Our Asia Pacific Website

November 27th, 2020 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Our Asia Pacific Website

Subscribe to the Global Research Newsletter

November 6th, 2020 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Subscribe to the Global Research Newsletter

Nuestro sitio en español: Globalizacion.ca

November 5th, 2020 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Nuestro sitio en español: Globalizacion.ca

Pour Accéder à la Version Mobile de Mondialisation.ca

August 14th, 2017 by Global Research News

Nous faisons face présentement à une problème technique.

Pour accéder à la version mobile de mondialisation.ca, cliquez sur le Menu principal de Globalresearch.ca (version mobile), (en haut à gauche) et ensuite cliquez sur Mondialisation.ca.


A partir de la semaine prochaine le problème technique devrait être résolu.

Amitiés à tous nos lecteurs


  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Pour Accéder à la Version Mobile de Mondialisation.ca

Today’s Most Popular Stories on Global Research

August 22nd, 2015 by Global Research News

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Today’s Most Popular Stories on Global Research

GR’s Ukraine Report: 800+ articles

August 22nd, 2015 by Global Research News

Fighting Lies and Searching for Truths

July 19th, 2015 by Global Research

The world is globalizing and information has become more accessible to more people than ever before. We are, indeed, in unprecedented times, and we face unprecedented challenges.

The aims of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research are to battle the tidal waves of misinformation and propaganda washing our minds on a daily basis. We have separated ourselves from the corporate controlled mainstream news, whose only objective is to serve their corporate masters. We take no assistance from the major foundations such as Rockefeller, Ford, and MacArthur, who act as patrons (and thus pacifiers) of the alternative and critical voices challenging the forces of globalization.

We do this in order to remain an independent voice, challenging all that needs to be challenged and exposing all that remains in the dark. Bringing light to a dimly lit world is no easy task, and though the aim and method is “independence,” we are, in fact, entirely dependent upon YOU, our readers. Without your support, we cannot continue our operations nor expand our horizons and opportunities. Global Research is indebted to our readers, and we are here for you and because of you. If you would like Global Research to continue and to grow, we need your support now more than ever.

By making a donation  to Global Research, you  assist journalists, researchers and contributors who have either lost their jobs with the mainstream media or who have been excluded from employment opportunities as professional journalists for their pledge to the truth. We send our thanks to all who have contributed so far by donating or becoming a member!

The mainstream media is owned by bankers and corporate kingpins. Not only that, but it has been historically and presently infiltrated by covert government agencies, seeking to deceive and propagandize their agendas. The CIA has long had associations with major mainstream news publications. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. The CIA even ran a training program “to teach its agents to be journalists,” who were “then placed in major news organizations with help from management.”

At Global Research, we seek to not only expose and criticize the larger picture, but to point the finger at the media, itself, and examine who is lying, why they lie, and how they get away with it.

To continue in our endeavours, we need our readers to continue in their support.

One important and helpful thing that all of our readers can do is to help spread our name and information by “sharing and  “liking” our Facebook page here. We post articles daily that will appear in your news feed so that you don’t have to come to us, we can bring our information straight to you. “Like” our page and recommend us to your friends. Every bit helps! You can also subscribe to our RSS feed

You can also support us by continuing to send us your much needed donations which allow us to continue our day-to-day operations and help us expand our scope and content.

Supporting Global Research is supporting the cause of truth and the fight against media disinformation.

Thank you.

The Global Research Team


For online donations, please click below:



To send your donation by mail, kindly send your cheque or international money order, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

PO Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest,

Montreal, QC, H2Y 4A7

For payment by fax, please print the credit card fax authorization form and fax your order and credit card details to Global Research at 514 656 5294

You can also support us by purchasing books from our store! Click to browse our titles.

Global Research Articles on the Environment

December 22nd, 2014 by Global Research News

Analysis on Climate Change and Global Warming. 100+ GR Articles

December 9th, 2014 by Global Research News

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Analysis on Climate Change and Global Warming. 100+ GR Articles

Global Research’s Ukraine Report

November 21st, 2014 by Global Research News

Global Research Editor’s Note

We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.

The authenticity of this interview remains to be confirmed. It is available in recognized electronic news archives including the BBC. Its authenticity has not been questioned.  

The interview tends to demystify the Osama bin Laden persona.

Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.  Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.

In this interview, Osama bin Laden exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He focusses on CIA support to the narcotics trade.

He also makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of  the September 11 attacks.

This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.

We have highlighted key sections of this interview.

It is our hope that the text of this interview, published on 28 September 2001 barely a week before the onset of the war on Afghanistan, will contribute to a better understanding of the history of Al Qaeda, the role of Osama bin Laden and the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

This interview is published for informational purposes only. GR does not in any way endorse the statements in this interview.

Michel  Chossudovsky, September 9, 2014

Full text of September 2001 Pakistani paper’s “exclusive” interview with Usamah Bin-Ladin

Ummat (in Urdu)

translated from Urdu

Karachi, 28 September 2001, pp. 1 and 7.

Ummat’s introduction

Kabul: Prominent Arab mojahed holy warrior Usamah Bin-Ladin has said that he or his al-Qa’idah group has nothing to do with the 11 September suicidal attacks in Washington and New York. He said the US government should find the attackers within the country. In an exclusive interview with daily “Ummat”, he said these attacks could be the act of those who are part of the American system and are rebelling against it and working for some other system. Or, Usamah said, this could be the act of those who want to make the current century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. Or, the American Jews, who are opposed to President Bush ever since the Florida elections, might be the masterminds of this act. There is also a great possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which need billions of dollars worth of funds every year. He said there is a government within the government in the United States.

The secret agencies, he said, should be asked as to who are behind the attacks. Usamah said support for attack on Afghanistan was a matter of need for some Muslim countries and compulsion for others. However, he said, he was thankful to the courageous people of Pakistan who erected a bulwark before the wrong forces. He added that the Islamic world was attaching great expectations with Pakistan and, in time of need, “we will protect this bulwark by sacrificing of lives”.

Following is the interview in full detail:

Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

Usamah [Osama bin Laden]: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.

There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia?

Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims .

The US has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates.

However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that, it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of United States, or the latter itself considers them as its enemies. Or the countries, which do not agree to become its slaves, such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria, and the former Russia as received .

Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.

According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.

Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This funding issue was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger.

They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance.

Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US president, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.

Ummat: A number of world countries have joined the call of the United States for launching an attack on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will Al-Qa’idah declare a jihad against these countries as well?

Usamah: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam says and what the enemies of Islam want?

Al-Qa’idah was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to encounter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared element of Islam. The first five being the basic holy words of Islam, prayers, fast, pilgrimage to Mecca, and giving alms Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of it. Al-Qa’idah wants to keep this element alive and active and make it part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship. We are not against any Islamic country nor we consider a war against an Islamic country as jihad.

We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel countries, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women, and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the US act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic shari’ah jurisprudence for such individuals, organizations, and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous on them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Amir ol-Momenin the commander of the faithful Mola Omar and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them.

Ummat: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the US is not too difficult. US experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is al-Qa’idah not targeting their economic pillars?

Usamah: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the US is not uttering a single word.

Ummat: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, inciting the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines, and TV channels.

Usamah: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycott of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim world but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today’s world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done.

Ummat: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of Al-Qa’idah and its jihadi successes. Would you comment?

Usamah: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause.

The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.

Ummat: What will the impact of the freeze of al-Qa’idah accounts by the US?

Usamah: God opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing of accounts will not make any difference for Al-Qa’idah or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, al-Qa’idah has more than three such alternative financial systems, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What to say of the United States, even the combined world cannot budge these people from their path.

These people are not in hundreds but in thousands and millions. Al-Qa’idah comprises of such modern educated youths who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate in spite of the passage of so many days.

Ummat: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?

Usamah: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am helpless fellowman of God, constantly in the fear of my accountability before God. It is not the question of Usamah but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad. Thanks to God, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad was still present when there was no Usamah and it will remain as such even when Usamah is no longer there. Allah opens up ways and creates loves in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property, and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the after life. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life.

Ummat: What do you say about the Pakistan government policy on Afghanistan attack?

Usamah: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade in front of the wrong forces and stood in the first file of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized, and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended every help to the mojahedin and the Afghan people. Then these are the same Pakistanis who are standing shoulder by shoulder with the Taleban. If such people emerge in just two countries, the domination of the West will diminish in a matter of days. Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, God forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is sacred for us like a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defence of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who rules Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people.

Copyright Ummat in Urdu, BBC translation in English, 2001

Read about Osama Bin Laden in Michel Chossudovsky’s international best-seller

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Order Directly from Global Research


America’s “War on Terrorism”

by Michel

Click to Get the Latest Global Research Articles

December 23rd, 2013 by Global Research News

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Click to Get the Latest Global Research Articles

Click for Latest Global Research News

November 22nd, 2013 by Global Research News

Today’s Most Popular Stories

October 15th, 2013 by Global Research News

A deluge of articles have been quickly put into circulation defending France’s military intervention in the African nation of Mali. TIME’s article, “The Crisis in Mali: Will French Intervention Stop the Islamist Advance?” decides that old tricks are the best tricks, and elects the tiresome “War on Terror” narrative.TIME claims the intervention seeks to stop “Islamist” terrorists from overrunning both Africa and all of Europe. Specifically, the article states:

“…there is a (probably well-founded) fear in France that a radical Islamist Mali threatens France most of all, since most of the Islamists are French speakers and many have relatives in France. (Intelligence sources in Paris have told TIME that they’ve identified aspiring jihadis leaving France for northern Mali to train and fight.) Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), one of the three groups that make up the Malian Islamist alliance and which provides much of the leadership, has also designated France — the representative of Western power in the region — as a prime target for attack.”

What TIME elects not to tell readers is that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is closely allied to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG whom France intervened on behalf of during NATO’s 2011 proxy-invasion of Libya – providing weapons, training, special forces and even aircraft to support them in the overthrow of Libya’s government.

As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:

Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar noted a more direct connection between LIFG and AQIM in an Asia Times piece titled, “How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli:”

“Crucially, still in 2007, then al-Qaeda’s number two, Zawahiri, officially announced the merger between the LIFG and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). So, for all practical purposes, since then, LIFG/AQIM have been one and the same – and Belhaj was/is its emir. “

“Belhaj,” referring to Hakim Abdul Belhaj, leader of LIFG in Libya, led with NATO support, arms, funding, and diplomatic recognition, the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi and has now plunged the nation into unending racist and tribal, genocidal infighting. This intervention has also seen the rebellion’s epicenter of Benghazi peeling off from Tripoli as a semi-autonomous “Terror-Emirate.” Belhaj’s latest campaign has shifted to Syria where he was admittedly on the Turkish-Syrian border pledging weapons, money, and fighters to the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” again, under the auspices of NATO support.

Image: NATO’s intervention in Libya has resurrected listed-terrorist organization and Al Qaeda affiliate, LIFG. It had previously fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has fighters, cash and weapons, all courtesy of NATO, spreading as far west as Mali, and as far east as Syria. The feared “global Caliphate” Neo-Cons have been scaring Western children with for a decade is now taking shape via US-Saudi, Israeli, and Qatari machinations, not “Islam.” In fact, real Muslims have paid the highest price in fighting this real “war against Western-funded terrorism.”


LIFG, which with French arms, cash, and diplomatic support, is now invading northern Syria on behalf of NATO’s attempted regime change there, officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007 according to the US Army’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). According to the CTC, AQIM and LIFG share not only ideological goals, but strategic and even tactical objectives. The weapons LIFG received most certainly made their way into the hands of AQIM on their way through the porous borders of the Sahara Desert and into northern Mali.

In fact, ABC News reported in their article, “Al Qaeda Terror Group: We ‘Benefit From’ Libyan Weapons,” that:

A leading member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group indicated the organization may have acquired some of the thousands of powerful weapons that went missing in the chaos of the Libyan uprising, stoking long-held fears of Western officials.”We have been one of the main beneficiaries of the revolutions in the Arab world,” Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a leader of the north Africa-based al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM], told the Mauritanian news agency ANI Wednesday. “As for our benefiting from the [Libyan] weapons, this is a natural thing in these kinds of circumstances.”

It is no coincidence that as the Libyan conflict was drawing to a conclusion, conflict erupted in northern Mali. It is part of a premeditated geopolitical reordering that began with toppling Libya, and since then, using it as a springboard for invading other targeted nations, including Mali, Algeria, and Syria with heavily armed, NATO-funded and aided terrorists.

French involvement may drive AQIM and its affiliates out of northern Mali, but they are almost sure to end up in Algeria, most likely by design.

Algeria was able to balk subversion during the early phases of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011, but it surely has not escaped the attention of the West who is in the midst of transforming a region stretching from Africa to Beijing and Moscow’s doorsteps – and in a fit of geopolitical schizophrenia – using terrorists both as a casus belli to invade and as an inexhaustible mercenary force to do it.

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on The Geopolitical Reordering of Africa: US Covert Support to Al Qaeda in Northern Mali, France “Comes to the Rescue”

Latest Global Research Articles. Subscribe to GR’s RSS Feed

December 30th, 2012 by Global Research News

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Latest Global Research Articles. Subscribe to GR’s RSS Feed

Salafism and the CIA: Destabilizing the Russian Federation?

September 14th, 2012 by F. William Engdahl

Part I: Syria comes to the Russian Caucasus

On August 28 Sheikh Said Afandi, acknowledged spiritual leader of the Autonomous Russian Republic of Dagestan, was assassinated. A jihadist female suicide bomber managed to enter his house and detonate an explosive device.

The murder target had been carefully selected. Sheikh Afandi, a seventy-five-year old Sufi Muslim leader, had played the critical role in attempting to bring about reconciliation in Dagestan between jihadist Salafi Sunni Muslims and other factions, many of whom in Dagestan see themselves as followers of Sufi. With no replacement of his moral stature and respect visible, authorities fear possible outbreak of religious war in the tiny Russian autonomous republic.[1]

The police reported that the assassin was an ethnic Russian woman who had converted to Islam and was linked to an Islamic fundamentalist or Salafist insurgency against Russia and regional governments loyal to Moscow in the autonomous republics and across the volatile Muslim-populated North Caucasus region.

Ethnic Muslim populations in this region of Russia and of the former Soviet Union, including Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan and into China’s Xinjiang Province, have been the target of various US and NATO intelligence operations since the Cold War era ended in 1990. Washington sees manipulation of Muslim groups as the vehicle to bring uncontrollable chaos to Russia and Central Asia. It’s being carried out by some of the same organizations engaged in creating chaos and destruction inside Syria against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. In a real sense, as Russian security services clearly understand, if they don’t succeed in stopping the Jihadists insurgency in Syria, it will come home to them via the Caucasus.

The latest Salafist murders of Sufi and other moderate Muslim leaders in the Caucasus are apparently part of what is becoming ever clearer as perhaps the most dangerous US intelligence operation ever—playing globally with Muslim fundamentalism.

Previously US and allied intelligence services had played fast and loose with religious organizations or beliefs in one or another country. What makes the present situation particularly dangerous—notably since the decision in Washington to unleash the misnamed Arab Spring upheavals that began in Tunisia late 2010, spreading like a brushfire across the entire Islamic world from Afghanistan across Central Asia to Morocco—is the incalculable wave upon wave of killing, hatreds, destruction of entire cultures that Washington has unleashed in the name of that elusive dream named “democracy.” They do this using alleged Al-Qaeda groups, Saudi Salafists or Wahhabites, or using disciples of Turkey’s Fethullah Gülen Movement to ignite fires of religious hatred within Islam and against other faiths that could take decades to extinguish. It could easily spill over into a new World War.

Fundamentalism comes to Caucasus

Following the dissolution of the USSR, radical Afghanistani Mujahadeen, Islamists from Saudi Arabia, from Turkey, Pakistan and other Islamic countries flooded into the Muslim regions of the former USSR. One of the best-organized of these was the Gülen Movement of Fethullah Gülen, leader of a global network of Islamic schools and reported to be the major policy influence on Turkey’s Erdogan AKP party.

Gülen was quick to establish The International Dagestani-Turkish College in Dagestan. During the chaotic days after the Soviet collapse, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation officially registered and permitted unfettered activity for a variety of Islamic foundations and organizations. These included the League of the Islamic World, the World Muslim Youth Assembly, the reportedly Al-Qaeda friendly Saudi foundation ‘Ibrahim ben Abd al-Aziz al-Ibrahim.’ The blacklist also included Al-Haramein a Saudi foundation reported tied to Al-Qaeda, and IHH, [2] a Turkish organization banned in Germany, that allegedly raised funds for jihadi fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan, and was charged by French intelligence of ties to Al Qaeda.[3] Many of these charities were covers for fundamentalist Salafists with their own special agenda.

As many of the foreign Islamists in Chechnya and Dagestan were found involved in fomenting the regional unrest and civil war, Russian authorities withdrew permission of most to run schools and institutions. Throughout the North Caucasus at the time of the Chechyn war in the late 1990’s, there were more than two dozen Islamic institutes, some 200 madrassas and numerous maktabas (Koranic study schools) present at almost all mosques.

The International Dagestani-Turkish College was one that was forced to close its doors in Dagestan. The College was run by the Fethullah Gülen organization.[4]

At the point of the Russian crackdown on the spread of Salafist teaching inside Russia at the end of the 1990’s, there was an exodus of hundreds of young Dagestani and Chechyn Muslim students to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other places in The Middle east, reportedly to receive training with the Gülen movement and various Saudi-financed organizations, including Salafists. [5] It is believed in Russia that the students trained by Gülen supporters or Saudi and other Salafist fundamentalist centers then were sent back to Dagestan and the North Caucasus to spread their radical strain of Islam.

By 2005 the situation in the Caucasus was so influenced by this Salafist intervention that the Chechen Salafist, Doku Umarov, cited by the UN Security Council for links to Al-Qaeda,[6] unilaterally declared creation of what he called the Caucasus Emirate, announcing he planned to establish an Islamic state under Sharia law encompassing the entire North Caucasus region including Dagestan. He modestly proclaimed himself Emir of the Caucasus Emirate. [7]

*  *  *

WWIII Scenario

*  *  *


Part II: Salafism at war with Sufi tradition

Salafism, known in Saudi Arabia as Wahhabism, is a fundamentalist strain of Islam which drew world attention and became notorious in March 2001 just weeks before the attacks of September 11. That was when the Salafist Taliban government in Afghanistan willfully dynamited and destroyed the historic gigantic Buddhas of Bamiyan on the ancient Silk Road, religious statues dating from the 6th Century. The Taliban Salafist leaders also banned as “un-islamic” all forms of imagery, music and sports, including television, in accordance with what they considered a strict interpretation of Sharia.

Afghani sources reported that the order to destroy the Buddhas was made by Saudi-born jihadist Wahhabite, Osama bin Laden, who ultimately convinced Mullah Omar, Taliban supreme leader at the time to execute the act.[8]

Before and…After Salafist Taliban …

While Sufis incorporate the worship of saints and theatrical ceremonial prayers into their practice, Salafis condemn as idolatry any non-traditional forms of worship. They also call for the establishment of Islamic political rule and strict Sharia law. Sufism is home to the great spiritual and musical heritage of Islam, said by Islamic scholars to be the inner, mystical, or psycho-spiritual dimension of Islam, going back centuries.

As one Sufi scholar described the core of Sufism, “While all Muslims believe that they are on the pathway to God and will become close to God in Paradise–after death and the ‘Final Judgment’– Sufis believe as well that it is possible to become close to God and to experience this closeness–while one is alive. Furthermore, the attainment of the knowledge that comes with such intimacy with God, Sufis assert, is the very purpose of the creation. Here they mention the hadith qudsi in which God states, ‘I was a hidden treasure and I loved that I be known, so I created the creation in order to be known.’ Hence for the Sufis there is already a momentum, a continuous attraction on their hearts exerted by God, pulling them, in love, towards God.” [9]

The mystical Islamic current of Sufism and its striving to become close to or one with God is in stark contrast to the Jihadist Salafi or Wahhabi current that is armed with deadly weapons, preaches a false doctrine of jihad, and a perverse sense of martyrdom, committing countless acts of violence. Little wonder that the victims of Salafist Jihads are mostly other pacific forms of Islam including most especially Sufis.

The respected seventy-five year old Afandi had publicly denounced Salafist Islamic fundamentalism. His murder followed a July 19 coordinated attack on two high-ranking muftis in the Russian Volga Republic of Tatarstan. Both victims were state-approved religious leaders who had attacked radical Islam. This latest round of murders opens a new front in the Salafist war against Russia, namely attacks on moderate Sufi Muslim leaders.

