads into the city centre. Similarly, in July 2022, Ukrainian shelling downtown killed four civilians, including two in a vehicle likewise gutted by flames. When I arrived at the scene about an hour later, workers were repaving the affected section of the street.

The damage to the Republican Trauma Center hospital was quickly cleaned up, but videos shared on Telegram immediately after the shelling show a gaping hole in one of the walls. The room concerned contained what was, apparently, Donetsk’s sole MRI machine.

Along Artyoma street, the central Donetsk boulevard targeted countless times by Ukrainian attacks, the destruction was evident: Two cars caught up in the bombing, residents of an apartment building boarding up shattered windows and doors, the all-too-familiar sound of glass and debris being swept away. In the residential area, the first to be targeted that day, in a massive crater behind one house, the walls and roof of another home were intermixed with rocket fragments.

Another year of Ukrainian war crimes

In April 2022, following strikes on a large market area in Kirovsky district, in western Donetsk, which killed five civilians and injured 23, I went there to document the aftermath, not expecting to see two of the five dead still lying in nearby lanes. This shelling was just before noon, a busy time of day in the area. Bombing at such periods is an insidious tactic to ensure more civilians are maimed or killed.

Double and triple striking the same areas is another method used by Ukrainian forces. In an interview last year, the director of the Department of Fire and Rescue Forces of the DPR Ministry of Emergency Situations, Sergey Neka, told me, “Our units arrive at the scene and Ukraine begins to shell it. A lot of equipment has been damaged and destroyed.”

Andrey Levchenko, chief of the emergency department for the Kievsky district of Donetsk, also hit by Ukrainian attacks, said: “They wait for 30 minutes for us to arrive. We arrive there, start assisting people, and the shelling resumes. They wait again, our guys hide in the shelters, as soon as we go out, put out the fire, help people, then shelling resumes.”

I was here in Donetsk in mid-June, during a day of particularly intense Ukrainian shelling of the very centre of the city, which killed at least five civilians. The DPR authorities reported that “within two hours, almost 300 MLRS rockets and artillery shells were fired.” One Grad rocket hit a maternity hospital, tearing through the roof.

The following month, Ukraine fired rockets containing internationally-banned ‘petal’ mines. The streets of central Donetsk, as well as the western and northern districts and other cities, were littered with the hard-to-spot mines designed to grotesquely maim, but not necessarily kill, anyone stepping on them. These mines keep claiming new victims to this day – when I last wrote about them here, 104 civilians had been maimed, including this 14-year-old boy. Three had died of their injuries. Since then, the number of victims has risen to 112.

In August, heavy Ukrainian shelling of the centre of Donetsk hit directly next to the hotel I was staying in, along with dozens of other journalists and cameramen. Six civilians were killed that day, including one woman outside the hotel, as well as a child. She been a talented ballerina due to leave to study in Russia soon, and along with her grandmother, her ballet teacher was also killed that day, herself a world-famous former ballerina.

Three bouts of Ukrainian shelling of the city centre in a span of just five days in September killed 26 civilians. Four were killed on September 17, among them two people burned alive inside a vehicle on the same central Artyoma Street. Two days later, 16 civilians were killed, the remains of their bodies strewn along the street or in unrecognizable piles of flesh. Three days later, Ukraine struck next to the central market, killing six civilians, two in a minibus, the rest on the street.

In my subsequent visits to Donetsk and surrounding cities in November and December, I filmed the aftermath of more Ukrainian shelling (using HIMARS) of civilian areas of Donetsk and the settlement of Gorlovka to the north. The November 7 shelling of central Donetsk could have killed the toddler of the young mother I interviewed. Fortunately, after hearing the first rockets hit, she ran with her son to the bathroom. When calm returned, she found shrapnel on his bed.

The November 12 shelling of Gorlovka damaged a beautiful historic cultural building, destroying parts of the roof and the theatre hall within. According to the centre’s director, it was one of the best movie theatres in Donetsk Region, one of the oldest, most beautiful, and most beloved buildings in the city. He noted that the HIMARS system is a very precise weapon, so the attack was not accidental.

The shelling goes on

Early morning during Easter Mass on April 16, the Ukrainian army fired 20 rockets near the Cathedral of the Holy Transfiguration in the centre of Donetsk, French journalist Christelle Neant reported, noting that one civilian was killed and seven injured. The shelling extended to the central market just behind the cathedral. Just over a week prior, on April 7, another shelling of that market killed one civilian and injured 13, also considerably damaging the market itself.

Ukraine continues to shell the western and northern districts of Donetsk, also pounding Gorlovka, as well as Yasinovatya just north of Donetsk (killing two civilians some days ago).

On April 23, shelling in Petrovsky, a hard-hit western Donetsk district, killed one man and injured five more. The same day, in a village northeast of Donetsk, a rocket killed two women in their 30s. Security camera footage shows the moment when the women attempted to take cover. The munition that killed them hit directly next to where they huddled.