Whether or not Dagestan now descends into internal religious civil war that then spreads across the geopolitically sensitive Russian Caucasus is not yet certain. What is almost certain is that the same circles who have been feeding violence and terror inside Syria against the regime of Alawite President Bashar al-Assad are behind the killing of Sheikh Afandi as well as sparking related acts of terror or unrest across Russia’s Muslim-populated Caucasus. In a very real sense it represents Russia’s nightmare scenario of “Syria coming to Russia.” It demonstrates dramatically why Putin has made such a determined effort to stop a descent into a murderous hell in Syria.

Salafism and the CIA

The existence of the so-called jihadist Salafi brand of Islam in Dagestan is quite recent. It has also been deliberately imported. Salafism is sometimes also called the name of the older Saudi-centered Wahhabism. Wahhabism is a minority originally-Bedouin form of the faith originating within Islam, dominant in Saudi Arabia since the 1700’s.

Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism give the following description of Saudi conditions under the rigid Wahhabi brand of Islam:

Women living under Saudi rule must wear the abaya, or total body cloak, and niqab, the face veil; they have limited opportunities for schooling and careers; they are prohibited from driving vehicles; are banned from social contact with men not relatives, and all personal activity must be supervised including opening bank accounts, by a male family member or “guardian.” These Wahhabi rules are enforced by a mutawiyin, or morals militia, also known as “the religious police,” officially designated the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) who patrol Saudi cities, armed with leather-covered sticks which they freely used against those they considered wayward. They raid homes looking for alcohol and drugs, and harassed non-Wahhabi Muslims as well as believers in other faiths.” [10]

It’s widely reported that the obscenely opulent and morally-perhaps-not-entirely-of- the-highest-standards Saudi Royal Family made a Faustian deal with Wahhabite leaders. The deal supposedly, was that the Wahhabists are free to export their fanatical brand of Islam around to the Islamic populations of the world in return for agreeing to leave the Saudi Royals alone.[11] There are, however, other dark and dirty spoons stirring the Wahhabite-Salafist Saudi stew.

Little known is the fact that the present form of aggressive Saudi Wahhabism, in reality a kind of fusion between imported jihadi Salafists from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the fundamentalist Saudi Wahhabites. Leading Salafist members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were introduced into the Saudi Kingdom in the 1950’s by the CIA in a complex series of events, when Nasser cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood following an assassination attempt. By the 1960’s an influx of Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia fleeing Nasserite repression, had filled many of the leading teaching posts in Saudi religious schools. One student there was a young well-to-do Saudi, Osama bin Laden.  [12]

During the Third Reich, Hitler Germany had supported the Muslim Brotherhood as a weapon against the British in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. Marc Erikson describes the Nazi roots of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood thus:

…as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and ’40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and “supreme guide” Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini.[13]

After the defeat of Germany, British Intelligence moved in to take over control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ultimately, for financial and other reasons, the British decided to hand their assets within the Muslim Brotherhood over to their CIA colleagues in the 1950s. [14]

According to former US Justice Department Nazi researcher John Loftus,  “during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like Dr Abdullah Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.” [15]

“Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not,” Loftus continues. “They think that Islam–the Saudi version of Islam–is typical, but it’s not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in Saudi Arabia–that’s how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence.” [16]

Loftus identified the significance of what today is emerging from the shadows to take over Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, and the so-called Syrian National Council, dominated in reality by the Muslim Brotherhood and publicly led by the more “politically correct” or presentable likes of Bassma Kodmani. Kodmani, foreign affairs spokesman for the SNC was twice an invited guest at the Bilderberg elite gathering, latest in Chantilly, Virginia earlier this year.[17]

The most bizarre and alarming feature of the US-financed  regime changes set into motion in 2010, which have led to the destruction of the secular Arab regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muhammar Qaddafi in Libya, and the secular regime of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, and which have wreaked savage destruction across the Middle East, especially in the past eighteen months in Syria, is the pattern of emerging power grabs by representatives of the murky Salafist Muslim Brotherhood.

By informed accounts, a Saudi-financed Sunni Islamic Muslim Brotherhood dominates the members of the exile Syrian National Council that is backed by the US State Department’s Secretary Clinton and by Hollande’s France. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is tied, not surprisingly to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood of President Mohammed Morsi who recently in a meeting of the Non-Aligned in Iran called openly for the removal of Syria’s Assad, a logical step if his Muslim Brothers in the present Syrian National Council are to take the reins of power. The Saudis are also rumored to have financed the ascent to power in Tunisia of the governing Islamist Ennahda Party,[18] and are documented to be financing the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council against President Bashar al-Assad. [19]

Part III: Morsi’s Reign of Salafi Terror

Indicative of the true agenda of this Muslim Brotherhood and related jihadists today is the fact that once they have power, they drop the veil of moderation and reconciliation and reveal their violently intolerant roots. This is visible in Egypt today under Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi.

Unreported in mainstream Western media to date are alarming direct reports from Christian missionary organizations in Egypt that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood has already begun to drop the veil of “moderation and conciliation” and show its brutal totalitarian Salafist colors, much as Khomeini’s radical Sharia forces did in Iran after taking control in 1979-81.

In a letter distributed by the Christian Aid Mission (CAM), a Christian Egyptian missionary wrote that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood “announced they would destroy the country if Morsi didn’t win, but they also said they will take revenge from all those who voted for [his opponent Ahmed] Shafiq, especially the Christians as they are sure we did vote for Shafiq. Yesterday they began by killing two believers in el Sharqiya because of this,” the missionary added, speaking on condition of anonymity.[20]

This report came only weeks after Egyptian State TV (under Morsi’s control) showed ghastly video footage of a convert from Islam to Christianity being murdered by Muslims. The footage showed a young man being held down by masked men with a knife to his throat. As one man was heard chanting Muslim prayers in Arabic, mostly condemning Christianity, another man holding the knife to the Christian convert’s throat began to cut, slowly severing the head amid cries of “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is great”), according to transcripts. In the letter, the Egyptian missionary leader added that, “soon after Morsi won, Christians in upper Egypt were forcibly prevented from going to churches.” Many Muslims, the letter claimed, “also began to speak to women in the streets that they had to wear Islamic clothing including the head covering. They act as if they got the country for their own, it’s theirs now.” [21]

Already in 2011 Morsi’s Salafist followers began attacking and destroying Sufi mosques across Egypt. According to the authoritative newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm (Today’s Egyptian), 16 historic mosques in Alexandria belonging to Sufi orders have been marked for destruction by so-called ‘Salafis’. Alexandria has 40 mosques associated with Sufis, and is the headquarters for 36 Sufi groups. Half a million Sufis live in the city, out of a municipal total of four million people. Aggression against the Sufis in Egypt has included a raid on Alexandria’s most distinguished mosque, named for, and housing, the tomb of the 13th century Sufi Al-Mursi Abu’l Abbas.[22]

Notably, the so-called “democratically elected” regime in Libya following the toppling of Mohamar Qaddafi by NATO bombs in 2011, has also been zealous in destroying Sufi mosques and places of worhip. In August this year, UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova expressed “grave concern” at the destruction by Islamic Jihadists of Sufi sites in Zliten, Misrata and Tripoli and urged perpetrators to “cease the destruction immediately.” [23] Under behind-the-scenes machinations the Libyan government is dominated by Jihadists and by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, as in Tunisia and Egypt. [24]

The explosive cocktail of violence inherent in allowing the rise to power of Salafist Islamists across the Middle East was clear to see, symbolically enough on the night of September 11,th when a mob of angry supporters of the fanatical Salafist group, Ansar Al-Sharia, murdered the US Ambassador to Libya and three US diplomats, burning the US Consulate in Bengazi to the ground in protest over a YouTube release of a film by an American filmmaker showing the Prophet Mohammed indulging in multiple sex affairs and casting doubt on his role as God’s messenger. Ironically that US Ambassador had played a key role in toppling Qaddafi and opening the door to the Salafist takeover in Libya. At the same time angry mobs of thousands of Salafists surrounded the US Embassy in Cairo in protest to the US film. [25]

Ansar Al-Sharia (“Partisans of Islamic law” in Arabic) reportedly is a spinoff of Al-Qaeda and claims organizations across the Middle East from Yemen to Tunisia to Iraq, Egypt and Libya. Ansar al-Sharia says it is reproducing the model of Sharia or strict Islamic law espoused by the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant umbrella group that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq. The core of the group are jihadists who came out of an “Islamic state”, either in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, or among jihadists in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003.[26]

The deliberate detonation now of a new round of Salafist fundamentalist Jihad terror inside Muslim regions of the Russian Caucasus is exquisitely timed politically to put maximum pressure at home on the government of Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Putin and the Russian Government are the strongest and most essential backer of the current Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, and for Russia as well the maintenance of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base at Syria’s Tartus port is vital strategically. At the same time, Obama’s sly message to Medvedev to wait until Obama’s re-election to evaluate US intent towards Russia and Putin’s cryptic recent comment that a compromise with a re-elected President Obama might be possible, but not with a President Romney, [27] indicate that the Washington “stick-and-carrot” or hard cop-soft cop tactics with Moscow might tempt Russia to sacrifice major geopolitical alliances, perhaps even that special close and recent geopolitical alliance with China.[28] Were that to happen, the World might witness a “reset” in US-Russian relations with catastrophic consequences for world peace.

F. William Engdahl*  is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order


[1] Dan Peleschuk, Sheikh Murdered Over Religious Split Say Analysts, RIA Novosti, August 30, 2012, accessed in


[2] Mairbek  Vatchagaev, The Kremlin’s War on Islamic Education in the North Caucasus, North Caucasus Analysis Volume: 7 Issue: 34, accessed in http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3334

[3] Iason Athanasiadis, Targeted by Israeli raid: Who is the IHH?, The Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2010, accessed in http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0601/Targeted-by-Israeli-raid-Who-is-the-IHH.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Mairbek Vatchagaev, op. cit.

[6] UN Security Council, QI.U.290.11. DOKU KHAMATOVICH UMAROV, 10 March 2011, accessed in http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/NSQI29011E.shtml. The UN statement reads: “Doku Khamatovich Umarov was listed on 10 March 2011 pursuant to paragraph 2 of resolution 1904 (2009) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf of, or in support of”, “recruiting for”, “supplying, selling or transferring arms and related materiel to” and “otherwise supporting acts or activities of” the Islamic Jihad Group (QE.I.119.05), the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (QE.I.10.01), Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM) (QE.R.100.03) and Emarat Kavkaz (QE.E.131.11).”

[7] Tom Jones, Czech NGO rejects Russian reports of link to alleged Islamist terrorists al-Qaeda, May 10, 2011, accessed in http://www.ceskapozice.cz/en/news/society/czech-ngo-rejects-russian-reports-link-alleged-islamist-terrorists-al-qaeda?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=enprofil&utm_campaign=twennews.

[8] The Times of India, Laden ordered Bamyan Buddha destruction, The Times of India, March 28, 2006.

[9] Dr. Alan Godlas, Sufism — Sufis — Sufi Orders:

[10] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, Center for Islamic Pluralism, May 21, 2012, accessed in http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2040/wahhabi-internal-contradictions-as-saudi-arabia

[11] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, May 21, 2012, accessed in http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2040/wahhabi-internal-contradictions-as-saudi-arabia.

[12] Robert Duncan, Islamic Terrorisms Links to Nazi Fascism, AINA, July 5, 2007, accessed in http://www.aina.org/news/2007070595517.htm.

[13] Marc Erikson, Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 2), AsiaTimes.Online, November 8, 2002, accessed in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK08Ak03.html.

[14] Ibid.

[15] John Loftus, The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda,  Jewish Community News, October 11, 2006, accessed in http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/loftus101106.htm

[16] Ibid.

[17] Charlie Skelton, The Syrian opposition: who’s doing the talking?: The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look …, London Guardian, 12 July 2012, accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking.

[18] Aidan Lewis, Profile: Tunisia’s Ennahda Party, BBC News, 25 October 2011, accessed in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15442859.

[19] Hassan Hassan, Syrians are torn between a despotic regime and a stagnant opposition: The Muslim Brotherhood’s perceived monopoly over the Syrian National Council has created an opposition stalemate, The Guardian, UK, 23 August, 2012, accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/syrians-torn-despotic-regime-stagnant-opposition.

[20] Stefan J. Bos, Egypt Christians Killed After Election of Morsi, Bosnewslife, June 30, 2012, accessed in http://www.bosnewslife.com/22304-egypt-christians-killed-after-election-morsi.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Irfan Al-Alawi, Egyptian Muslim Fundamentalists Attack Sufis, Guardian Online [London],

April 11, 2011, accessed in http://www.islamicpluralism.org/1770/egyptian-Muslim-fundamentalists-attack-sufis

[23] Yafiah Katherine Randall, UNESCO urges Libya to stop destruction of Sufi sites, August 31, 2012, Sufi News and Sufism World Report, accessed in http://sufinews.blogspot.de/.

[24] Jamie Dettmer, Libya elections: Muslim Brotherhood set to lead government, 5 July, 2012, The Telegraph, London, accessed in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9379022/Libya-elections-Muslim-Brotherhood-set-to-lead-government.html.

[25] Luke Harding, Chris Stephen, Chris Stevens, US ambassador to Libya, killed in Benghazi attack: Ambassador and three other American embassy staff killed after Islamist militants fired rockets at their car, say Libyan officials, London Guardian, 12 September 2012, accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/chris-stevens-us-ambassador-libya-killed.

[26] Murad Batal al-Shishani, Profile: Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen, 8 March 2012, accessed in  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17402856.

[27] David M. Herszenhorn, Putin Says Missile Deal Is More Likely With Obama, The New York Times, September 6, 2012, accessed in http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/world/europe/putin-calls-missile-deal-more-likely-if-obama-wins.html. According to an interview Putin gave on Moscow’s state-owned RT TV, Herszenhorn reports, “Mr. Putin said he believed that if Mr. Obama is re-elected in November, a compromise could be reached on the contentious issue of American plans for a missile defense system in Europe, which Russia has strongly opposed. On the other hand, Mr. Putin said, if Mr. Romney becomes president, Moscow’s fears about the missile system — that it is, despite American assurances, actually directed against Russia — would almost certainly prove true.

“Is it possible to find a solution to the problem, if current President Obama is re-elected for a second term? Theoretically, yes,” Mr. Putin said, according to the official transcript posted on the Kremlin’s Web site. “But this isn’t just about President Obama. “For all I know, his desire to work out a solution is quite sincere,” Mr. Putin continued. “I met him recently on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, where we had a chance to talk. And though we talked mostly about Syria, I could still take stock of my counterpart. My feeling is that he is a very honest man, and that he sincerely wants to make many good changes. But can he do it? Will they let him do it?”

[28] M.K. Bhadrakumar, Calling the China-Russia split isn’t heresy, Asia Times,  September 5, 2012, accessed in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NI05Ad01.html.


  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Salafism and the CIA: Destabilizing the Russian Federation?

Welcome to the newly redesigned Global Research website!

September 8th, 2012 by Global Research

Dear Readers,

Welcome to the newly redesigned Global Research website!

We are very proud to launch an updated version of our website, featuring the same timely and analytical content as before, in a display that will be easier for our readers to navigate so that you can get the information you need as quickly and easily as possible.

On this website, you will be able to access an archive of more than 30,000 articles published by Global Research.

We thank all of our readers for the feedback you have sent us over the years and hope you will enjoy your browsing experience.

These changes would not be possible without your support, and for that we extend our sincere appreciation.

To help us cover the costs of important projects and necessary upgrades like this, we kindly ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research.

We also take this opportunity to invite you to become a Member of Global Research

If we stand together, we can fight media lies and expose the truth. There is too much at stake to choose ignorance.

Be aware, stay informed, spread the message of peace far and wide.

Feedback and suggestions regarding our new website are most welcome. To post a comment, kindly visit us on the Global Research facebook page



The Global Research Team

The Criminalization of War: Gaza

May 16th, 2021 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

First published on July 12, 2018

This review article was prepared by the author in relation to his presentation to The Criminalization of War: Gaza, Conference event (July 16, 2018) organized by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 


“The Criminalization of War: Gaza” will examine:

The ongoing crimes committed against the people of Palestine,

The broader process of Israeli territorial expansion,

Israel and the criminalization of war as defined by the Kuala Lumpur Declaration launched by former Prime Minister Dr. Tun Mahathir Mohamad in 2005,

The mounting tide of Islamophobia

The role of the “Global War on Terrorism” as a pretext to wage war on the broader Middle East,

The propaganda campaign directed against Palestine, 

The recent history of Israeli aggression against the People of Palestine including the strategic and geopolitical dimensions, 

The Israeli plan to confiscate Gaza’s offshore natural gas reserves.



Israel’s blockade of Gaza is a criminal undertaking: Gaza is a concentration camp, the World’s largest open air prison  from which no one can escape. 

Two million Palestinians live  under an Israeli siege. Israel controls the entry of essential goods including food, water, energy and medicine. Israel also controls Gaza’s territorial waters in derogation  of international law.

The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of killing, impoverishing and excluding Palestinians from Palestine with a view to eventually implementing the annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel:

Today, six million Palestinians dispersed in various refugee camps are denied the right of return to their ancestral Palestine; the other six million lived under occupation in Gaza and the West Bank.  For twelve years, two million Palestinians have been imprisoned under a brutal land and sea military blockade in Gaza.

During this time there were three major military assaults where Gaza was relentlessly bombed for weeks. Recently, since 30 March 2018, unarmed Gaza demonstrators calling for the Right of Return are shot at with high grade military assault rifles leaving more than 124 dead and 13,000 severely wounded with hundreds of amputees and potential amputees. (Dr Swee Ang, Global Research, July 2018

The crimes committed by Israel against the people of Palestine, with the tacit support of Western governments must be addressed in the broader context of the criminalization of war.



The expansionist policies of the State of Israel including the annexation of the illegally occupied territories, not to mention the “Greater Israel” project of territorial extension are an integral part of the US-led military agenda in Middle East.

When viewed in the current context, the siege on Gaza and the Zionist Plan for the Middle East are related to the US-NATO military agenda including the US-led 2003 invasion of  Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

There is a broader US-NATO-Israel war crimes agenda under the thrust of the so-called “Global War on Terrorism” which serves as a pretext for the bombing of civilians under the pretext of  going after ISIS-Daesh.

The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the Saudi-Israeli rapprochement is from Netanyahu’s viewpoint a means to expanding Israel’s spheres of influence in the Middle East as well as confronting Iran. Needless to say, the “Greater Israel” project is consistent with America’s imperial design.

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map). According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Greater Israel Yinon Plan should be viewed as a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“The [Yinon Plan] plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan)


Viewed in this context, the US-NATO led wars on Syria and Iraq are part of  the process of Israeli territorial expansion.

In this regard, the defeat of US-Saudi-Israeli sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hizbollah constitute a significant setback for Israel.



US-NATO-Israeli War Crimes: The Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War

The State of Israel is responsible for extensive war crimes.

In turn the US-NATO led war applied Worldwide is a criminal undertaking under the disguise of counter-terrorism. It violates the Nuremberg Charter, the US constitution and the UN charter. According to former chief Nuremberg prosector Benjamin Ferencz, in relation to the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

“a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity — that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.”

Moreover, the evidence amply confirms that the United States of America is a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” and that the campaign against the Islamic State is a smokescreen used by the US and its allies including Israel to justify in the eyes of public opinion its global war of conquest.

Following in the footsteps of Nuremberg, the objective of the December 2005 Kuala Lumpur initiative led by Tun Mahathir Mohamad was to criminalize war and eventually abolish war.

Let us recall the fundamental principles contained in the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, prime minister of Malaysia.

“Killings in war are as criminal as the killings within societies in times of peace. 

Since killings in peace time are subject to the domestic law of crime, killings in war must likewise be subject to the international law of crimes.

This should be so irrespective of whether these killings in war are authorized or permitted by domestic law.”

Since the adoption of the KL Initiative to Criminalize war in December 2005, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT) has passed two important  judgements:

against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al for war crimes in Iraq,

and against the State of Israel on charges of genocide against the people of Palestine.

More than ever the Kuala Lumpur Initiative launched almost thirteen years ago in December 2005 by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad should be widely understood and applied.

What is at stake is the universal recognition of the value of human life, solidarity and understanding between nationalities, ethnic groups and religions, as well as respect for national sovereignty.

These are the preconditions for World peace. As outlined in the Kuala Lumpur declaration: “peace is the essential condition for the survival and well-being of the human race”.

In contrast to these broad principles which define human values, the US military and financial establishment and its allies (including the State of Israel) are intent upon destroying and destabilizing sovereign countries as part of an imperial agenda, through acts of war and economic plunder, the end result of which is the transformation of sovereign nations into open economic territories, under the jurisdiction of US approved proxy regimes.

To no avail, since 2008, both presidents Obama and Trump have followed in the footsteps of George W. Bush. Together with America’s NATO allies, they have not only supported terrorist organizations, they have covertly supported terrorist insurgencies, waged extensive bombing campaigns against Libya (2011), Syria, Yemen and Iraq (2014-), drone attacks and targeted assassinations against Pakistan (2004-) among other military-intelligence operations.

Under the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War which was adopted under the helm of Tun Mahathir,

“All national leaders who initiate aggression must be subjected to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.”

Let us be crystal clear: Consistent with Nuremberg, the above statement applies to president Donald Trump and the heads of State and heads of government of NATO countries as well as Israel, which have endorsed the killings in Palestine, the extensive carpet bombing operations directed against Libya, Syria, Yemen and Iraq, resulting in the death of countless civilians.



War Propaganda and the Demonization of Muslims: A Criminal Undertaking under International Law

An extensive propaganda campaign has been launched with a view to upholding US-NATO-Israeli military actions in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine as humanitarian endeavours, as part of an alleged crusade against Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. In this regard, acts of resistance by Palestine against illegal occupation are presented as acts of terrorism.

The Pentagon, NATO and Israel are the protagonists of war and war crimes. Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are presented as the “outside enemy” which threatens the Western World, when in fact Al Qaeda and the ISIS are supported and financed by the Western military alliance as well as the State of Israel out of the Golan heights.

In 2014, Prime minister Netanyahu confirmed in a semi-official statement that Israel is supporting Al Nusrah fighters out of the Golan Heights.  The IDF top military brass  acknowledged that  “global jihad elements inside Syria” including foreign mercenaries are supported by Israel.

Netanyahu visits Israel’s Hospital Facility for Al Qaeda affiliated rebels in the occupied Golan   

The Jerusalem Post acknowledged that the hospital is being used to support the jihadist insurgency.

 (JP, February 19, 2014)

In turn,  a hate campaign has been launched against Muslim countries as well as Muslim communities within Western countries, which has reached a new threshold under the Trump adminstration.

While the West has initiated a Worldwide demonization campaign against Muslims, the millions of victims of US-NATO led wars in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen  are predominately Muslims. Moreover, in both Syria, Iraq and Palestine the Christian communities have also been targeted, the cultural heritage of Muslims and Christians in Mesopotamia has been decimated by US,  Saudi and Israeli sponsored terrorists.

The crimes and atrocities committed by the Western military alliance in Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo are beyond description.  These crimes have been amply documented in the 2012 Judgment of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,  et al

The Global War on Terrorism: The Political Consensus

Sustained by media disinformation, the Global War on Terrorism is now part of a far-reaching political consensus in Western countries. It has also been used by Western governments to justify and implement “anti-terrorist” legislation within their respective countries.

The fact that the “Global War on Terrorism” is endorsed by the so-called “international community” and rubber-stamped by the United Nations Security Council does not, however,  provide it legitimacy under international law. Despite these endorsements, it nonetheless constitutes a diabolical criminal undertaking, which is fundamentally based on a Lie.

When the Lie becomes the Truth and War becomes Peace, there is no turning backwards.

The legitimacy of the Global War on Terrorism is sustained by media disinformation and war propaganda. In this regard, the various actions intended to deliberately mislead public opinion, obfuscate the atrocities of America’s led wars and justify war on humanitarian grounds, are categorized as criminal acts of war propaganda, under Nuremberg.



RECENT HISTORY (2001-2018)

It is important to focus on the historical evolution of Israeli aggression involving the transformation of Gaza into the World’s largest open air prison.

Operation Justified Vengeance (2001)

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.

“A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002).

According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.

“Bloodshed Justification”

The “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” Israeli military operations were carefully timed to coincide with the suicide attacks:

The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001, emphasis added)

The Dagan Plan 

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after General (ret.) Meir Dagan, who  headed Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.

Reserve General Meir Dagan was Sharon’s national security adviser during the 2000 election campaign. The plan was apparently drawn up prior to Sharon’s election as Prime Minister in February 2001. “According to Alex Fishman writing in Yediot Aharonot, the Dagan Plan consisted in destroying the Palestinian authority and putting Yasser Arafat ‘out of the game’.” (Ellis Shulman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, March 2001):

“As reported in the Foreign Report [Jane] and disclosed locally by Maariv, Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The “Dagan Plan” envisaged the so-called “cantonization” of the Palestinian territories whereby the West Bank and Gaza would be totally cut off from one other, with separate “governments” in each of the territories. Under this scenario, already envisaged in 2001, Israel would:

 “negotiate separately with Palestinian forces that are dominant in each territory-Palestinian forces responsible for security, intelligence, and even for the Tanzim (Fatah).” The plan thus closely resembles the idea of “cantonization” of Palestinian territories, put forth by a number of ministers.” Sylvain Cypel, The infamous ‘Dagan Plan’ Sharon’s plan for getting rid of Arafat, Le Monde, December 17, 2001)

From Left to Right: Dagan, Sharon, Halevy

The Dagan Plan has established continuity in the military-intelligence agenda. In the wake of the 2000 elections, Meir Dagan was assigned a key role. “He became Sharon’s “go-between” in security issues with President’s Bush’s special envoys Zinni and Mitchell.”  He was subsequently appointed Director of the Mossad by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in August 2002. In the post-Sharon period, he remained head of Mossad. He was reconfirmed in his position as Director of Israeli Intelligence by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June 2008.

Meir Dagan, in coordination with his US counterparts, has been in charge of various military-intelligence operations. It is worth noting that Meir Dagan as a young Colonel had worked closely with defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on Palestinian settlements in Beirut in 1982. (Sabra and Shatila) The 2009 ground invasion of Gaza, in many regards, bear a canny resemblance to the 1982 military operation led by Sharon and Dagan.

Continuity: From Sharon  to Olmert 

Olmert and Sharon

It is important to focus on a number of key events from the 2001 Dagan Plan to the killings in Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008-2009 and “Operation Protective Edge” in 2014 leading up the the Gaza massacres of March-May 2018.


1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yaser Arafat.

This assassination had been on the drawing board since 1996 under “Operation Fields of Thorns”. According to an October 2000 document “prepared by the security services, at the request of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that ‘Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence’”. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001. Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.).

Arafat’s assassination was ordered in 2003 by the Israeli cabinet. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. Reacting to increased Palestinian attacks, in August 2003, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared “all out war” on the militants whom he vowed “marked for death.”

“In mid September, Israel’s government passed a law to get rid of Arafat. Israel’s cabinet for political security affairs declared it “a decision to remove Arafat as an obstacle to peace.” Mofaz threatened; “we will choose the right way and the right time to kill Arafat.” Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat told CNN he thought Arafat was the next target. CNN asked Sharon spokesman Ra’anan Gissan if the vote meant expulsion of Arafat. Gissan clarified; “It doesn’t mean that. The Cabinet has today resolved to remove this obstacle. The time, the method, the ways by which this will take place will be decided separately, and the security services will monitor the situation and make the recommendation about proper action.” (See Trish Shuh, Road Map for a Decease Plan,  www.mehrnews.com November 9 2005

The assassination of Arafat was part of the 2001 Dagan Plan. In all likelihood, it was carried out by Israeli Intelligence. It was intended to destroy the Palestinian Authority, foment divisions within Fatah as well as between Fatah and Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian quisling. He was installed as leader of Fatah, with the approval of Israel and the US, which finance the Palestinian Authority’s paramilitary and security forces.

2. The removal, under the orders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, of all Jewish settlements in Gaza. A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated.

“It is my intention [Sharon] to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements…. I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza,” Sharon said.” (CBC, March 2004)

The issue of the settlements in Gaza was presented as part of Washington’s “road map to peace”. Celebrated by the Palestinians as a “victory”, this measure was not directed against the Jewish settlers. Quite the opposite: It was part of  the overall covert operation, which consisted  in transforming Gaza into a concentration camp. As long as Jewish settlers were living inside Gaza, the objective of sustaining a large barricaded prison territory could not be achieved. The Implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” required “no Jews in Gaza”.

3. The building of the infamous Apartheid Wall was decided upon at the beginning of the Sharon government. (See Map below).

4. The next phase was the Hamas election victory in January 2006.

Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections. This was part of the scenario, which had been envisaged and analyzed well in advance.

With Hamas in charge of the Palestinian authority, using the pretext that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel would carry out the process of “cantonization” as formulated under the Dagan plan. Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would remain formally in charge of the West Bank. The duly elected Hamas government would be confined to the Gaza strip.

5. “Operation Cast Lead” (December 2008, January 2009)

The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” (2008) was a carefully planned undertaking, which was part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001:

“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

Planned Humanitarian Disaster in Liaison with Washington

On December 8, 2008  US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan.

“Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

Hamas’ military targets were not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” was intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities.

What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below)

The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, was the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:

“Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)

Ground Attack

On January 3, 2009 Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza in an all out ground offensive:

“The ground operation was preceded by several hours of heavy artillery fire after dark, igniting targets in flames that burst into the night sky. Machine gun fire rattled as bright tracer rounds flashed through the darkness and the crash of hundreds of shells sent up streaks of fire. (AP, January 3, 2009)

Israeli sources have pointed to a lengthy drawn out military operation. It “won’t be easy and it won’t be short,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a TV address.

Israel is not seeking to oblige Hamas “to cooperate”. What we are dealing with is the implementation of the “Dagan Plan” as initially formulated in 2001, which called for:

“an invasion of Palestinian-controlled territory by some 30,000 Israeli soldiers, with the clearly defined mission of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian leadership and collecting weaponry currently possessed by the various Palestinian forces, and expelling or killing its military leadership. (Ellis Shulman, op cit, emphasis added)

The broader question is whether Israel in consultation with Washington is intent upon triggering a wider war.

Mass expulsion of the population of Gaza was envisaged by Sharon, at some later stage of the ground invasion, coupled with a strategy of opening up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population.

On July 8 2014, Israel launched a carefully planned military Operation entitled Protective Edge which consisted in an all out invasion of Gaza strip, resulting in countless death and atrocities.

‘Operation Protective Edge (OPE)  directed against Gaza was reminiscent of the infamous 2001 Dagan Plan entitled “Operation Justified Vengeance” in which the deaths of innocent Israeli civilians had been envisaged and foreseen by IDF military planners.

The deaths are then used to muster the support of the Israeli public as well as provide a justification for a “legitimate” counter-terrorism operation in the eyes of the international community directed against the Palestinian occupied territories.

‘Operation Protective Edge (OPE) directed against Gaza was planned well in advance of the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers. Prime Minister Netanyahu has called up 40,000 reservists. In the wake of the shelling and bombing raids, a major ground operation scenario was envisaged.

Moreover, similar to the logic of the Dagan Plan, the head of Israeli intelligence (Mossad) had “predicted” the kidnapping of the three teenagers. Under the title Mossad chief’s chillingly prescient kidnap prophecy, Haaretz confirms that

“Mossad chief Tamir Pardo had “outlined a scenario that was spookily [sic] similar to the kidnapping of three teens missing in the West Bank” (Haaretz, July 13, 2014, emphasis added)

Israeli civilian deaths are blamed on Hamas without evidence to justify military action against Gaza. The ultimate objective of “Operation Protective Edge” is to break the institutional base of the Hamas leadership and destroy Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, with a view to eventually carrying out the annexation of the Gaza Strip to Israel.  As of July 13, Israel is reported to have struck 1,320 sites within Gaza, resulting in 167 deaths and more than 1,000 injured (Mannam News, July 13, 2014)

Were the three boys killed by Hamas?

Israeli press reports intimate that the three teenagers could have been executed by the Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist entity the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which just so happens to be supported “covertly” as well “overtly” by the State of Israel.

From the Dagan Plan to the present, Israel’s objective is genocide and expulsion of Palestinians from their ancestral lands:

March-May 2018 Gaza Massacre, Nakba Protests

 July 2014 under Operation Protective Edge

and in December-January 2008-2009 under Operation Cast Lead

Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon “it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit).




Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline which belong to the people of Palestine.

The December 2008-January 2009 “Operation Cast Led” was instrumental in the confiscation of Palestine’s gas fields off the coast of Gaza by Israel in derogation of international law.

Tel Aviv announced the discovery of  the Leviathan natural gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean “off the coast of Israel.”

At the time the gas field was: “ … the most prominent field ever found in the sub-explored area of the Levantine Basin, which covers about 83,000 square kilometres of the eastern Mediterranean region.” (i)

Coupled with Tamar field, in the same location, discovered in 2009, the prospects are for an energy bonanza for Israel, for Houston, Texas based Noble Energy and partners Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Ratio Oil Exploration. (See Felicity Arbuthnot, Israel: Gas, Oil and Trouble in the Levant, Global Research, December 30, 2013

The Gazan gas fields are part of the broader Levant assessment area. What happened was the integration of these adjoining gas fields including those belonging to Palestine into the orbit of Israel. (see map below). Namely a process of outright confiscation. The step by step transformation of Gaza into a de facto concentration camp was also accompanied by the de facto ownership by Israel of Gaza’s territorial waters, which contain large reserves of natural gas.

It should be noted that the entire Eastern Mediterranean coastline extending from Egypt’s Sinai to Syria constitutes an area encompassing large gas as well as oil reserves.

Flash Forward: It is important to relate the issue of Gaza’s offshore gas reserves to the recent 2018 massacres undertaken by IDF forces directed against the People of Palestine who own the offshore gas fields.


British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.

The rights to the offshore gas field were respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21,  2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement included field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).

The BG licence covered the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.

The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves were estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.

Map 1

Map 2

Who Owns the Gaza Gas Fields

The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.

The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that “Israel would never buy gas from Palestine” intimating that Gaza’s offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza’s offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)

The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.

In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.” (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.

The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert  “to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority.” The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.

Tel Aviv, however, had no intention of sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:

Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government.” (Ibid, emphasis added)

The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.

Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza’s offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.

The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:

 “Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror”. (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on “The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas,” March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza’s Coastal Waters Threaten Israel’s National Security?  Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)

Israel’s intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).

It is worth noting that the invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead” had been set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources. (Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

That very same month of June, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas. The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of Operation Cast Lead initiated in June 2008. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.

In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG’s offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)

“Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government’s decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender.” (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)

Gaza and Energy Geopolitics 

The objective was to transfer the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law. In practice, the Gaza gas fields have been integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).

These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel’s energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport – pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline. “What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

Map 3


  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Criminalization of War: Gaza
  • Tags:

Pfizer “Largest Health Care Fraud” 2009

Déjà Vu: Flash Forward to 2020-2021

How on earth could you trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice including “fraudulent marketing” and “felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”?

The 2020-2021 mRNA vaccine violations far surpass the health care fraud committed by Pfizer Inc in 2009.

“Fraudulent marketing” is an understatement: The mRNA vaccine announced by Pfizer – BioNTech is based on an experimental gene editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome.  The standard animal lab tests using mice or ferrets were not conducted.  Pfizer “went straight to human “guinea pigs.”

M. Ch,   Global Research Editor, May 15, 2021

VIDEO. US Department of Justice (DOJ) Statement

$2.3 Billion  Medical Fraud settlement with Pfizer

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Video: Pfizer’s Criminal Record. Largest Medical “Fraudulent Marketing” Case in US History

Author’s Note

This article was first published on January 4, 2009, at they height of Israel’s December 2008 -January 2008  bombing and invasion of Gaza.

The article focusses on the transition from “Operation Justified Vengeance” (2001) to “Operation Cast Lead” formulated in 2008.

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff  Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.

What is now occurring in Gaza is part of a longstanding process. The longer term objective of  “Operation Justified Vengeance (2001) was and remains the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands.  

In 2008 the “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.”  

In recent developments, President Joe Biden, has stated “Israel has the Right to Defend Itself”.

Michel Chossudovsky, May 15,  2021


“Operation Cast Lead”

The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” [2008] is a carefully planned undertaking, which is part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001:

“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:

“Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip.  Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.

The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions.

In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel.  During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis.  Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)

Planned Humanitarian Disaster

On December 8, [2008] US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan.

“Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

Hamas’ military targets are not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” is intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities.

What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below)

The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:

“Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)

“Operation Justified Vengeance”

A turning point has been reached. Operation “Cast Lead” is part of the broader military-intelligence operation initiated at the outset of the Ariel Sharon government in 2001. It was under Sharon’s “Operation Justified Vengeance” that  F-16 fighter planes were initially used to bomb Palestinian cities.

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.

“A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002).

According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.

“Bloodshed Justification”

The “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” Israeli military operations were carefully timed to coincide with the suicide attacks:

The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001, emphasis added)

The Dagan Plan 

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after General (ret.) Meir Dagan, who currently heads Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.

Reserve General Meir Dagan was Sharon’s national security adviser during the 2000 election campaign. The plan was apparently drawn up prior to Sharon’s election as Prime Minister in February 2001. “According to Alex Fishman writing in Yediot Aharonot, the Dagan Plan consisted in destroying the Palestinian authority and putting Yasser Arafat ‘out of the game’.” (Ellis Shulman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, March 2001):

“As reported in the Foreign Report [Jane] and disclosed locally by Maariv, Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The “Dagan Plan” envisaged the so-called “cantonization” of the Palestinian territories whereby the West Bank and Gaza would be totally cut off from one other, with separate “governments” in each of the territories. Under this scenario, already envisaged in 2001, Israel would:

 “negotiate separately with Palestinian forces that are dominant in each territory-Palestinian forces responsible for security, intelligence, and even for the Tanzim (Fatah).” The plan thus closely resembles the idea of “cantonization” of Palestinian territories, put forth by a number of ministers.” Sylvain Cypel, The infamous ‘Dagan Plan’ Sharon’s plan for getting rid of Arafat, Le Monde, December 17, 2001)

From Left to Right: Dagan, Sharon, Halevy

The Dagan Plan has established continuity in the military-intelligence agenda. In the wake of the 2000 elections, Meir Dagan was assigned a key role. “He became Sharon’s “go-between” in security issues with President’s Bush’s special envoys Zinni and Mitchell.”  He was subsequently appointed Director of the Mossad by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in August 2002. In the post-Sharon period, he remained head of Mossad. He was reconfirmed in his position as Director of Israeli Intelligence by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June 2008.

Meir Dagan, in coordination with his US counterparts, has been in charge of various military-intelligence operations. It is worth noting that Meir Dagan as a young Colonel had worked closely with defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on Palestinian settlements in Beirut in 1982. The 2009 ground invasion of Gaza, in many regards, bear a canny resemblance to the 1982 military operation led by Sharon and Dagan.

Continuity: From Sharon  to Olmert 

It is important to focus on a number of key events which have led up to the killings in Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”:

1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yaser Arafat.

Olmert and Sharon

This assassination had been on the drawing board since 1996 under “Operation Fields of Thorns”.

According to an October 2000 document

“prepared by the security services, at the request of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that ‘Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence'”. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001. Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.).

Arafat’s assassination was ordered in 2003 by the Israeli cabinet. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. Reacting to increased Palestinian attacks, in August 2003, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared “all out war” on the militants whom he vowed “marked for death.”

“In mid September, Israel’s government passed a law to get rid of Arafat. Israel’s cabinet for political security affairs declared it “a decision to remove Arafat as an obstacle to peace.” Mofaz threatened; “we will choose the right way and the right time to kill Arafat.” Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat told CNN he thought Arafat was the next target. CNN asked Sharon spokesman Ra’anan Gissan if the vote meant expulsion of Arafat. Gissan clarified; “It doesn’t mean that. The Cabinet has today resolved to remove this obstacle. The time, the method, the ways by which this will take place will be decided separately, and the security services will monitor the situation and make the recommendation about proper action.” (See Trish Shuh, Road Map for a Decease Plan,  www.mehrnews.com November 9 2005

The assassination of Arafat was part of the 2001 Dagan Plan. In all likelihood, it was carried out by Israeli Intelligence. It was intended to destroy the Palestinian Authority, foment divisions within Fatah as well as between Fatah and Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian quisling. He was installed as leader of Fatah, with the approval of Israel and the US, which finance the Palestinian Authority’s paramilitary and security forces.

2. The removal, under the orders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, of all Jewish settlements in Gaza. A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated.