A few days later, on my way to interview refugees from Artyomovsk sheltering in another city, I passed along the tiny village where those women were killed. It’s a road I’ve driven a dozen times or more, a quiet, calm, scenic region of rolling hills, a lovely river, a beautiful church. It’s far from any front line. The murder of these two women was another Ukrainian war crime.

The people here are constantly terrorized by Ukrainian shelling or the threat of it, and have been since Kiev started its war on the Donbass in 2014.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).

She is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from Sputnik

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Donetsk Civilians Live in Constant Fear of Ukrainian Shelling, a Reporter on the Ground Details the Terror
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Every uncompromised world politician and citizen of the world, who against great odds, have kept themselves informed and abreast of the complicated historical geo-politics that exists in Ukraine, already know what can only be the ultimate outcome of the war in Ukraine. Especially if they’ve kept themselves informed and abreast over the past nine years since the American Government’s Neo-Con-led Coup of 2014, as well as, the failed attempts ever since by the world’s powers, with the Minsk II Accords Normandy Format and the Steinmeir Formula, to stop the slaughter of ethnic and Russian-speaking Russians in the Donbas by Nazi-led Ukrainians and other fascists in the Western World.

Those who still possesses: even half a brain that hasn’t already been totally propagandized, and still possess the ability to honestly engage within themselves and others, capable of a similar modicum of independent thought and critically thinking powers, with what the only possible outcome can be to the ultimate conclusion of the war in Ukraine, and why it is that no other exit strategy from the war has ever been proposed, other than the total defeat of Russia. Clearly, his war is THE BIG ONE for the whole ball of empire-building wax in the 21st century and beyond.

President Biden and his worldwide Neo-Con allies and fascist Corporate Wall Street backers already know this and have no intention whatsoever of ever relenting to some half-ass measure through what they deem ‘bullshit’ negotiations to peacefully end the war; the outcome of which, if ever fairly arrived at, will clearly favor the Russians and those in the West who still can think clearly and independently about the most logical, most favorable conclusion to the war for all concerned. Until then, the murdering mayhem will only continue until Biden, the Neo-Cons in his Administration and war mongering NATO allies, can find the appropriate moment or favorable excuse to finally pull the plug on their deceitful, duplicitous proxy war, and then it’s, “Bombs Away!”

In the meantime, one doesn’t have to be a skilled parliamentarian or diplomatic envoy to read between the constant lines of corporate mainstream press doublespeak to know the ultimate intentions of President Biden and his ‘axis NATO allies’ aren’t just to “hurt or weaken Russia”, as they’ve duplicitously-stated so many times over the past year. At all costs, if need be, to human life and all of life on Mother Earth herself, the objective is to destroy Russia and the Russian Empire.

For the warmongers in America and the West, this goal is nothing less than an absolute imperative, if they are to maintain their hegemony in the world and ready themselves for the ultimate Gunfight at the OK Corral, between themselves and China.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

The writer Jerome Irwin is a Canadian-American writer who originally was a Criminology student working in one of America’s local police departments. For decades, Irwin has sought to call world attention to problems of environmental degradation and unsustainability caused by a host of environmental-ecological-spiritual issues that exist between the conflicting world philosophies of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

Irwin is the author of the book, “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey” (www.turtle-island-odyssey.com), a spiritual odyssey among the native peoples of North America that has led to numerous articles pertaining to: Ireland’s Fenian Movement; native peoples Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance Movement; AIPAC, Israel & the U.S. Congress anti-BDS Movement; the historic Battle for Palestine & Siege of Gaza, as well as; the many violations constantly being waged by industrial-corporate-military-propaganda interests against the World’s Collective Soul. The author and his wife are long-time residents on the North Shore of British Columbia.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This War is the Big One: “The Objective is to Destroy Russia and the Russian Empire”

Is this the End of Press Freedom in Canada?

May 15th, 2023 by Marc Edge

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Canada remarkably blipped up slightly in this year’s press freedom rankings released by Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) last week to celebrate World Press Freedom Day. We still languish in RSF’s yellow “Satisfactory” category with a score of 83.53, however, while the green “Good” category starts at 85/100. That puts us 15th in the world, behind such nations as Lithuania, Estonia and East Timor, but at least we’re doing better than the UK (26) and the US (45). The rankings as usual were dominated by the Scandinavian nations, with Norway again taking top spot with a score of 95.18, far surpassing second-place Ireland, which has shot up in recent years to 89.91.

One category that drags down Canada’s ranking is our sky-high level of media ownership concentration. “More than 80% of Canadian media is owned by just 5 corporations,” noted the report, to which I contributed as a survey respondent. The good news for now is its finding that direct press interference here is negligible. “Media outlets in Canada are generally free of pressure from politicians, political parties, and political movements.” That may soon be changing, however, as ongoing events threaten to soon send Canada tumbling down the rankings.