“It is my intention [Sharon] to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements…. I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza,” Sharon said.” (CBC, March 2004)

The issue of the settlements in Gaza was presented as part of Washington’s “road map to peace”. Celebrated by the Palestinians as a “victory”, this measure was not directed against the Jewish settlers. Quite the opposite: It was part of  the overall covert operation, which consisted  in transforming Gaza into a concentration camp. As long as Jewish settlers were living inside Gaza, the objective of sustaining a large barricaded prison territory could not be achieved. The Implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” required “no Jews in Gaza”.

3. The building of the infamous Apartheid Wall was decided upon at the beginning of the Sharon government. (See Map below).

4. The next phase was the Hamas election victory in January 2006. Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections. This was part of the scenario, which had been envisaged and analyzed well in advance.

With Hamas in charge of the Palestinian authority, using the pretext that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel would carry out the process of “cantonization” as formulated under the Dagan plan. Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would remain formally in charge of the West Bank. The duly elected Hamas government would be confined to the Gaza strip.

Ground Attack

On January 3, [2009] Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza in an all out ground offensive:

“The ground operation was preceded by several hours of heavy artillery fire after dark, igniting targets in flames that burst into the night sky. Machine gun fire rattled as bright tracer rounds flashed through the darkness and the crash of hundreds of shells sent up streaks of fire. (AP, January 3, 2009)

Israeli sources have pointed to a lengthy drawn out military operation. It “won’t be easy and it won’t be short,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a TV address.

Israel is not seeking to oblige Hamas “to cooperate”. What we are dealing with is the implementation of the “Dagan Plan” as initially formulated in 2001, which called for:

“an invasion of Palestinian-controlled territory by some 30,000 Israeli soldiers, with the clearly defined mission of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian leadership and collecting weaponry currently possessed by the various Palestinian forces, and expelling or killing its military leadership. (Ellis Shulman, op cit, emphasis added)

The broader question is whether Israel in consultation with Washington is intent upon triggering a wider war.

Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion, were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population. Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon “it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)


All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


While imagining breakneck progress, we’ve been backing off a cliff.  This is no surprise to those whose historic knowledge is not limited to the stifling propaganda dispensaries called American History class, mainstream news and Hollywood blockbusters that animate the anodyne story lines of comic books.  The loudly heralded “Great Reset” to a “New Normal” and “Fourth Industrial Revolution” embracing artificial intelligence is not new at all, just a reification of every tyrant’s dream.  It’s a vision of global technocratic feudalism.

About a century ago as John D. Rockefeller envisioned agriculture and medicine wrenched away from nature and replaced with oil derivatives, artists and writers saw the prospective horror ahead.

Art is powerful and dangerous to imperial victims and rulers alike. It can both transmit and transcend propaganda. Film, when conceived as more than trivial or tendentious entertainment, has served as a brilliant art form providing prescient visions of inevitable trajectories rooted in the sensed essence and enduring zeitgeist of a culture.

One such film was Fritz Lang’s 1927 silent expressionist classic, Metropolis, which leaves indelible visual memory imprints. Lang’s images ominously anticipated the vast economic stratification and dehumanizing technocracy we see taking shape rapidly nearly a century later. Lang showed us the cartoon society we have become – the rulers living far above in towering penthouses with private “pleasure gardens” (think Jeffrey Epstein) while workers labor underground in coordinated robotic motion obliterating individuality. The film can be seen online with meticulously restored footage completed in 2010.

The written word has been similarly prescient.  George Orwell’s 1949 novel, 1984, describing a totalitarian society of inescapable mass surveillance and suffocating repression, echoes clearly today. And even earlier, Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World, envisioned a dehumanized technocratic society where government and citizen political participation had become superfluous and natural interpersonal sources of pleasure and comfort had been replaced by an ever-available drug, soma.  And even earlier yet, Franz Kafka’s unfinished 1926 novel, The Castle, provides a deeply disturbing metaphoric vision of society operating under arbitrary rules administered by impersonal bureaucrats on behalf of unknown and unseen rulers above.  In a striking parallel with covid-19 today, oppressed and ignored villagers invent endless justifications for their own oppression.

The forecasts have unfolded

Now, a century later, the Castle is called the Deep State.  With a massive society to control, an illusion of democracy maintained by smothering, multi-level propaganda is necessary.  One vilified figure after another is accused of  “threatening our democracy” but in fact the US has no democracy.  Late Princeton political theorist Sheldon Wolin identified our system as not a democracy but a system of “inverted totalitarianism” wherein finance and industry control government in upside-down comparison with 1930s Nazi and fascist regimes wherein government dictated the conduct of finance and agendas of industry.

Political scientists Martin Gillens and Benjamin Page of Princeton and Northwestern universities,  respectively, conducted a comprehensive study that validate this picture. Examining 1,779 federal policy decisions over 20 years covering three Republican and two Democratic administrations, they compared populist with special interest influences.

Policy decision preferences reflected in public opinion surveys were compared between ordinary citizens at the 50th income percentile with “the economic elite” at the 90thincome percentile.  Influential interest groups were chosen from Fortune magazine’s “Power 25” lists (AARP, AIPAC, NRA, etc.).  The “business community” was represented by the ten key industries reporting the highest lobbying expenditures.  Their findings documented significant influence by the economic elite and both business and special interest groups, but concluded that “ordinary citizens…have little or no independent influence on policy at all.”

In his book Democracy Inc., Dr. Sheldon Wolin described our inverted totalitarian state characterized by “a pervasive atmosphere of fear abetted by a corporate economy of ruthless downsizing.”

This unmistakably resonates today in our artificially manipulated “pandemic” panic used as cover for destruction of small independent “non-essential” business supplanted by massive multinationals that exploit and tyrannize employees made desperate by the economic collapse around them.  Need we look beyond our 664 billionaires who increased their wealth by over 35% ($1.2 trillion) in 2020?

Or beyond the multi-billion dollar Frankenstein-technology vaccines from Big Pharma for which simple, safe, inexpensive, effective covid prophylactics and treatments that obviate need for vaccines were recklessly and fraudulently suppressed, since absence of available treatments is a necessary precondition for Emergency Use Authorizations to release unproven vaccines upon the public?

Unfortunately yes, we do need to look even further. We must examine, deconstruct and dismember the “Great Reset,” “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “New Normal” toward which this is leading, ominously preached and pronounced inevitable by Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, Joe Biden, and their automaton acolytes.

They follow a long line of ideological predecessors from John D. Rockefeller through Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations before which, confident of his patrician impunity, Biden proudly described his shakedown of Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor investigating an energy company where his son enjoyed an obscenely generous sinecure. Such is their unbridled arrogance and contempt for laws and rules of conduct that govern commoners.

We commoners increasingly face suffocating surveillance, censorship and police state control – key characteristics of fascism – including informal deputizing of citizens to police each other to enforce senseless, degrading, identity-obliterating rules of mask wearing, touch avoidance and “social distancing” within an arbitrary 6-foot spacing – for none of which is there remotely persuasive scientific evidence for pathogen protection even were covid-19 the dreaded plague it has been cast to occupy in the public imagination.

Entering the 2020s and bewitched by the ever-proliferating magic of cyber-wizardry, we become increasingly spellbound within a web of its insidiously programmed mythology packaged as entertainment, games and invented “news” easily identified as fiction to those who search behind the mesmerizing screen. The wizards are as detached and inaccessible, as opaque, as those in Kafka’s Castle. Let us remember, however, that economic bludgeons wielded by the parasitic .001% are provided by taxpayer dollars and consumer spending feeding their limitless appetites.  Thus we hold the ultimate power and must learn how to use it. To do so, we must first decline the seductive bait and ask, since these arbitrary restrictions contributed no net benefit to public health, who and what are these really for?

Criminalizing human nature

Dogs, cats, monkeys and humans, inter alia, all seek and need comforting touch for ongoing autonomic regulation and normal socialization. Psychologist Harry Harlow demonstrated how young monkeys are able to progressively reduce anxiety in response to unfamiliar and unsettling stimuli by retreating to an ever-available mother figure providing tactile comfort.  Food provision alone was not enough.  With unavailability of anxiety modulation, monkeys raised without comforting touch fail to mature socially and sexually.

Most dogs and cats are born in litters and begin their lives piled together.  One of our cats was once killed on the road just as she was weaning four kittens.  Our old tom cat took over, cleaning and grooming the kittens and teaching them rough-and-tumble defense and hunting skills. TLC is not gender-specific and seems instinctively understood across most evolved species. Many animals are born already able to walk but require licking and maternal proximity to immediately launch into a maturation sequence toward full autonomy and integration into their collaborative social group.

Humans begin life snuggled with their mothers and gazing into her smiling face.  No mother should be masked at this moment, or later for many years as young children take cues from their parents in public and other uncertain situations. Children are closely attentive to both the facial expressions and voice intonations of their caretakers and surrounding adults. Deprivation or attenuation of these psychologically essential cues constitutes child neglect, which can affect brain development and be more psychologically damaging than overt abuse.  Every new developmental challenge from our first step to our first date to our first job application involves some degree of apprehension that must be soothed first by a parents hands, later a parent’s words and voice, and eventually the internalized experience of that support buried in our psyche.  Without that, human psychological growth is truncated, often irreversibly.

Psychologist James Prescott examined 49 of 400 pre-industrial societies comparing violence among cultures at the high and low end of a scale measuring physical affection to infants. He found that this and another developmental variable – permissiveness around adolescent sexuality – differentiated more from less violent societies.  Both involve generosity of touch during developmentally crucial periods and were the only cultural variables associated with prediction of societal violence. His paper, published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists – a profession deeply concerned with human aggression following our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – was titled “Body Pleasure and the Origin of Violence.”

Expanding beyond Prescott’s findings, anthropologist Ashley Montague comprehensively documented the central importance of touch in human development and ongoing social life.  The 6-foot distance (just beyond two outstretched arm-lengths) prescription – obviously irrelevant to aerosolized virons – appears diabolically designed to maintain unrelieved states of distress by keeping us literally “out of touch” with this natural source of distress reduction. Predictably, it’s been a good year for alcohol sales and psycho-pharmaceuticals treating depression.

“Social distancing” and promotion of touch phobia is beyond absurd.  This is a targeted attack on our innate human sensibilities. Our psychological warfare developers cannot be unaware of this and have been free to secretly cultivate methods prohibited to ethical behavioral scientists due to our careful protection of human subjects in recent decades following the Milgram and Zimbardo research that exposed participants to unsettling truths about their predispositions to abuse authority or passively comply with abuse by others.

Application of other familiar psychological control mechanisms from behaviorism are obvious, however insidiously disguised, in this manufactured program of fear induction joined with fear relief prohibition including self-isolation.  Virus-terrorized citizens have been manipulated into administering punishment-by-shaming  to other citizens who resist or refuse compliance with their own dehumanization.

Those with displayed faces, unmuffled voices, and stubborn affinities for skin contact with other humans are physically avoided, treated with varying degrees of hostility, or reported to store managers or clerks informally deputized as enforcement agents of the state under threat of business sanctions.  Communications challenging formal authorities are subjected to the “cancel culture” by their media stooges.  Survivors of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, the Stalinist Soviet Union, and American Senator Joseph McCarthy quickly recognize these control mechanisms and are accordingly alarmed.

The distinct facial expressions characterizing emotional states that “amplify” cognition – and the emotional cost when suppressed – were investigated extensively in the Affect Theory of Princeton psychology professor Silvan Tomkins and his associates.  Each affect has “its innately programmed neurophysiological substrate, universally recognized facial expression, and motivational subjective experience.”  Masking disables this fundamental, innate mechanism of human communication, which inherently increases interpersonal discomfort. Since an extensive body of research discredits any value of masks in contagion prevention, it is reasonable to presume this social disabling and increased discomfort are weapons of psychological warfare against our own populations being primed to accept the “new normal” to get the imperial boots off our throats.

Tomkins came to focus intensive analysis on the core affect of shame at the base of personal identity, associated with internally and externally activated self-disapproval.  Ambivalence over masking certainly evokes this widely.  Those who compliantly mask up are signaling their fearfulness and blind submission to authority.  Those who don’t are stigmatized as socially irresponsible.  We risk social attack and self-esteem demotion with either choice.  We are being subjected to a diabolical psyops.

Sealing our vulnerabilities and restoring natural wisdom

These informal social control mechanisms work because humans are a highly sociable species and seek inclusion and acceptance into groups, from which personal identity is drawn along a continuum of self-differentiation.  In observational experiments of problem solving interactions by families with disturbed children, psychiatrist Murray Bowen reported greater problem severity in the IP (“identified patient” in a dysfunctional family system who is the primary symptom-bearer) within families with greater “ego fusion” – identifying as “we” – in contrast with “ego differentiation” where family members express and are validated by their individual identities.  Those who draw identity largely from collective sources (e.g., “I am an American, a Democrat/Republican, or Presbyterian/Catholic/Jewish”) are less likely to exercise independent judgment and values than those who identify themselves primarily as differentiated individuals.  The more ego fusion, the more easily we are manipulated by stereotypic targeted propaganda.

To maintain cohesion, stable groups become self-reinforcing echo chambers, exchanging transactional “strokes” (units of social recognition) in mutually familiar formats with predictable payoffs.  Two fundamental environments with differing stroke contingencies are work and family.  Both involve structured interactive agendas with self-imposed limitations to protect valued relationships.

A third environment is the informal, less structured and less stratified public space – cafes, taverns, and recreational settings – called “The Great Good Place” by sociologist Ray Oldenburg.  These provide a safety valve for the other two, both of which include duties, performance expectations, and responsibilities that must be met for positive recognition. Oldenburg writes, “daily life, in order to be relaxed and fulfilling, must find its balance in (those) three realms of experience.” Already weaker in the US than elsewhere, this third, freer, less conditional area of life with less influence of institutional hierarchy has been deeply attacked and damaged by the covid-19 psyops agenda.  Restoring and expanding that vital sector of our society is essential to recover from fraud-induced psychological conditions of fear and passive intimidation.  We must unmask, undistance, and uncensor ourselves.  We must dethrone the high priests of Science-by-Fiat who have lied and manipulated us out of our humanity.

Most importantly, the phobias induced within children must be undone. It is appalling how our young citizens are being trained to fear rather than understand our microbial environment, to fear infecting their families and teachers and peers, and to fear normal play with each other.  This is an unspeakable crime for which the perpetrators should be stripped of rank and riches and quarantined from human company until they make full confession and apology to the children of the world.

The remedy will require, at the very least, a thorough and carefully designed curriculum. The Year of Covid-19 provides a focused educational opportunity, first realistically addressing the ubiquity and functional importance of microbes. We must give due credit to our resident microbes evolved over countless millenia to protect us, their host organisms.  Children must learn that our 30 trillion cells are outnumbered and protected by some 39 trillion microbes located throughout each human body, highly concentrated at the entry points of  skin, mouth and gut.  Vaccines injected directly into the bloodstream recklessly bypass these natural defenses that are vastly more competent than our Frankenstein bioscientists. Almost all ambient microbes are benign protectors or simply bystanders minding their own business.

Those that aren’t are ID checked at the door by our own microbial bodyguards, and are summarily dispatched if necessary.  This is essential to collective (“herd”) immunity against widespread microbial invasions.  Attempting to prevent “infection” simply delays this natural process and provides a pathogen time to adapt and modify its strategies.  We share our environment with billions of micro-organisms, which are the origins and building blocks of life.  The microbiomes in soil produce the nutrients needed by the microbiomes within us. Rather than receiving appreciation and thoughtful nutritional support, viruses have become the latest “other” to fear, hate and destroy. If we continue along our current path and eliminate ourselves and much of life on earth, the microbes will rebuild –  hopefully toward a better-grounded intelligence than ours.

Our fellow citizens who self-righteously clamor for dehumanization to save humanity claim the sacred ground of “Science.”  To correct this, our children must learn that “science” is functionally not a noun but a verb – empirically based methods of thinking, investigation and evidence evaluation. The entire lockdown/masking/touch-me-not/self-isolation ritual has no basis in scientific findings, as I and many others have widely documented elsewhere. The word “science” has been hijacked into the realm of metaphysics, no longer a widely applicable method of rigorous inquiry and hypothesis-testing, but a word deformed and sanctified into a secular religion.

A virus with a now-legendary name has become satanic, evil incarnate, a grim reaper as invisible and ubiquitous and mysterious as the mythic Satan figure of religious mythologies.  It has passed into the realm of faith and thereby become impervious to facts and rationality.  Anthony Fauci is its High Priest, his every formal declaration a holy writ, issuing  secret knowledge and prescribing ritual protection.  No matter that over 56,000 infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists repudiate the Faucian prescription.  Priestly dogma now prevails over rational functioning and much of human society.

This plays – not accidentally I suspect – into a deep, irrational force in the collective human psyche that anthropologist Mary Douglas explored in her book, Purity and Danger.  Impurity or pollution represents dangerous power outside our control, existentially threatening both society and its individual members, who must conform in purification rituals (e.g., masking, 6-foot distancing and obsessive-compulsive disinfectant wiping) for group survival.  Those of us outside the faith are shunned and shamed as heretics, apostates, archetypical infectious lepers. Thus, a “pandemic virus” is not unlike “communism” or “Islamic terrorism” to be identified and rooted out for individual and group survival.  PCR testing – however meaningless and unreliable – becomes a magical unmasking instrument, and vaccines – however experimental, woefully untested, unapproved, unnecessary, and already producing alarming harms while immunized from ordinary legal liability – become an exorcism ritual and its growing list of victims ritual sacrifices to the new 3-letter gods CDC, WHO and NIH.

We are a primitive society that needs to grow up, and quickly before the power-insulated priesthood including Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates and the technocratic clergy takes over everything.  Once better choices are recognized, opportunities emerge for revolution of political consciousness and systemic transformation. But we have no time to waste.

How about considering real democracy?  This would require a wholly novel plan rather than simply reciting a self-congratulatory word without substance upon examination.

Democracy is for psychologically mature adults. Citizen responsibility for self-governance must involve knowledge acquisition, sober reflection, evidence examination and reasoned discussion built into everyday public life.  It must require sound collective judgment and moral responsibility for all local, regional and national decisions.  To create a grown-up nation retrieved from the grip of ruling-class psychopaths who have long disempowered, neglected, exploited and abused us along with much of the world, we must mature into political grown-ups.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jack Dresser, Ph.D. is a retired psychologist and NIH-funded research scientist associated with Oregon Research Institute, where he served as Principal Investigator on projects developing and evaluating high-risk behavior prevention and early intervention programs.  Before these studies he directed several projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education developing drug and alcohol abuse prevention and early intervention programs for school districts in northern and southern California and Oregon.  He began his professional career as a U.S. Army psychologist during the Vietnam War, and is national vice-chair of the Veterans for Peace working group on Palestine and the Middle East.  For several years he has co-hosted a weekly radio show titled “Racism, Empire and Survival” on www.kepw.org in Eugene, Oregon that focuses on the propaganda fueling and maintaining violent U.S./NATO/Israeli imperialism and the false histories packaged as education that provide the framing into which government and media propaganda is seamlessly fitted. For the past year he has focused intensively on the covid-19 debacle, which displays the characteristic earmarks of imperial psyops.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on We Must Awaken from “Corona Coma”, Reject “Great Reset” Robotic Technocracy and Assert Our Common Humanity
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Thousands of Canadians will be left stranded, and more than 400 workers are left without jobs after Greyhound Canada ceased operations today says the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU).

“This is devastating news for the thousands of Canadians, especially those from indigenous and First Nations communities, who have relied on Greyhound for transportation. Seniors won’t be able to visit their families, students won’t be able to get to school, and many others will be left stranded,” said ATU International President John Costa about the closure. “More than 400 workers including 305 of my brothers and sisters, are now out of a job. This adds insult to injury to these workers and their families already impacted by the pandemic and the Trudeau government and the Progressive Conservative Party MPPs are to blame. They not only failed to provide COVID-19 relief for this hard-hit industry but ignored calls for many years for critical federal funding of Greyhound Canada and the entire struggling intercity bus industry and to stop the ruinous deregulation of intercity bus lines.”

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Greyhound Canada had already suspended their services nationwide in 2020. The company claims the shutdown was due to a lack of federal COVID relief funding and omnibus Bill 213 that proposed deregulation of the intercity bus industry which if implemented as planned on July 1, 2021, will allow anyone to start an intercity bus company, cherry-pick profitable routes while bypassing rural and poor communities, and abolish safety requirements for the industry.

This comes only a few years after Western Greyhound Canada shutdown in 2018, citing a lack of financial sustainability in the face of deregulation and after the government reneged on a promise to provide funding to deal with the crisis.

In the U.S, the ATU secured $2 billion for the motor coach and school bus industries under the Coronavirus Economic Relief for Transportation Services (CERTS) Act. More than 300 Greyhound workers in the U.S. are still laid off or furloughed.

“For many years, Greyhound Canada has been the only form of transportation to connect people living in small towns across Canada with larger cities to provide opportunities for jobs, access to health care and other critical services” Costa continued. “In the U.S., we were able to secure critical relief funding for the motor coach industry that has been devastated by the pandemic and we continue to push for more. We call on the Trudeau government to do the same to save this lifeline and livelihood for thousands of Canadians.”


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Shutdown of Greyhound Canada Will Leave Canadians Stranded, More Than 400 Workers Without a Job
  • Tags:

Good News for Iran. And Maybe for the US?

May 15th, 2021 by J. Michael Springmann

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


On the morning of May 11, 2021, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced his candidacy for President of Iran. Elections set for June 18 will determine the presidency, local councils, by-elections for parliament, and the Assembly of Experts that will have a say in choosing the next Supreme Leader.

The Good News. 

But, while the Washington Post routinely describes Ahmadinejad as a hard-liner, and “an isolationist with a talent for riling the West”, the big news is that he has chosen Nader Talebzadeh Ordoubadi as an advisor.  This demonstrates that the former president is open to an inclusive government that has the potential to reach out to the West.  In the past, he has said that presidential elections are an “empty drum”, asserting the current style of governance will not resolve the country’s woes. Ahmadinejad’s and Nader’s candidacies must be approved by the Guardian Council, a 12-man body supervising elections. All people standing for office—even for the presidency—must meet with its prior approval.

Someone Who Knows. 

However, Nader Talebzadeh’s selection as advisor is probably the wisest decision that Dr. Ahmadinejad might make.  And is likely to be the best choice for Iran.  Nader studied in the United States—at Randolph Macon College in Ashland, Virginia, at American University in Washington, D.C., and at Columbia University in New York City.  He speaks fluent, unaccented American English, can easily discourse on Medieval Europe, and has a wide-ranging interest in assembling thinkers, activists, politicians, journalists, and government officials for broad discussions on a variety of subjects.

Mr. Talebzadeh has interviewed this writer (and other Americans) a number of times, on his TV program Asr (Time) as well as on other media.  He is skilled at asking probing questions tied to current events, especially those of great international interest.  Nader is also a well-known writer and movie-maker who has produced an excellent film on Jesus Christ.


Nader Talebzadeh Ordoubadi is also an expert on sanctions—the hard way.

In February 2019, Sigal Pearl Mandelker, then Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and, likely, an Israeli citizen, sanctioned him, his wife, Zeina Mehanna, his organization The New Horizon Conference (NHC), and some of its staff for holding a week’s program in Mashhad and other Iranian cities. Ostensibly, the reason was “anti-Semitism, Holocaust Denial, and allowing Iranian intelligence to recruit attendees”.  As a participant in the May 2018 event, this writer sat next to an Arab, a Semitic person, and listened to Miko Peled, an Israeli-American activist, and Rabbi Dovid Weiss of New York City speak.  The author heard nothing about Holocaust Denial and the only two people he knew who were “pitched” by Iranian intelligence were approached outside the Conference.

The Crime. 

Nader’s real “crime” was assembling Western dissidents, whistle-blowers, human rights activists, and global affairs analysts to provide unvarnished interviews on their areas of expertise to an astonishing number of news outlets, both Iranian and international.  Worse, the NHC had, in particular, invited former CIA officials, State Department diplomats (such as this author), and one-time Defense Department staff.

Besides permitting corrupt Lebanese banks with no ties to the U.S. to steal NHC staff funds deposited with them, the sanctions also bar American citizen participation in future NHC programs—on the pain of jail terms and asset seizure.  This was and is a blatant violation of freedom of association, travel, and speech, the U.S. Constitution be damned!

Help or Hinder? 

But how will this help Iran and the United States?  It would appear that Sigal Pearl, with her Foreign Influence and Foreign Preference security blots, would have poisoned Nader against the United States forever.  He and his wife appealed their sanctions to the Treasury Department.  But, like most American government agencies faced with inconvenient facts and hard truths, Treasury ignored their pleas.


Benefits, Benefits, Benefits. 

We are dealing with a man who is neither small physically nor small mentally.  To quote Kevin Barrett, writer, talk show host, and former academic,

“Unlike Bill Moyers, Nader is unafraid of such controversial issues as 9/11 truth, false flags, political assassinations, and other matters pertaining to the Deep State. Nader has lived extensively both in the US and Iran, and understands both societies, and their overlapping histories, well. If any US president were to ever decide to atone for past crimes and heal the American-Iranian relationship, the first person to consult would be Nader Talebzadeh.”

Dr. Barrett is entirely correct.  But, this time, it’s not the American president that will consult him, it may well be the next Iranian president.  Nader Talebzadeh is not someone to hold a grudge.  His interest is not himself but the wider world in which he lives.  The whole point of his NHC programs was to use the thoughts and recommendations derived from the various fora involving international authors, activists, and experts to make the world a better place, to break down walls of misunderstanding and promote the general welfare.

As an extremely intelligent Iranian, Nader understands his own country and his own society.  He is the product of a land with a history ranging back to the Elamites of 2600 BC.  Present day Iran is the product of ancient Sumeria, the Medes, the Achaemenids, the Sassanids, the Seljuks, the Safavids, and Islam. Mr. Talebzadeh, therefore, is someone who knows where he has come from and where he is going.

He knows America.  He frequently remarks that someone who understands the origins of the United States and treasures its former emphasis on freedom of speech and other constitutional liberties is an “Old American”.   Therefore, Nader fully understands the U.S. raison d’etre and how it has become divorced from reality.  He can see how small minded, puling, professional politicians have corrupted and perverted the American ideal.

Moreover, over the years, Nader Talebzadeh has acquired a wealth of knowledgeable American contacts.  These would prove to be valuable assets in his new role as advisor to Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  They could well become his “kitchen cabinet”, providing unofficial advice should he have need of it.


In the past, the Iranian government has depended on well-meaning officials who have traveled to the United States, who have acquired secondhand knowledge of that country, yet were too steeped in their own traditions to make beneficial changes.  Nader Talebzadeh Ordoubadi offers more.  He is a true Iranian yet he has acquired an intimate, far-reaching knowledge of the United States through study, travel, and personal interaction with American thinkers, activists, and former government officials.

If anyone can pour oil on the waters of a needlessly-turbulent relationship, Nader can.  His appointment as advisor to the possible president of Iran will pry open a tightly-closed, clamshell-like approach to international relations.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Nader Talebzadeh, Iranian filmmaker and film critic. (CC BY 4.0)

A Timeline of “The Great Reset” Agenda

May 15th, 2021 by Tim Hinchliffe

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Say it’s 2014 and you’ve had this idea for a technocratic Great Reset of the world economy for some time now, but it only works if the entire planet is rocked by a pandemic. How do you go about selling your idea?

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, WEF

If you are World Economic Forum (WEF) Founder Klaus Schwab, you attempt to sell your vision of a global Utopia via a Great Reset of the world order in three simple steps:

  1. Announce your intention to revamp every aspect of society with global governance, and keep repeating that message
  2. When your message isn’t getting through, simulate fake pandemic scenarios that show why the world needs a great reset
  3. If the fake pandemic scenarios aren’t persuasive enough, wait a couple months for a real global crisis to occur, and repeat step one

It took Schwab and the Davos elite about six years to watch their great reset ideology grow from a tiny Swiss seed in 2014 to a European super-flower pollinating the entire globe in 2020.

The so-called “Great Reset” promises to build “a more secure, more equal, and more stable world” if everyone on the planet agrees to “act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”

But it wouldn’t have been possible to contemplate materializing such an all-encompassing plan for a new world order without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocked society to its core.

“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval” — Clade X pandemic simulation (May, 2018)

So, in May, 2018, the WEF partnered with Johns Hopkins to simulate a fictitious pandemic — dubbed “Clade X” —  to see how prepared the world be if ever faced with such a crisis.

A little over a year later, the WEF once again teamed-up with Johns Hopkins, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to stage another pandemic exercise called Event 201 in October, 2019.

Both simulations concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic.

And a few short months following the conclusion of Event 201, which specifically simulated a coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status on March 11, 2020.

“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

Since then, just about every scenario covered in the Clade X and Event 201 simulations has come into play, including:

  • Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide
  • The collapse of many industries
  • Growing mistrust between governments and citizens
  • A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies
  • Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation
  • The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources
  • A global lack of personal protective equipment
  • The breakdown of international supply chains
  • Mass unemployment
  • Rioting in the streets
  • And a whole lot more!

After the nightmare scenarios had fully materialized by mid-2020, the WEF founder declared “now is the time for a “Great Reset” in June of this year.

Was it excellent forecasting, planning, and modeling on the part of the WEF and partners that Clade X and Event 201 turned out to be so prophetic, or was there something more to it?


Below is a condensed timeline of events that tracks the Great Reset agenda that went from just a “hope” in 2014 to a globalist ideology touted by royalty, the media, and heads of state the world-over in 2020.

2014-2017: Klaus Schwab calls for Great Reset and WEF repeats message

Ahead of the 2014 WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Schwab announced that he hoped the WEF would push the reset button on the global economy.

The WEF would go on to repeat that message for years.

Between 2014 and 2017, the WEF called to reshape, restart, reboot, and reset the global order every single year, each aimed at solving various “crises.”

  • 2016: WEF holds panel called “How to reboot the global economy.”
  • 2017: WEF publishes article saying “Our world needs a reset in how we operate.”

Then in 2018, the Davos elites turned their heads towards simulating fake pandemic scenarios to see how prepared the world would be in the face of a different crisis.

2018-2019: WEF, Johns Hopkins & Gates Foundation simulate fake pandemics

On May 15, 2018, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the “Clade X” pandemic exercise in partnership with the WEF.

The Clade X exercise included mock video footage of actors giving scripted news reports about a fake pandemic scenario (video below).

The Clade X event also included discussion panels with real policymakers who assessed that governments and industry were not adequately prepared for the fictitious global pandemic.

“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval,” according to a WEF report on Clade X.

“There are major unmet global vulnerabilities and international system challenges posed by pandemics that will require new robust forms of public-private cooperation to address” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

Then on October 18, 2019, in partnership with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WEF ran Event 201.

During the scenario, the entire global economy was shaken, there were riots on the streets, and high-tech surveillance measures were needed to “stop the spread.”

Two fake pandemics were simulated in the two years leading up to the real coronavirus crisis.

“Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security issued a public statement on January 24, 2020, explicitly addressing that Event 201 wasn’t meant to predict the future.

“To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise. For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. Instead, the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic.”

Intentional or not, Event 201 “highlighted” the “fictional” challenges of a pandemic, along with recommendations that go hand-in-hand with the great reset agenda that has set up camp in the nefarious “new normal.”

“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

Together, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation submitted seven recommendations for governments, international organizations, and global business to follow in the event of a pandemic.

The Event 201 recommendations call for greater collaboration between the public and private sectors while emphasizing the importance of establishing partnerships with un-elected, global institutions such as the WHO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Air Transport Organization, to carry out a centralized response.

One of the recommendations calls for governments to partner with social media companies and news organization to censor content and control the flow of information.

“Media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

According to the report, “Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation.

“National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages.

“For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology.”

Sound familiar?

Throughout 2020, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been censoring, suppressing, and flagging any coronavirus-related information that goes against WHO recommendations as a matter of policy, just as Event 201 had recommended.

Big tech companies have also deployed the same content suppression tactics during the 2020 US presidential election — slapping “disputed” claims on content that question election integrity.

2020: WEF declares ‘Now is the time for a Great Reset’

After calling for a great reset in 2014, the Davos crowd repeated the same ideology for a few more years before pivoting towards simulating faux pandemic scenarios.

A few months after the WEF established that nobody was prepared to deal with a coronavirus pandemic, the WHO declared there was a coronavirus pandemic.

All of a sudden! the great reset narrative that the WEF had been nurturing for six years, found a place to pitch its tent in the “new normal” camp.

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future,” Schwab declared on June 3, 2020.

And that’s where we’re at today.

  • The Davos elites said they wanted a global reset of the economy many years ago
  • They role-played what would happen if a pandemic were to occur
  • And now they’re saying that the great reset ideology is the solution to the pandemic, and it must be enacted quickly

The great reset is a means to an end.

Next on the agenda is a complete makeover of society under a technocratic regime of un-elected bureaucrats who want to dictate how the world is run from the top down, leveraging invasive technologies to track and trace your every move while censoring and silencing anyone who dares not comply.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tim Hinchliffe is the editor of The Sociable. His passions include writing about how technology impacts society and the parallels between Artificial Intelligence and Mythology. Previously, he was a reporter for the Ghanaian Chronicle in West Africa and an editor at Colombia Reports in South America. [email protected]

Featured image is from The Sociable

“The introduction of that study to India was made on the basis that it was going to be great investment in the health of India and the health of India’s women. But in fact, later on, during the investigation around these alleged ethical violations… the profits that would have been made had the study passed through the trials would have been enormous! I mean, and this is something that Indian people are very aware of .

“The size of their population means that if you can get a mass vaccination program going there, if you can compel people to accept the vaccine, this involves billions and billions and billions if not trillions of dollars!”

– Jo Nash, from this week’s interview



Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

India. Considering it is the seventh largest country by land mass, the second largest by population, and controls the fifth largest economy in the world, perhaps it does not get the attention it deserves.

But then, on November 26, 2021, 200-250 million people, a sizable chunk of humanity large enough to form the fifth largest country in the world rose up in an act of protest. It arguably marked the single largest uprising in history anywhere on the planet. The action was a reflection of farmers’ anger over new reforms pushed by Prime Minister Modi and his party the BJP. [1]

The three laws in particular passed in September of last year were proposed as a “watershed moment” for the farmers that would give them “easier access to futuristic technology that will boost production and yield better results. This is a welcome step.” But tens of millions of farmers who have shown their anger see these new  as “leaving them at the mercy of big corporations.” Even now, 40,000 committed protesters are sitting at Singhu and Tikri at the border of the capital city, Dejhi. Nothing other than the rejection of the Modi’s new farm program will convince these souls to deviate from this mission of defiance.

But another big issue in play is the explosion of cases and deaths in the country due to the second wave of the Corona Virus. Thomson Reuters reports that the population of the biggest democracy in the world is reeling with 250,000 deaths due to COVID. Deaths shot up by 4,205 over the course of a 24 hour period, with the number of cases according to conservative estimates surging up to 348,421 in the same time period. [2]

Dead bodies were reportedly burned in funeral pyres and washed up on the shores of the river Ganges. The hospitals had to turn away patients because they were overloaded with the ill. Political leaders were crying out for vaccines in order to curb the man more deaths that are sure to follow.

 Delhi’s Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia told reporters that without more vaccines:

“People will die in the same way in the third and fourth waves as they have this time.”

According to the World Health Organization’s most recent reports, 50 percent of cases in the world and 30 percent of deaths due to COVID take place in India. And yet, the vaccination roll-outs which have been in effect since January have only claimed 2.5 percent of the population as of this date! And unlike in other countries where the pandemic has essentially shut down protests, the farmers in India are sticking to their actions – at least so far. [3][4][5]

Some might think the time has come to contain the explosion before a large component of humanity perishes! Or – perhaps a different perspective is in order.

A recent article in the website for Left Lockdown Sceptics reveals that there is more going on here than a virus! She details elements in Indian society like air pollution and an oxygen market, diseases like TB and Diarrhoea claiming even more lives, and the immense number of people living in India (it is 100 times the population of the province of Ontario with 100 times the death and case total.) [6]

On this week’s Global Research News Hour we endeavor to unravel the details behind the Indian situation and truly determine where the voices of ordinary people lie in the height of popular turmoil.

In our first half hour we hear from Jo Nash, the author of the article entitled India’s Current ‘COVID crisis’ in context. She explains the media’s exaggeration of the facts given the details in her article. In our second half hour we hear from journalist Vandana K on the ground in Delhi. She relates to programmer Chris Cook of Gorilla-Radio in a February interview the details behind the farmer’s protests which for the time being is not in danger of discontinuing until Prime Minister Modi has a change of mind about his neoliberal plan.

Jo Nash is an independent researcher, writer and editor living in Scotland, UK. She previously worked as a Senior Lecturer in Psychology and earned a Master’s Degree in International relations while in Sri Lanka. Jo was a Lecturer in Mental Health at the University of Sheffield’s Faculty of Medicine in the UK for ten years where she earned her PhD in psychotherapy in 1998 before to moving to India to study the health benefits of meditation in 2008. She currently fundraises for a food bank in Bodhgaya, Bihar, north India.

Vandana K is a Delhi-based independent journalist and producer who writes on the intersections of environment, gender, youth and indigenous communities with a focus on climate change. She’s also covered India’s agriculture beat for nearly two years. Vandana’s articles can be found at Deutsche Welle, Resurgence & Ecologist, The Wire, and Canada’s Media Co-Op, where her recent piece, ‘The fight over agriculture in India, and how Punjabis in Canada are supporting farmers’ appears.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 316)


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time. 


  1. consortiumnews.com/2020/12/04/indias-one-day-general-strike-largest-in-history/
  2. www.cbc.ca/news/world/india-covid19-death-toll-1.6023704
  3.  World Health Organization: COVID-19 Weekly Epidemiological Update,, May 11, 2021
  4. www.cbc.ca/news/world/india-covid19-death-toll-1.6023704
  5. Anju Agnihotri Chaba (May 12, 2021), ‘At protest sites, farm unions get Covid battle-ready with team of doctors, oxygen’, Indian Express; indianexpress.com/article/india/farmers-protest-coronavirus-pandemic-7311750/
  6. leftlockdownsceptics.com/2021/04/indias-current-covid-crisis-in-context/?doing_wp_cron=1621007065.9737439155578613281250

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India: Resisting Vaccines and Corporate Capture of Farms

Butting Heads with China and Russia: American Diplomats Are Outclassed

By Philip Giraldi, May 14, 2021

With the exception of the impending departure of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan, if it occurs, the White House seems to prefer to use aggression to deter adversaries rather than finesse. The recent exchanges between Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at a meeting in Alaska demonstrate how Beijing has a clear view of its interests which Washington seems to lack.

New Intermarium: Biden, NATO Pledge Support to NATO’s Nine-Nation Eastern Flank

By Rick Rozoff, May 14, 2021

NATO’s Stoltenberg went out of his way to fawn over President Biden, praising him twice in a brief message. In particular he celebrated the new American administration’s “commitment to rebuilding alliances” and “strengthening NATO.”

Vaccine Passports Banned in Wyoming

By Steve Watson, May 14, 2021

The Governor of Wyoming has banned vaccine passports, issuing a directive that states no person should be denied access to any places or services based on their vaccination status. Republican Mark Gordon’s directive outlines that “Vaccine passport programs have the potential to politicize a decision that should not be politicized.”

The Siege of Gaza and the Fight for Jerusalem

By Donald Monaco, May 14, 2021

Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinian families living in East Jerusalem and its invasion of Al-Aqsa Mosque to quell protests against this atrocity escalated tensions in the ancient city that reverberated throughout occupied Palestine.

“Gaza Will Burn”: Israel’s War Cabinet Approves Escalated Aggression on Gaza

By Stephen Lendman, May 14, 2021

Late Wednesday, cabinet members unanimously agreed to intensify IDF terror-bombing of Gaza — including strikes on civilian targets. War minister Gantz said “Gaza will burn” — meaning an intent to commit greater crimes of war and against humanity than already.

History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa. The Roots of Its Failure

By Shane Quinn, May 14, 2021

Operation Barbarossa, whose 80th anniversary falls next month, was the largest military operation ever undertaken. This German invasion of the Soviet Union proved to be the decisive confrontation of the Second World War, and the effects of its outcome lasts to the current day.

Geopolitical Projection: US Claims China Is an “Aggressor”

By Brian Berletic, May 14, 2021

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has, in a 60 Minutes interview, accused China of acting “repressively at home and more aggressively abroad,” emphasizing it as a “fact.” He repeated unfounded claims that “1 million” Uyghurs are being interned in facilities in China’s western region of Xinjiang and referred to it as “genocide.”

“The Storming of The Bastille 2021” Le Retour! “Danser Encore”. Flashmob in Paris

By Catherine Austin Fitts and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 14, 2021

“Danser Encore” in Paris confronts the lies of a corrupt French government which serves the interests of the financial establishment. What is required is to Break the Legitimacy and Authority of  the architects of the infamous Covid Project including the “Great Reset”.