The broadcasting regulator Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has just been given authority over online video under Bill C-11, which has YouTubers up in arms. The CRTC is currently considering a request to ban Fox News from our cable systems for the “false and horrifying claims” made about transgendered people by its recently-ousted host Tucker Carlson. That would set a dangerous precedent, not to mention fly in the face of Voltaire’s oft-quoted defence of free speech. “I disapprove of what you say,” the French philosopher is supposed to have said, “but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The ruling Liberals are seemingly doing all they can to bring the Internet under their thumb. Next up is Bill C-18, the Online News Act, which after years of Ottawa subsidizing our country’s news media would force Google and Facebook to do it instead. The CRTC would be put in charge of negotiations between the digital platforms and media outlets, expanding its authority from audio and video to written news content online.

Bill C-18 is currently before the Senate, having passed third reading in Parliament late last year. Senators have been hearing testimony, including from University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, who told them last week that the proposed law “raises significant concerns involving the free flow of information online [and] freedom of expression.” Instead of improving journalism in Canada, Geist warned that Bill C-18 “is likely to cause far more harm than good including the possibility of blocked news sharing” if Google and Facebook decide not to pay up and instead drop Canadian news, as they have threatened.

Most disturbing of all is a new initiative coming from the Liberal Party’s BC branch, which is calling for the government to “hold on-line information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.” The proposal passed by the party’s biennial policy convention in Ottawa is designed to combat disinformation, but it takes the elephant gun approach to fly swatting and so makes the cure worse than the disease. Limiting publication would of course entail censorship, while “material whose sources can be traced” would require official vetting. As for veracity, who’s to say what is true? The government itself is one of the biggest purveyors of disinformation these days. The Orwellian implication would require the censoring of all but government-approved information.

“This resolution has no meaning unless it means I would be required to clear my posts through the federal government, before publication, so the ‘traceability’ of my sources could be verified,” reasoned online journalist Paul Wells, a former columnist for Maclean’s and the Toronto Star who now enterprisingly posts his scribblings on Substack. Much of what he writes, Wells points out, is based on what he hears from sources who would prefer not to be named, much less to the government. “This resolution, if adopted as policy would send me straight to court or out of business.”

The highly illiberal Liberal impulse to regulate what is posted online has been ongoing since a 2020 report commissioned by the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development proposed measures the Internet Society of Canada described as “insane regulatory hubris.” The report called for expanding the scope of the CRTC from broadcasting to also include online media and renaming it the Canadian Communications Commission. The ISC warned it would be “nothing less than a statist counter-revolution against the internet” and “a wholesale transformation of a system of free expression into a government-directed system of licensees.” Unfortunately, it seems to be the Liberal Party blueprint for the future of the Internet in Canada.

The Liberal initiatives to regulate the Internet keep going from bad to worse. While enabling the CRTC to regulate streaming video under Bill C-11 is arguably needed to update the Broadcasting Actin the Internet Age, giving it oversight of written news online under Bill C-18 promises to be a slippery slope indeed if the future of journalism is digital. The third leg in the Liberal offensive—planned legislation to deal with so-called “online harms” such as hate speech and cyber-bullying—may go even farther in limiting free speech. It was first introduced as Bill C-36 in 2021 but died on the order paper with an election call and has yet to be re-introduced because the prospect of government censoring otherwise lawful speech has civil libertarians aghast.

The bill seems to be a fait accompli, however, as then-Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault told the House of Commons in 2021 that the government was planning a new regulatory framework. “There will be a new regulator, and their task will be to implement the new rules and also to monitor work carried out by platforms,” said Guilbeault. “The regulator will be able to impose financial penalties for non-compliance.” The government has apparently been doing its best to muster favourable polling for the initiative, including censoring survey respondents. This way researchers at Toronto Metropolitan University can find that more than 80 percent of Canadians support requiring platforms to quickly remove reported illegal content despite 90 percent of Canadians finding it unnecessary.

All this recently earned Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a satirical nomination for a Break the Internet Award in recognition of his government’s efforts to “destroy the free and decentralized world wide web.” Individually, argues blogger Justin Ling, all of Ottawa’s online initiatives are bad. “Taken together, they’re worse. Mr. Trudeau’s plans amount to a Rube Goldberg machine, shaking down Silicon Valley companies for cash while subjecting them to a gauntlet of Ottawa-based Star Chambers every time the platforms’ users act badly.”

More seriously, Ottawa’s Internet offensive puts at risk the free speech rights of all Canadians, and most worryingly opens the door to online censorship. The possibility of Ottawa requiring all information posted online to be government-approved should be concerning to all citizens, as it would severely limit free expression and even press freedom.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Marc Edge is a journalism researcher and author who lives in Ladysmith, BC. His books and articles can be found online at www.marcedge.com.

Featured image is from Flickr