CDC: Death Toll Following Experimental COVID Injections Now at 4,434 – More than 21 Years of Recorded Vaccine Deaths from VAERS

By Brian Shilhavy, May 14, 2021

The CDC released the latest death figures following the experimental COVID injections this week, and that death toll now stands at 4,434 people, adults and children, that have been recorded as dying after receiving one of the experimental COVID injections.

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

By Israel Shahak and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 14, 2021

The Palestinian Catastrophe prevails. In a 2018 report, the United Nations stated that Gaza had become “unliveable”: With an economy in free fall, 70 per cent youth unemployment, widely contaminated drinking water and a collapsed health care system, Gaza has become “unliveable”, according to the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian Territories.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: “Gaza Will Burn”: Israel’s War Cabinet Approves Escalated Aggression on Gaza

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


The U.S. Treasury Department announced on May 11 new sanctions against Hezbollah. Washington continues to attack the finances of the Shi’ite party via the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to undermine the groups influence and to maintain perpetual economic chaos and political division in Lebanon. 

According to the Treasury Department, Al-Qard al-Hassan is the financial wing of Hezbollah that oversees the groups “overall budget and spending, including the group’s funding of its terrorist operations and killing of the group’s opponents.” Those targeted by the sanctions have reportedly transferred more than $500 million to Hezbollah despite sanctions. Andrea Gacki, director of OFAC, said that Hezbollah continued “to abuse the Lebanese financial sector” and that such actions demonstrate the groups “disregard for financial stability, transparency, or accountability in Lebanon.”

The message from the Joe Biden administration to Hezbollah was clear: they do not want the Iranian-backed party to have financial autonomy that will allow it to fully dominate the political scene.

After classifying the movement as a terrorist organization in 1995, Washington made its first sanctions against them a year later. Amato-Kennedy’s law sanctioned Syria and Iran for supporting the Lebanese movement. However, since then, the measures taken by Washington have been increasingly targeted.

Seeking at all costs to cut Hezbollah’s funds, the U.S. government has already carried out a series of coercive measures against several personalities close to the group. In 2015, President Barack Obama enacted the “Hizballah International Financing Prevention Act.” This decree made it possible to freeze assets in the U.S. belonging to any individual or entity suspected of financing Hezbollah or of having any connection to them.

Since then, American authorities have directly sanctioned party leaders. Last September, the U.S. Treasury targeted two Lebanese figures – former Transport Minister Youssef Fenianos and former Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil – and accused them of having helped the Shi’ite group. Hezbollah reacted by asserting that “everything that emanates from this (American) Administration is condemned and rejected.”

Lebanese banks, which were trying to respect American directives, were tempted, for political and commercial reasons, to look away and allow such operations to be carried out for the benefit of Hezbollah. At the same time, the U.S. did not attempt to control Lebanese banks as they find themselves trapped by their own contradictions. Washington therefore did not hesitate to plunge Lebanon into an even deeper banking and economic crisis to attack Hezbollah.

By means of these new sanctions, and fearing an all-powerful Hezbollah, American logic is ultimately to make the Shi’ite party unpopular in the eyes of the Lebanese people – a policy which is also based on various forms of pressure.

In fact, regardless of economic sanctions, Washington has implemented a series of measures aimed at undermining Hezbollah’s influence. Through an associative, educational and journalistic network, American public diplomacy is trying to damage the image of the Shi’ite party. Washington has therefore funded a local humanitarian organization, the MEPI (Middle East Partnership Initiative) to counter the actions undertaken by the pro-Iranian movement. But this funding also affects hostile political parties, as well as local and regional media.

Countries which oppose Iranian influence in Lebanon and the wider region have panoply of means to contain this influence. In addition, U.S. leaders are reportedly pressuring its European partners to include Hezbollah in their list of terrorist organizations. After the United Kingdom, Germany and Serbia, Latvia granted this request last December, a decision hailed by Washington

But the question remains whether such pressure can break Hezbollah’s significant political, economic and military control over Lebanon.

Such measures do next to nothing to alleviate the significant political and economic crisis in Lebanon. A weak and divided Lebanon means that Iran (through Hezbollah) cannot gain full control of the country. Although Hezbollah says its purpose of existence is to destroy Israel, one would imagine that the current conflict between the Israeli military and Gazan militants, in addition to the breakdown of civil society as mobs of Jewish and Muslim Israeli citizens attack each other, provides Hezbollah an opportunity to embark on its self-proclaimed ambition. Yet, after many days of conflict between Palestinian militants and the Israeli military, Hezbollah is yet to make a move against what it calls the Zionist Entity.

This would suggest that U.S. sanctions and pressure to keep Lebanon weakened and fragmented achieved its goal of pacifying a major threat against Israel. As long as threats against Israel emanate from Lebanon, Washington will ensure that the country will remain in a state of permanent crisis, and the latest sanctions are a testament to that fact.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from LobeLog

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Eight New York Yankees players and staff members that recently tested positive for COVID-19 were vaccinated before getting the virus.

All of the players and staffers were given the Johnson & Johnson vaccine but not all got a shot from the same batch.

The latest player revealed to test positive this week is Gleyber Torres, MLB revealed in a press release Thursday.

“The Yankees can today confirm that INF Gleyber Torres has received a positive COVID-19 diagnosis. He was fully vaccinated and previously had COVID-19 during the most recent baseball offseason,” MLB stated.

Torres is asymptomatic, Yankees manager Aaron Boone said in a press conference Thursday.

The MLB player is “the eighth Yankees player, coach or traveling staff member to test positive this week. All of the positives are breakthrough positives, occurring with individuals who were fully vaccinated,” the MLB press release stated.

Other positive cases include Coach Matt Blake, Coach Phil Nevin, Coach Reggie Willits and four members of the Yankees’ traveling staff, MLB revealed. All eight are currently in quarantine.

“Major League Baseball, its medical experts and the New York State Department of Health are currently advising and assisting the Yankees, who continue to undergo additional testing and contact tracing,” the statement concluded.

The Yankees players and coaching staff were given the Johnson & Johnson vaccination on April 7, MLB previously reported.

However, Coach Nevin received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination during spring training in Florida in March, the NY Times and The Athletic reported.

“I think one of the things we’re seeing is that being vaccinated en masse like we are, we’re seeing the vaccinations also kind of blunt the effects of the virus,” Boone said in a press conference on Wednesday. “I feel like in a lot of ways, because we’re vaccinated, we’re kind of good and able to deal with this. So there’s a little bit of a frustrating part there, in all the testing that we’re gonna do.”

Although Torres is the latest player and staff member to test positive for COVID-19 this week, Boone said on Thursday, “Today was the first day of no new cases.”

The New York State Department of Health is investigating why and how the players tested positive a month after getting vaccinated, ESPN reported.

“While there have been anecdotal reports of New Yorkers who have had a positive COVID test 14 or more days after receiving their last vaccine dose, DOH is investigating those cases along with the ones linked to the Yankees further to determine if they meet the formal CDC definition of vaccine breakthrough,” the NY DOH told the outlet in a statement.

The NY DOH did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request to comment.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is “74.4% effective and 72% effective in preventing moderate to severe/critical COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days and 28 days after vaccination, respectively” in Americans, according to the FDA.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 8 Yankees Players and Staff Test Positive for COVID-19 Despite Being Vaccinated Before Diagnosis
  • Tags:
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US, Japan, France Hold First Joint Drills in Japanese Territory with Eye on China

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


The Biden administration may soon recruit an army of private snoops to conduct surveillance that would be illegal if done by federal agents. As part of its war on extremism, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may exploit a “legal work-around” to spy on and potentially entrap Americans who are “perpetuating the ‘narratives’ of concern,” CNN reported last week. But federal informant programs routinely degenerate into “dollars for collars” schemes that reward scoundrels for fabricating crimes that destroy the lives of innocent Americans. The DHS plan would “allow the department to circumvent [constitutional and legal] limits” on surveillance of private citizens and groups. Federal agencies are prohibited from targeting individuals solely for First Amendment-protected speech and activities. But federal hirelings would be under no such restraint. Private informants could create false identities that would be problematic if done by federal agents.

DHS will be ramping up a war against an enemy which the feds have never clearly or competently defined. According to a March report by Biden’s office of the Director of National Intelligence, “domestic violent extremists” include individuals who “take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. government in support of their belief that the U.S. government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority.” Perhaps like setting up a private informant scheme to evade constitutional restrictions on warrantless surveillance?

One DHS official bewailed to CNN: “Domestic violent extremists are really adaptive and innovative. We see them not only moving to encrypted platforms, but obviously couching their language so they don’t trigger any kind of red flag on any platforms.” DHS officials have apparently decided that certain groups of people are guilty regardless of what they say (“couching their language”). The targets are likely to be simply people with a bad attitude towards Washington. That will include gun owners who distrust politicians who vow to seize guns.

The latest fuzzball standards (“narratives of concern”?) fit the post-9/11 pattern of wildly expansive threat definitions. Shortly after its creation in 2002, DHS warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government” as potential terrorists. DHS-funded Fusion Centers have attached the  “extremist” tag to gun-rights activists, anti-immigration zealots, and individuals and groups “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority”—even though many of the Founding Fathers shared the same creed. The Pentagon taught soldiers and bureaucrats that people who attend public protests are guilty of  “low-level terrorism.” An Air Force report accused women who wear hijabs of “passive terrorism.” Endless enemies lists come in handy at congressional appropriations hearings.

Federal officials insist that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. FBI chief Christopher Wray perennially proclaims that the FBI never investigates Americans based solely on their ideas. But, as the Intercept reported in 2019, “Who the Justice Department decides to prosecute as a domestic terrorist has little to do with the harm they’ve inflicted or the threat they pose to human life.” But that claim is belied by the FBI’s beloved “informant loophole.” As Trevor Aaronson explained, “FBI agents must obtain supervisory approval to enter a group or gathering using an undercover agent, and to obtain that approval, the FBI must have a ‘predicate,’ or a factual basis to suspect criminal activity. But neither supervisory approval nor a predicate is required if the work is done by an informant, creating a loophole that allows the FBI to investigate Americans for virtually any reason.”

Any new informants hired by the Biden administration will operate under the same perverse incentives that have long subverted due process. Informants tend to be rewarded based on how much assets they help government seize or how many people they help prosecutors condemn. As a 2019 report by the American Bar Association noted, “The government pays cash for incriminating information and testimony. This is troubling because the financial incentive to make cases against others may be much greater than the personal integrity of the informants.” A report by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General slammed the Drug Enforcement Agency for failing to “document the reliability of informants” who helped the DEA to confiscate billions of dollars of private property. The DEA paid informants $237 million between 2010 and 2015, including $25 million shoveled out to only nine informants. DEA’s best paid informant, Andrew Chambers, Jr., was found to have given “false testimony under oath in at least 16 criminal prosecutions nationwide before he was exposed in the late 1990s,” USA Today reported in 2013. Attorney General Janet Reno banned the DEA from using him as an informant but in 2008, DEA re-hired Chambers and used him for at least the following five years.

Informants have become far more perilous to freedom and decency since the 1970s thanks to the Supreme Court effectively defining entrapment out of existence. Almost anything an informant or undercover government agent does to induce someone to violate the law is considered fair play. Craig Monteilh, an informant who was sent into mosques in southern California, was given permission by his FBI handlers to sleep with Muslim women he targeted and to secretly tape record their pillow talk. Other FBI informants browbeat their targets into discussing bombing government buildings, providing sufficient verbal rope to hang them. The vast majority of people charged with international terrorism offenses in the decade after 9/11 were not bona fide threats but were induced by the FBI or informants to behave in ways that prompted their arrest, according to Trevor Aaronson’s The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism.

One purpose of relying on private informants is to assure that there are no federal fingerprints when people are coaxed or shoved into breaking the law. The FBI admits that it formally entitles its army of informants to commit more than 5,000 crimes a year; there is no estimate of how many crimes are committed directly by FBI agents, who have been formally taught that “the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.” Thanks to the FBI’s Iron Curtain of Secrecy, we have no idea what sort of atrocities its informants may now be committing. During George W. Bush’s reign, the White House formally invoked executive privilege to block disclosure of the FBI’s sweetheart deals for Whitey Bulger, a notorious FBI informant and Irish crime boss linked to 20 murders. The FBI knew of Bulger’s role in killings but lied in court to protect him, even providing false testimony to send innocent men to prison for life to safeguard Bulger. That debacle was summarized in a 2004 congressional reporttitled, “Everything Secret Degenerates: The FBI’s Use of Murderers as Informants.” In 2011, a federal judge aptly labeled the FBI’s behavior in the case as “uncontrolled official wickedness.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden Plans Expansion of Feds’ Army of Snitches in ‘Dollars for Collars’ Program
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Of all the nuclear weapon states, the United Kingdom has moved the furthest toward establishing a minimum nuclear deterrent. The United Kingdom has a stockpile of approximately 225 nuclear warheads, of which up to 120 are operationally available for deployment on four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). This estimate is based on publicly available information regarding the size of the British nuclear arsenal, conversations with UK officials, and analysis of the nuclear forces structure. The SSBNs, each of which has 16 missile tubes, constitute the United Kingdom’s sole nuclear platform, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) comprise its sole nuclear delivery system. The United Kingdom is the only nuclear weapon state that operates a posture with a single deterrence system (Table 1).

The United Kingdom’s nuclear posture

Carrying approximately 40 warheads, one of the four SSBNs is deployed at sea at all times in what is called a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent (CASD) posture. Two of the submarines remain in port and can be deployed on short notice, while the fourth remains in overhaul and could not be quickly deployed, if at all. The patrol SSBN operates at “reduced alert;” that is, its capability to fire its missiles is measured in days, rather than a few minutes (as during the Cold War). Its missiles are also kept in a “detargeted” mode—target coordinates are stored in the submarine’s launch control center instead of in the navigational system of each missile.

To safeguard against the degradation of its nuclear command, control, and communications in wartime, the United Kingdom uses a system of handwritten letters to command its submarines in the event an adversarial strike incapacitates the country’s leadership. On their first day in office, the Prime Minister is expected to offer preplanned instructions regarding the United Kingdom’s nuclear response, which are said to include options like “Put yourself under the command of the US, if it is still there,” “Go to Australia,” “Retaliate,” or “Use your own judgment” (Norton-Taylor 2016).

British SSBNs, which carry out secondary tasks such as scientific data collection while on patrol, are based in southwestern Scotland at the Naval Base Clyde at Faslane, which has access to the Irish Sea. Nonoperational warheads are stored at the Royal Naval Armaments Depot (RNAD) at Coulport, approximately three kilometers west of the base.

The United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons stockpile

Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom has not declassified the history of its nuclear weapons stockpile size. Over the past two decades, however, the United Kingdom has made several declarations about reducing the sizes of its nuclear inventory and operationally available warheads. In 2006, the UK government announced that they would be “reducing the number of operationally available warheads from fewer than 200 to fewer than 160” (Ministry of Defence 2006, 17). It is believed that around that time, the UK nuclear stockpile included 240 to 245 nuclear warheads. In May 2010, Foreign Secretary William Hague declared, “[f]or the first time, the government will make public the maximum number of warheads that the United Kingdom will hold in its stockpile—in [the] future, our overall stockpile will not exceed 225 nuclear warheads” (Hague 2010, col. 181). The Ministry of Defence subsequently revealed that these reductions to a 225-warhead ceiling had already been completed by May 2010 (UK Ministry of Defence 2013).

Later that year, in October 2010, the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) declared that the United Kingdom would “reduce the number of warheads onboard each submarine from 48 to 40; reduce our requirement for operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120; reduce our overall nuclear weapon stockpile to no more than 180; [and] reduce the number of operational missiles on each submarine” (HM Government 2010, 38). In June 2011, the Secretary of Defence announced to parliament that some of these proposed changes had already been implemented: “at least one of the VANGUARD class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) now carries a maximum of 40 nuclear warheads” (Fox 2011).

In its 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the UK Government reaffirmed its plans to cut the size of the nuclear arsenal. By this point, the number of operationally available nuclear warheads had already been reduced from fewer than 160 to no more than 120, and all Vanguard- class SSBNs “now carry 40 nuclear warheads and no more than eight operational missiles” (Fallon 2015). The 2015 strategic review restated that the overall size of the nuclear stockpile, including non-deployed warheads, was expected to decrease to no more than 180 by the mid-2020s (HM Government 2015, 34). Despite these stated intentions, it is believed that throughout the decade the overall size of the UK nuclear stockpile remained constant, at approximately 225 nuclear weapons in total. Warheads removed from service during this time were put into storage, but not dismantled.

In its 2021 Integrated Review, the UK Government suddenly reversed decades of gradual disarmament policies and announced a significant increase in the upper limit of the United Kingdom’s nuclear inventory, up to no more than 260 warheads (HM Government 2021, 76). This decision joins the United Kingdom together with China and Russia as the three members of the so- called P5 NPT countries to increase the sizes of their nuclear stockpiles. In clarifying statements, UK officials noted that the target of 180 warheads promised in the 2010 and 2015 SDSRs “was indeed a goal, but it was never reached, and it has never been our cap,” stating that 225 remained the cap even after the 2015 SDSR explicitly declared that “we will reduce the overall nuclear weapon stockpile to no more than 180 warheads” (Liddle 2021; HM Government 2015, 34). In a speech to the Conference on Disarmament, foreign minister James Cleverly stated that the 260 warheads “is a ceiling, not a target, and is not our current stockpile” (Cleverly 2021).

Because the United Kingdom has not declassified the history of its nuclear weapons stockpile size, illustrating how the stockpile has fluctuated over the years comes with considerable uncertainty. Based on documents previously published by the British government, statements made by government officials, and analysis of the British nuclear weapons force structure over the years. Figure 1 displays our estimates for the overall size of the United Kingdom’s nuclear arsenal between 1953 and 2025.

Figure 1. Estimated United Kingdom Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, 1953-2025. Note: The United Kingdom has not declassified the history of its nuclear weapons stockpile size, so this estimate is provided for illustrative purposes.

The degree to which the Johnson’s government’s policy change will affect the United Kingdom’s targeting requirements remains to be seen; however, the Integrated Review states that the stockpile increase comes in response to “the evolving security environment, including the developing range of technological and doctrinal threats” (HM Government 2021, 76). After publication of the review, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace explained this included Russian ballistic missile defenses: “We have to . . . maintain a credible deterrent to reflect and review what the Russians and others have been up to in the last few years. We have seen Russia invest strongly in ballistic missile defense. They have planned and deployed new capabilities. That means if [the UK deterrent is] going to remain credible, it has to do the job . . . . A quite clear study of how effectively warheads work and how they reenter the atmosphere means you have to make sure they’re not vulnerable to ballistic missile defense. Otherwise they no longer become credible” (Wallace 2021).

It is notable that while Russia is singled out as “the most acute direct threat to the UK,” the Integrated Review also includes what appears to be a subtle—but clear—nuclear threat against Iran, despite the fact that Iran does not have nuclear weapons: After assuring that “the UK will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968 (NPT),” the document states that “[t]his assurance does not apply to any state in material breach of those non-proliferation obligations” (HM Government 2021, 77).

In addition to the warhead cap increase, the Integrated Review also reversed longstanding transparency practices and stated that the United Kingdom will “no longer give public figures for our operational stockpile, deployed warhead or deployed missile numbers” (HM Government 2021, 77). This is a mirror image of the Trump administration’s abrupt decision to keep the nuclear stockpile number secret after nearly a decade of relative transparency under the Obama administration (Kristensen 2020).

To increase its overall stockpile, the UK will likely bring warheads previously retired for dismantlement back into the stockpile. Under the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment’s (AWE) Stockpile Reduction Program, warhead disassembly is undertaken at AWE Burghfield. According to the Ministry of Defence,

The main components from warheads disassembled as part of the stockpile reduction programme have been processed in various ways according to their composition and in such a way that prevents the warhead from being reassembled. A number of warheads identified in the programme for reduction have been modified to render them unusable whilst others identified as no longer being required for service are currently stored and have not yet been disabled or modified (UK Ministry of Defense 2013).

These reserve warheads are either stored at the Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport or at AWE Burghfield. It is unclear how many stored warheads could be quickly reconstituted in light of the UK Government’s recent decision to raise its warhead ceiling; however, it is possible that a few dozen warheads could be returned to the stockpile over the coming years.

Nuclear modernization and the UK sea-based deterrent

Despite decades of nuclear weapons reductions, the United Kingdom—with broad parliamentary support—has committed to replacing its current fleet of Vanguard-class SSBNs with brand-new boats. The new Dreadnought-class SSBNs are expected to enter service in the early 2030s and have a service life of at least 30 years (Mills 2020). The four boats will be named Dreadnought, Valiant, Warspite, and King George VI (UK Ministry of Defence 2019).

The Dreadnought-class SSBNs will have new “Quad Pack” Common Missile Compartments that are being designed in cooperation with the US Navy to also equip the United States’ new Columbia-class SSBNs. Each “Quad Pack” Common Missile Compartment holds four launch tubes, and each Dreadnought-class SSBN will have three Quad Packs onboard for a planned total of 12 launch tubes—a reduction from the 16 launch tubes currently carried by the UK’s Vanguard-class submarines. Technical problems and quality control issues have resulted in the delayed delivery of the missile launch tubes for the Common Missile Compartment; however, in April 2020 the first four tubes were delivered and have since been welded into the first UK Quad Pack (UK Ministry of Defence 2020a). In July 2020, two more missile tubes were received by the submarine building facility at Barrow-in-Furness, meaning that half of the tubes required for the lead Dreadnought boat have now been delivered and are in the process of being integrated into the pressure hull (UK Ministry of Defence 2020a).

The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent relies heavily on American nuclear infrastructure, to the point where its own independence has long been in question. The United Kingdom does not own its own missiles, but has title to 58 Trident SLBMs from a pool of missiles shared with the United States Navy. The UK Government is also participating in the US Navy’s current program to extend the service life of the Trident II D5 (the life-extended version will be known as D5LE) missile to the early 2060s (Mills 2021).

Additionally, the current UK warhead, which is called Holbrook, is believed to be highly similar to the United States’ W76-0 warhead—so similar that it has appeared in the US Department of Energy’s “W76 Needs” maintenance schedule (Kristensen 2006). As part of its Nuclear Warhead Capability Sustainment Programme, the United Kingdom is currently refurbishing its warheads for incorporation onto the US-supplied Mk4A aeroshell, which is an upgraded version of the Mk4 that includes an improved MC4700 Arming, Fuzing, and Firing (AF&F) system. UK officials have suggested that “the Mk4A programme will not increase the destructive power of the warhead;” however, the new AF&F system reportedly includes new technology that significantly increases the system’s ability to conduct hard-target kill missions (Norton-Taylor 2011; UK Ministry of Defence 2016; Kristensen, McKinzie, and Postol 2017).

These warhead upgrades are taking place at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) facility at Aldermaston, from where the warheads are transported on trucks north to the Royal Naval Armaments Depot (RNAD) Coulport, near Glasgow. Warhead scheduled for dismantlement are shipped to AWE Burghfield eight kilometers (4.8 miles) northeast of Aldermaston. The UK disarmament group Nukewatch has tracked these transports and assesses that by the end of 2020, two SSBNs had been loaded with Mk4A-upgraded warheads (Nukewatch 2020).

In February 2020, the UK defence secretary announced the start of a new warhead program to eventually replace the current warhead (UK Ministry of Defence 2020b). The announcement was preempted by the commander of US Strategic Command, who leaked during Senate testimony that the United States’ W93/Mk7 program “will also support a parallel Replacement Warhead Program in the United Kingdom” (Richard 2020). In April 2020, the UK defence secretary sent a letter to US members of Congress, lobbying them in support of the new warhead and describing it as “critical . . . to the long-term viability of the UK’s nuclear deterrent” (Borger 2020). The UK Ministry of Defence subsequently suggested that just like the similarities between the current US and UK warheads, the UK’s replacement warhead will be very similar to the US W93: “It’s not exactly the same warhead but . . . there is a very close connection in design terms and production terms” (Lovegrove 2020).

Concerns and issues for the future

The increasing costs and poor management of the United Kingdom’s nuclear complex have long been sources of frustration. The 2015 SDSR suggested that the costs of building the four new submarines would be £31 billion, an increase of £6 billion from 2011 estimates (HM Government 2015, 36, 2011, 10). The UK Government also set aside a contingency fund of £10 billion to cover possible cost overruns. In December 2020, the UK Ministry of Defence reported to Parliament that approximately £8.5 billion had been spent on the program as of March 2020, of which £1.6 billion had been spent over the previous 12 months (UK Ministry of Defence 2020a). Altogether, the National Audit Office (NAO) reported in 2018 that the Ministry of Defence was facing an “affordability gap” of £2.9 billion in its military nuclear spending between 2018 and 2028 (National Audit Office 2018, 36).

In addition to these longstanding cost concerns, in 2020 both the NAO and the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee published reports indicating that three crucial nuclear infrastructure projects would be delayed between 1.7 and 6.3 years, with costs increasing by over £1.3 billion due to poor management (National Audit Office 2020, 21; Committee of Public Accounts 2020, 3). One of these infrastructure projects is MENSA, a new warhead assembly and disassembly facility at Aldermaston that has been delayed by six years and overspent by 146 percent (National Audit Office 2020, 4). Other critical nuclear projects—such as Pegasus, for handling enriched uranium components, and Hydrus, for conducting hydrodynamic-radiographic experiments—have been plagued by similar issues (Plant 2020).

In a bid to resolve some of these issues related to management and oversight, in November 2020 the Ministry of Defence announced a renationalization of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which had previously been government-owned but contractor-operated via a consortium led by Lockheed Martin (Wallace 2020).

Another future concern for the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent lies with the prospect of Scottish independence. Naval Base Clyde, where the United Kingdom’s SSBNs are ported, is in Scotland, at Faslane on the Gare Loch. A 2013 Scottish government white paper clearly stated that if Scotland voted for independence the following year, “we would make early agreement on the speediest safe removal of nuclear weapons a priority. This would be with a view to the removal of Trident within the first term of the Scottish Parliament following independence” (Scottish Government 2013, 14). Although Scotland narrowly voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, it is increasingly likely that the United Kingdom’s decision to exit the European Union—a decision opposed by the majority of Scotland—could soon trigger another referendum. Although several potential relocation candidates have been identified by external analysts—such as HM Naval Base Devonport in Plymouth—the costs and logistics involved with relocating the United Kingdom’s SSBN force would be prohibitive and could prompt the UK Government to reconsider its current plans to modernize its nuclear deterrent (Chalmers and Chalmers 2014; Norton-Taylor 2013).


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kristensen is the director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in Washington, DC.

Matt Korda is a research associate for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, where he co-authors the Bulletin‘s Nuclear Notebook with Hans Kristensen. Previously, he worked for the Arms Control, Disarmament, and WMD Non-Proliferation Centre at NATO HQ in Brussels. He is also the co-director of Foreign Policy Generation––a group of young people working to develop a progressive foreign policy for the next generation.


Borger, J. 2020. “UK lobbies US to support controversial new nuclear warheads.” The Guardian. 1 August. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/01/uk-trident-missile-warhead-w93-us-lobby.

Chalmers, H., and Chalmers, M. 2014. “Relocation, Relocation, Relocation: Could the UK’s Nuclear Force be Moved after Scottish Independence?” Royal United Services Institute. August. https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201408_op_relocation_relocation_relocation.pdf.

Cleverly, J., Minister of State. 2021. “Conference on Disarmament: Minister Cleverly’s Address on the Integrated Review.” March 26. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/conference-on-disarmament-minister-cleverlys-address-on-the-uk-integrated-review

Committee of Public Accounts. 2020. “Defence Nuclear Infrastructure: Second Report of Session 2019–21.” House of Commons. HC 86. 13 May. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmpubacc/86/86.pdf.

Fallon, M. 2015. “Statement on Nuclear Deterrent.” Daily Hansard, Col. 4WS. 20 January. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150120/wmstext/150120m0001.htm.

Fox, L. 2011. “Statement on Nuclear Deterrent.” Daily Hansard, Col. 50-51WS. 29 June. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110629/wmstext/110629m0001.htm.

Hague, W. 2010. “Statement on foreign affairs and defense.” Daily Hansard, Col. 181. 26 May. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100526/debtext/100526-0005.htm.

HM Government. 2010. “Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review.” Cm 7948. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62482/strategic-defence-security-review.pdf.

HM Government. 2011. “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: Initial Gate Parliamentary Report.” May. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27399/submarine_initial_gate.pdf.

HM Government. 2015. “National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015: A Secure and Prosperous United Kingdom.” Cm 9161. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf.

HM Government. 2021. “Global Britain in a competitive age The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy:” CP 403. March. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/969402/The_Integrated_Review_of_Security__Defence__Development_and_Foreign_Policy.pdf.

Kristensen, H. M. 2006. “Britain’s Next Nuclear Era.” FAS Strategic Security Blog. 7 December. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2006/12/britains_next_nuclear_era/.

Kristensen, H. M. 2020. “Trump Administration Again Refuses To Disclose Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Size.” FAS Strategic Security Blog. 3 December. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/12/nuclear-stockpile-denial-2020/.

Kristensen, H. M., M. McKinzie, and T. Postol. 2017. “Warhead ‘Super-Fuze’ Increases Targeting Capability of US SSBN Force.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, March 2. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/03/super-fuze/.

Liddle, A. (@AidanLiddle). 2021. “That cap was maintained in 2015. 180 was indeed a goal, but it was never reached, and it has never been our cap. And by the way, we’re talking about ceilings, not targets, or indeed our actual numbers.” Tweet. March 16. https://twitter.com/AidanLiddle/status/1371912132141445120.

Lovegrove, S. 2020. “Oral evidence: MoD Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20, HC 1051.” House of Commons Defence Committee. Q31. 8 December. https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1350/pdf/.

Mills, C. 2020. “Nuclear weapons at a glance: United Kingdom.” House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No. 9077. 9 December. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9077/.

Mills, C. 2021. “The cost of the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent.” House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No. 8166. 2 March. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8166/.

National Audit Office. 2018. “The Defence Nuclear Enterprise: a landscape review.” HC 1003, Session 2017–2019. 22 May. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/The-Defence-Nuclear-Enterprise-a-landscape-review.pdf.

National Audit Office. 2020. “Managing infrastructure projects on nuclear-regulated sites.” HC 19, Session 2019-20. 10 January. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Managing-infrastructure-projects-on-nuclear-regulated-sites.pdf.

Norton-Taylor, R. 2011. “Trident more effective with US arming device, tests suggest.” April 6. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/06/trident-us-arming-system-test

Norton-Taylor, R. 2013. “The uncomfortable costs of moving Trident.” The Guardian. 10 July. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/costs-moving-trident-analysis.

Norton-Taylor, R. 2016. “Theresa May’s first job: decide on UK’s nuclear response.” The Guardian. 12 July. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/12/theresa-mays-first-job-decide-on-uks-nuclear-response.

Nukewatch. 2020. “Warhead convoy movements summary 2020.” https://www.nukewatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Convoy-log-2020.pdf.

Plant, T. 2020. “Britain’s Nuclear Projects: Less Bang and More Whimper.” Royal United Services Institute. 22 January. https://www.rusi.org/commentary/britain%E2%80%99s-nuclear-projects-less-bang-and-more-whimper.

Richard, C. 2020. “Statement of Admiral Charles A. Richard, Commander, United States Strategic Command, Before the Senate Committee on Armed Services.” 13 February. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Richard_02-13-20.pdf.

Scottish Government. 2013. “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland.” 26 November. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/.

UK Ministry of Defence. 2006. “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent.” White Paper, December. www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/doctrine/sdr06/WhitePaper.pdf.

UK Ministry of Defence. 2013. Response to Freedom of Information Act request made by Rob Edwards. Ref. 25-03-2013-173601-014. July 25. https://robedwards.typepad.com/files/mod-foi-response-on-dismantling-nuclear-weapons.pdf.

UK Ministry of Defence. 2016. “Defence in the media: 8 June 2016.” Blog Post. 8 June. https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2016/06/08/defence-in-the-media-8-june-2016/.

UK Ministry of Defence. 2019. “Defence Secretary praises 50 years of nuclear service as new submarine is named.” Press release. 3 May. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-praises-50-years-of-nuclear-service-as-new-submarine-is-named.

UK Ministry of Defence. 2020a. “The United Kingdom’s future nuclear deterrent: the 2020 update to Parliament.” 17 December. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-united-kingdoms-future-nuclear-deterrent-the-2020-update-to-parliament/the-united-kingdoms-future-nuclear-deterrent-the-2020-update-to-parliament.

UK Ministry of Defence. 2020b. “Defence Secretary announces programme to replace the UK’s nuclear warhead.” 25 February. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-announces-programme-to-replace-the-uks-nuclear-warhead.

Wallace, B. 2020. “Defence Update.” Daily Hansard, HCWS544. 2 November. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-11-02/debates/20110250000009/DefenceUpdate.

Wallace, B. 2021. Interview on BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, 21 March. https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1373578535944740869

Featured image: Nuclear submarine HMS Vanguard arrives back at HM Naval Base Clyde, Faslane, Scotland following a patrol. Photo: CPOA(Phot) Tam McDonald/MOD accessed via Wikimedia Commons. Open Government License version 1.0.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


With the exception of the impending departure of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan, if it occurs, the White House seems to prefer to use aggression to deter adversaries rather than finesse. The recent exchanges between Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at a meeting in Alaska demonstrate how Beijing has a clear view of its interests which Washington seems to lack. Blinken initiated the acrimonious exchange when he cited “deep concerns with actions by China, including in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, cyber attacks on the United States, economic coercion toward our allies. Each of these actions threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability. That’s why they’re not merely internal matters, and why we feel an obligation to raise these issues here today.” He then threatened

“I said that the United States relationship with China will be competitive where it should be, collaborative where it can be, adversarial where it must be” before adding “I’m hearing deep satisfaction that the United States is back, that we’re reengaged with our allies and partners. I’m also hearing deep concern about some of the actions your government is taking.”

The Chinese Foreign Minister responded sharply, rejecting U.S. suggestions that it has a right to interfere in another country’s domestic policies,

“I think we thought too well of the United States, we thought that the U.S. side will follow the necessary diplomatic protocols. The United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength. We believe that it is important for the United States to change its own image, and to stop advancing its own democracy in the rest of the world.”

Yi had a point. Ironically, most of the world believes that the U.S. represents a greater threat to genuine democracy than does either China or Russia.

In another more recent interview Blinken has accused the Chinese of acting “more aggressively abroad” while President Biden has claimed that Beijing has a plan to replace America as the world’s leading economic and military power. U.S. United Nations envoy Linda Thomas-Greenfield has also delivered the same message that Washington is preparing to take no prisoners, pledging to push back against what she called China’s “authoritarian agenda” through the various agencies that make up the UN bureaucracy. Indeed, the United States seems trapped in its own rhetoric, finding itself in the middle of a situation with China and Taiwan where warnings that Beijing is preparing to use force to recover its former province leave Washington with few options to support a de facto ally. Peter Beinart in a recent op-ed observes how the White House has been incrementally increasing its diplomatic ties with Taiwan even as it both declares itself “rock solid” on defending while also maintaining “strategic ambiguity.”

China understands its interests while the U.S. continues to be bewildered by Beijing’s successful building of trade alliances worldwide. Meanwhile Russian President Vladimir Putin, reputedly an excellent chess player, is able to think about genuine issues in three dimensions and is always at least four moves ahead of where Biden and his advisers are at any time. Biden public and video appearances frequently seem to be improvisations as he goes along guided by his teleprompter while Putin is able to explain issues clearly, apparently even in English.

A large part of Biden’s problem vis-à-vis both China and Russia is that he has inherited a U.S. Establishment view of foreign and national security policy options. It is based on three basic principles. First, that America is the only superpower and can either ignore or comfortably overcome the objections of other nations to what it is doing. Second, an all-powerful and fully resourced United States can apply “extreme pressure” to recalcitrant foreign governments and those regimes will eventually submit and comply with Washington’s wishes. And third, America has a widely accepted leadership role of the so-called “free world” which will mean that any decision made in Washington will immediately be endorsed by a large number of other nations, giving legitimacy to U.S. actions worldwide.

What Joe Biden actually thinks is, of course, unknown though he has a history of reflexively supporting an assertive and even belligerent foreign policy during his many years in Congress. Kamala Harris, who many believe will be succeeding Biden before too long, appears to have no definitive views at all beyond the usual Democratic Party cant of spreading “democracy” and being strong on Israel. That suggests that the real shaping of policy is coming from the apparatchik and donor levels in the party, to include the neocon-lite Zionist triumvirate at the State Department consisting of Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Kagan as well as the upper-level bureaucracies at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, which all support an assertive and also interventionist foreign policy to keep Americans “safe” while also increasing their budgets annually. Such thinking leaves little room for genuine national interests to surface.

Biden’s Secretary of State Tony Blinken is, for example, the perfect conformist bureaucrat, shaping his own views around established thinking and creating caveats to provide the Democratic Party leadership with some, though limited, options. Witness for example the current White House attitude towards Iran, which is regarded, along with Russia, as a permanent enemy of the United States. President Biden has expressed his interest in renegotiating a non-nuclear proliferation treaty with the Iranians, now being discussed by diplomats without direct contact in Austria. But Blinken undercuts that intention by wrapping the talks in with other issues that are intended to satisfy the Israelis and their friends in Congress that will make progress unlikely if not impossible. They include eliminating Iran’s alleged role as a regional trouble maker and also ending the ballistic missile development programs currently engaged in by the regime. The downside to all of this is that having a multilateral agreement to limit Iranian enhancement of uranium up to a bomb-making level is very much in the U.S. interest, but it appears to be secondary to other politically motivated side discussions which will derail the process.

A foreign and national security policy based on political dogma rather than genuine interests can obviously generate some disconnects, unlike in Russia or China, where redlines and national interests are clearly understood and acted upon. To cite yet another dangerous example of playing with fire that one is witnessing in Eastern Europe, the simple understanding that for Russia Belarus and Ukraine are frontline states that could pose existential threats to Moscow if they were to move closer to the west and join NATO appears to be lacking. The U.S. prefers to stand the question on its head and claims that the real issue is “spreading democracy,” which it is not. Policy makers in Washington might consider what Washington would likely do if Mexico and Canada were to be threatened with foreign interference that might bring about their joining a military alliance hostile to the United States.

The American Establishment-driven foreign policy thinking clearly has trouble in accommodating the obvious understanding that the U.S. actually becomes more vulnerable every time it interferes in China’s trade practices or gives the green light for alliances like NATO to expand. Expansion of the national security policy components often brings in another client state that rarely has anything whatsoever to contribute and which, on the contrary, becomes a burden, relying for their own security on overstretched American military resources. In return, the expansion itself guarantees that a hostile and genuinely threatened Russia will take steps of its own to counter what it sees as a potential grave threat to its own security and national identity.

Quite simply, America’s national security should dictate that the United States treat China as a competitor rather than ane enemy while also disengaging from support and encouragement of Ukraine’s irredentist ambitions as quickly as possible. A recent shipment of offensive weapons to Kiev should become the last such initiative and speeches by American politicians pledging “unwavering support” for Ukraine should be considered unacceptable. Washington should meanwhile reject any clandestine attempts to overthrow Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus and make clear to Vladimir Putin that it will not support any NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, which admitted was a pledge already made when the Soviet Union collapsed that was subsequently ignored by President Bill Clinton. Thanks to Bill, America is now obligated to defend not only Western Europe but also Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, North Macedonia, the Baltic States and tiny little Montenegro.

In short, United State engagement in complicated overseas quarrels should be limited to areas where genuine vital interests are at stake. In fact, by that standard one should begin to emphasize the security impact of the crisis on America’s southern border, which has a completely different genesis and is being driven by politics. As British statesman Lord Palmerston said in 1848 “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” The United States government would be very wise to be guided by that advice.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


The situation in the West Bank seems to have entered the phase where it resembles a vicious cycle. Strikes from Israel, warrant an even more severe response from Gaza, and vice versa.

On May 12th, at least three buildings in Gaza city were wiped out. The last building, known as al-Shuruq Tower, collapsed after receiving multiple strikes from combat drones and fighter jets.

Throughout the day, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carried out strikes that took the lives of 6 Palestinian commanders.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health revealed that 56 people, including 14 children and five women, were killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza, as of the evening of May 12.

After the spike in Israeli strike activity, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Hamas Movement, attacked an Israeli natural gas platform off the coast of the Gaza Strip.

Hundreds of Hamas rockets targeted the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Netivot and Sderot.

The military wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Quds Brigades, announced that it had fired “dozens of rockets” at Ashkelon, Sderot, Dimona and Ashdod as well as at the Israeli capital Tel Aviv.

Some of the rockets were intercepted by the Iron Dome system. However, many others reached their targets inflicting some material losses. In Ashkelon, seven people were injured, with a child in critical condition.

Overall, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel have resulted in five civilian deaths as of the evening of May 12th. An Israeli soldier was also killed as a result of a missile strike.

The situation is quickly deteriorating, with the United States and Egypt notably attempting to broker a truce. Israel is rejecting any such scenario.

On the evening of May 12th, the Israeli security cabinet approved a plan to intensify military attacks on Hamas and Islamic Jihad targets in the Gaza Strip, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed its members that Israel has officially rejected a Hamas proposal for a ceasefire.

Tel Aviv simply said that the punitive campaign was still far from over, and strikes would continue with increasing intensity.

The situation in Israel itself is nearing a civil war in many of the Jewish-Arab mixed cities. Israeli television showed live footage of a crowd of Jewish Israelis attempting to lynch a presumed Arab man. Police was nowhere to be found.

Jewish protesters in Bat Yam, as well as the northern cities of Tiberias and Acre, marched through the streets, and footage circulating on social media captured crowds of men in multiple locations chanting “Death to Arabs” and vandalizing Arab-owned businesses.

Social media footage shows groups attempting to burst into Arab Israeli’s houses and the ensuing fights, the situation in the city of Lod is still critical, and many other towns are reaching a critical point too.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


The members of the Bucharest Nine (9) NATO eastern flank Allies (White House terminology) held a virtual summit today from the Romanian capital that lends it name to the group.

Participants also included President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The participation of that trio should establish whose interests the group serves.

Though established in 2014, the real history of the Bucharest 9 goes back more than a century as will be demonstrated below, and has ominous implications for the worsening conflict between NATO and Russia.

Today’s event was hosted by Romanian President Klaus Iohannis and his Polish counterpart Andrzej Duda. The members of the group are Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia; all were absorbed into NATO from 1999-2004. All are former members of the Warsaw Pact, and with the exception of former East Germany (which entered NATO through its reunification with West Germany in 1989) and Albania (which left the Warsaw Pact in the 1960s and is itself now a NATO member), they were the Warsaw Pact outside of the Soviet Union, of which Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were a part. After seven nations, six of which are now in the Bucharest 9, were admitted into the bloc in 2004, then-President George W. Bush made the pronouncement that the Warsaw Pact is now NATO. He was telling the simple truth.

The nine nations are the members of the Visegrad Four (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia), the three former Soviet Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Black Sea neighbors Bulgaria and Romania. With Ukraine connecting them (it borders Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia), the eastern flank is indeed just that. It is NATO’s cordon sanitaire along Russia’s western border.

NATO’s Stoltenberg went out of his way to fawn over President Biden, praising him twice in a brief message. In particular he celebrated the new American administration’s “commitment to rebuilding alliances” and “strengthening NATO.” Biden is the commander-in-chief the military bloc has been waiting for. Not since the inauguration of former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 has a president arrived in the Oval Office as fully NATO interoperable as him.

Biden’s own comments, as reported in a White House readout, “underscored his commitment to rebuilding alliances and strengthening Transatlantic relations,” and “conveyed his desire for closer cooperation with our nine Allies in Central Europe and the Baltic and Black Sea regions on the full range of challenges….” The full range of challenges is reducible to one toponym: Russia.

He also vowed continued support for what is euphemistically referred to as NATO’s deterrence and defense policy, and stressed the need to strengthen cooperation against both “economic and political” actions by “our strategic competitors.” Again, that should be singular.

Both Biden and Stoltenberg highlighted the upcoming NATO summit on June 14.

Last year the foreign ministers of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine met to create a regional cooperation group named the Lublin Triangle, in part to expedite Ukraine’s Euroatlantic integration; that expression is code for NATO and European Union membership.

A report of that event includes this paragraph:

“This new format aims to bring the three countries closer together while also echoing their historical ties – namely the 17th century Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth [16th-18th centuries] which included most of today’s Ukraine in its borders.”

And another:

“According to a joint statement released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the signatories of the Lublin Triangle support Ukraine joining NATO, and believe that providing the country with a NATO membership action plan should be next step in this direction.”

What the Lublin Triangle and the Bucharest 9 are at the least reflections of, but arguably the direct implementation of, are two projects from the early twentieth century devised and promoted by Polish political and military leader Józef Piłsudski: the Intermarium and Prometheism.

The first aimed to create a geopolitcal union of former parts of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth lying on and between the Baltic, Black and Adriatic Seas, hence the name Intermariam (between the seas). Contra Russia. As first envisioned in the aftermath of World War I, the project was to include Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine and Yugoslavia. Very close to what the Bucharest 9 is now.

The other though closely related plan was called Prometheism. Its purpose was to bring about the dissolution of Czarist Russia, later the Soviet Union, through the secession of non-Russian populations in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions. That was accomplished in 1991 with the emergence of independent Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on the Baltic Sea, of Georgia and Ukraine on the Black Sea, and of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan on the Caspian Sea.

Having achieved the objective of Prometheism, the U.S. and NATO seem to be on the verge of accomplishing that of the Intermariam as well.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rick Rozoff is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from Internationalist 360.

Vaccine Passports Banned in Wyoming

May 14th, 2021 by Steve Watson

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


The Governor of Wyoming has banned vaccine passports, issuing a directive that states no person should be denied access to any places or services based on their vaccination status.

Republican Mark Gordon’s directive outlines that “Vaccine passport programs have the potential to politicize a decision that should not be politicized.”

“They would divide our citizens at a time when unity in fighting the virus is essential, and harm those who are medically unable to receive the vaccine,” Gordon noted.

Gordon also urged that getting a vaccine “is a personal choice based upon personal circumstances.”

Gordon was also an early proponent of scrapping the mask mandate back in March, and allowing businesses to reopen.

Wyoming joins other states including Alabama, Minnesota, South Carolina, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Texas and South Dakota that have all either passed legislation or issued orders to prevent mandatory vaccinations or COVID passport schemes.

New York, However is still heading down the vaccine passports route.

After trialling such schemes, there are now expectations that proof of vaccination will be needed to attend events, and even to enter bars and restaurants.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


To use an old cliché, “the cat is out of the bag.”

For perhaps the first time since the COVID Plandemic started at the beginning of 2020, Americans who get most of their information solely through the corporate media, which is heavily funded by Big Pharma, got a dose of reality on just what exactly has been going on for the past 16 months or so, thanks to Tucker Carlson, and his 45-minute interview with Dr. Peter McCullough last week on his “Tucker Carlson Today” show on Fox News.

Dr. Peter McCullough is well-known to most Health Impact News readers, as we have featured his testimony before the Texas Senate as well as the U.S. Congress in previous articles. See: CENSORED: Dr. Peter McCullough, MD testifies How Successful Home Treatments for COVID Make Experimental Vaccines Unnecessary

Viewers of this Fox Network program learned that there is, in fact, a worldwide conspiracy to suppress effective treatments for COVID patients in favor of experimental COVID injections.

To be sure, neither Tucker nor Dr. McCullough used the politically explosive term “conspiracy,” but they used other terms that communicate the exact same thing.

Dr. McCullough, for example, throughout the interview when referring to why other doctors and health agencies were not educating the public about effective early treatments that have been proven to save lives, used the term “group think,” and kept saying that “something is up” worldwide, to the point where Tucker kept pressing him to state why he thought this was happening.

Dr. McCullough eventually replied: “This is the goal of investigative reporters to figure out.”

Because to discuss the “why” this is happening was not the focus of this interview, and would have led to discussions about Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, their ties to eugenics and establishing a New World Order, etc. – topics beyond the expertise of Dr. McCullough.

To his credit, however, Dr. McCullough did allude to some of these things by bringing up the Nuremburg Code, and how doctors today are violating it.

But this interview was focused clearly on one single question: Why is nobody discussing COVID treatment protocols outside of the new experimental “vaccines”?

And Tucker was brilliant in this interview.

First, he chose the correct person to discuss this, Dr. Peter McCullough.

Dr. Peter McCullough is a consultant cardiologist and Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, TX. He is a Principal Faculty in internal medicine for the Texas A & M University Health Sciences Center.

Dr. McCullough is an internationally recognized authority on the role of chronic kidney disease as a cardiovascular risk state with over 1000 publications and over 500 citations in the National Library of Medicine.

He is the most published scientist in the history of his field.

Anyone in the corporate media who wants to now label Dr. McCullough as a “quack” will be basically shooting themselves in the foot.

Dr. McCullough is not anti-vaxx, and neither is Tucker Carlson.

When you watch this interview, you will see two people who have been educated to believe in the medical system, but who obviously see that something is not right with the way the entire world has responded to COVID, where hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. have died needlessly, because they were told to go home with COVID-19, because there was no treatment for it, when in fact there were successful treatments.

That lie has now been exposed to MILLIONS of people worldwide, thanks to the audience of Tucker Carlson.

People have asked me why Tucker Carlson is all of a sudden telling the truth about the COVID Plandemic, and if he is “controlled opposition.”

I don’t think so, after watching this interview. I think he is like the many other honest doctors in the field of medicine, like Dr. McCullough, who although they believe in vaccines and pharmaceutical products, recognize that there are evil people with evil intentions running this COVID show, and their consciences will no longer allow them to be silent.

Tucker Carlson has one of the highest rated shows on Cable TV. He is obviously putting his own career on the line to expose this, choosing to follow the truth wherever it leads, no matter what it is going to cost him.

One of the things that impressed me the most about this interview, was that even though Fox News is mostly a Right Wing/Conservative/Republican platform, partisan politics NEVER entered the discussion. Just good, solid journalism.

This is a NON-PARTISAN issue that affects EVERYONE!

Please invest in the 45 minutes it takes to watch this incredible interview, and then share it far and wide. Please watch it on Fox News here.

There is a cost, but it is well worth it, and you will be communicating to Fox News that this is the kind of information America wants and needs right now.

Because the issues discussed in this interview are life and death issues, we are invoking the Fair Use doctrine for non-commercial use, as this is a dire matter of public health that needs to be available to everyone.

The information in this interview can literally save your life, and the lives of your loved ones.

This is from our Rumble channel, and it is also on our Bitchute channel. But again, we encourage everyone to go pay to watch it on Fox News. Your small investment will help tell Fox that we want more honest journalism on the COVID issues.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Dr. Peter McCullough appears on the Tucker Carlson Today show on Fox.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


The CDC released the latest death figures following the experimental COVID injections this week, and that death toll now stands at 4,434 people, adults and children, that have been recorded as dying after receiving one of the experimental COVID injections.


To put this number in perspective, since the CDC continues to claim that these deaths do “not establish a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,” these deaths now exceed the total number of deaths reported to VAERS following vaccination for the past 21 years!

From 1/1/2000 through 11/30/2020 (the last month before COVID shots were given emergency use) there were 4,394 deaths recorded for a span of 21 years.


Please take note that for that 21-year period, over 50% of the recorded deaths following vaccination were infants and toddlers under the age of 3, because this is the next targeted demographic to receive the experimental COVID shots: young children.

Earlier this week the FDA gave emergency use authorization to start injecting children between the ages of 12 and 15. See: Criminal FDA Authorizes Emergency Use for Pfizer’s mRNA Injections on 12-15 Year-olds – Up to State Governors to Save the Nation’s Children

Both the Moderna and Pfizer experimental COVID shots are being injected into children as young as 6 months old in their trials, with the expectation that the FDA will grant an EUA for that age group as well. Some of those infants and toddlers in the trials have already died. See: CDC Reports 2 More Infant DEATHS Following Experimental COVID Injections During Clinical Trials

We are witnessing GENOCIDE before our very eyes, as the corporate media (with few exceptions), is denying what is happening, and promoting the shots out of fear and misinformation.

Since many governors have now taken action to prevent COVID Vaccine Passports and discrimination against those who refuse the experimental shots, will they also issue executive orders to prevent their State’s local health departments from injecting children with these shots?

At this point, the fate of our nation’s children is in their hands, as the federal government health agencies are completely in bed with Big Pharma and have no regard for human life whatsoever.

FiercePharma announced today that with the FDA EUA for adolescents, the nation’s pharmacy retail chains will now begin administering the shots.

Now that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has secured approval to be administered to kids aged 12 to 15, major retail pharmacies are adjusting their policies to make the shots quickly available.

CVS Pharmacy, Walgreens and Rite Aid all announced this week that appointments would be open to adolescents following the Food and Drug Administration’s decision. Walgreens said that appointments can be scheduled online or through walk-ins up to 30 minutes before the desired time.

Both CVS and Rite Aid are now extending the option for vaccine clinics to schools to encourage greater uptake in this age group. (Source.)

Governors need to act quickly to stop the carnage that is about to happen in our nation’s children. If you are a parent, rely on NO ONE to help you protect your children (except God).

Do not allow your children to go to school or college if one of these injections is required for attendance. Make sure you have a family doctor or pediatrician who respects your right to informed consent, and be careful if you have to take your child to the hospital or emergency room, as they may deny you care if you refuse the shot for your child.

At this point, any establishment that tries to mandate an experimental COVID shot is breaking the law, as the FDA guidance documents that are supposed to be given out to everyone prior to the shots make it VERY CLEAR that these are experimental products NOT approved by the FDA, and that they are completely VOLUNTARY.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Health Impact News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CDC: Death Toll Following Experimental COVID Injections Now at 4,434 – More than 21 Years of Recorded Vaccine Deaths from VAERS
  • Tags: , ,

The Siege of Gaza and the Fight for Jerusalem

May 14th, 2021 by Donald Monaco

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinian families living in East Jerusalem and its invasion of Al-Aqsa Mosque to quell protests against this atrocity escalated tensions in the ancient city that reverberated throughout occupied Palestine.   

In response to repeated attacks on Al-Aqsa, Hamas warned the Zionist state to cease its violent repression of protests in Jerusalem.  Hundreds of Palestinians were injured when Israeli police fired steel coated rubber bullets, tear gas canisters, and flash grenades at protesters.  When Israel refused, the military wing of Hamas fired a volley of rockets in the city’s direction.

Israel counter-attacked by bombing Gaza leading to the death of 20 Palestinians, including nine children on May 10, 2021.  One blast alone killed nine people, including three children, in Beit Hanoun.  Hamas responded by firing rockets at southern cities in the settler state killing two Israelis in Ashkelon.  The next day, fighting intensified.  Israel bombed an apartment complex in Gaza City and Hamas retaliated by firing rockets that hit Tel Aviv.  The toll has risen to 67 Palestinians and 7 Israelis dead.

Israeli attacks on Gaza constitute war crimes. They are intended to crush Palestinian resistance.  But the resistance refuses to capitulate.

The message Hamas is sending to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in Jerusalem is piercingly clear: “you do not face the occupation alone.” The pledge of solidarity is being received enthusiastically as protests spread throughout the West Bank despite a repressive crackdown by occupation forces.

Across Israeli cities, Palestinians are being subjected to vigilante violence.  In one attack near Tel Aviv, a Palestinian was pulled from his car and beaten to a bloody pulp by an angry crowd of right-wing fanatics. The horrifying attack was broadcast live on Israeli television dramatically illustrating the virulent anti-Arab racism that permeates Israeli society.  Palestinians retaliated by burning a synagogue as intercommunal violence spreads across Israel like a malignant wildfire.

The militancy of Hamas’ response to Israel’s crimes in Jerusalem stands in sharp contrast to the flaccid rejoinder of the Palestinian Authority.  Its representatives uttered rhetorical condemnations and requested a meeting of the UN Security Council.  This is the same international body that gave the United States a green light to destroy Iraq in 2003.  The Security Council will do nothing but talk as dead bodies mount up in Gaza.

The corrupt PA has acted as a collaborator with the occupation since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993.  It will not, in time of conflict, effectively oppose it.  The Hamas leadership comprehends what the PA does not; Israel speaks only the language of violence and understands no other.

Israel was forced to cancel the annual ‘Jerusalem Day March’ that typically involves ultra-nationalist Zionists marching through the Arab sector of East Jerusalem ‘celebrating’ the conquest of the city during the 1967 war.  The march is a provocation that routinely witnesses attacks on Palestinians, vandalism of their property, and spewing of racist chants by the Zionist rabble.

Israel also postponed the date its High Court was set to hear appeals involving the legality of evicting Palestinian families living in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem that touched off the Al-Aqsa protests.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated bluntly that any such forced evictions are illegal under international humanitarian law and “may amount to war crimes.”  Leaders of the pariah state routinely violate humanitarian law without consequence.

Israel’s repressive policies and its bombing of Gaza provoked an inevitable response from Hamas, bringing the region to what analysts are calling the “brink of war” in the besieged strip of land bordering the Mediterranean Sea.

War is a misnomer.  Israel’s attack on Gaza is a premeditated slaughter that targets the civilian population in one of the most densely populated areas of the world.  Wars are fought between countries.  The Palestinians have no modern state or military.  Palestine is under occupation.  Gaza is besieged.

Hamas is a resistance organization operating in an impoverished ghetto with homemade weaponry and whatever munitions can be smuggled into the strip.

Israel is a modern state with a powerful military armed with nuclear weapons, Arrow anti-ballistic missile and Iron Dome anti-missile defense systems, sophisticated air and naval forces, Merkava tanks, Atmos howitzers, Micro-Taver assault rifles, and armored personnel carriers.

In this conflict, the Palestinian David faces an Israeli Goliath armed and financed by the American imperialist behemoth.  The balance of forces in this ‘war’ are grossly unequal.

There have been three such recent ‘wars’.  Operation Cast Lead in 2008/2009, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014.  All three Israeli named operations involved military assaults and massacres in Gaza.

In each attack, the number of Palestinian casualties was appalling.  During Cast Lead, 1,398 Palestinians perished. In Pillar of Defense, 167 were killed.  During Protective Edge, 2,250 died, 300 of whom were children.  Those injured and maimed during each assault number in the thousands.  In the 2014 conflict, 11,000 Palestinians were injured and 500,000 displaced.  Israel dropped 400 tones of bombs during 6,000 air strikes.  The barbaric attack was sadistic and intentional.

During typical Gaza incursions, Israel destroys schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, factories, electrical power plants, water treatment facilities, and civilian homes plunging the Gaza Strip into a pre-industrial age, much the same as the United States did to Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.

Despite its colossal fire power, Israel does not want to commit ground troops to a fourth invasion having suffered very high casualties in the third.  Instead, it will bomb Gaza relentlessly murdering a civilian population that is trapped in overcrowded cities.  Israeli troops are being massed on the Gaza border. They may be ordered into combat if bombing does not pacify resistance forces in the strip.

The fighters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine have learned techniques of asymmetrical warfare from the Islamic resistance led by Hezbollah in Lebanon and now make up a formidable fighting force.  But they are outnumbered and outgunned and can only fight a war of attrition.

Military warfare supplements economic warfare.  Israel’s siege of the Gaza Strip began in 2006.  The medieval blockade continues, transforming this narrow strip of land into the largest open-air prison in the world.

Gaza is the home of refugees from the wars of 1948 and 1967.  The strip was controlled by Egypt until 1967.  Gaza has always been ungovernable for the Israelis who took over the territory by defeating Egypt in the 1967 war.  As in the West Bank, settlers’ colonies were planted in the occupied territory.  But the population remained restive.  The first Palestinian Intifada began in Gaza in 1987.

In the summer of 2005, Israeli Prime Minister and certifiable war criminal Ariel Sharon pulled the settlers out of Gaza to isolate the strip from the West Bank which he had pacified by launching ‘Operation Defensive Shield’ in 2002.  The misnamed operation was a war on the Palestinian Authority and a refutation of the Oslo Peace Accords negotiated by Labor’s Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.

Not coincidentally, Sharon’s brutal assault on the PA followed the neoconservative script outlined in a documented titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Authored by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and company, it advocated a break from the ‘land for peace’ paradigm of Labor Zionism in favor of a policy of ‘subjugation and terror’.

Sharon’s bloody campaign was supported by Bush, Cheney, and the neocons.  Sharon broke what remained of armed resistance of Fatah and the PA.  When Mahmoud Abbas succeeded Yasser Arafat, the capitulation was complete.  Except for the occupied Palestinian people who have never accepted subjugation.

The fighting spirit of the Palestinian people was evidenced in the 2006 national election where Hamas won a stunning 74 seats in the 132 seat Palestinian Legislative Council with 45 seats going to Fatah.  Hamas took effective control of the Palestinian Authority.

The Western response was swift.  Led by the bastions of world democracy, economic sanctions were slapped on the PA.  The United States immediately froze $2 billion in economic aid.  Israel imposed a blockade closing off Gaza from the settler state in the north and east, Mediterranean Sea in the west, and Egypt in the South.

It is a starvation blockade.  Minimal food and medicine.  Minimal fuel.  No incubators or dialysis equipment.  No sanitary products such as soap, detergent, diapers, or feminine hygiene articles.  No school supplies.  No building materials such as steel, cement, or metal piping.  No agricultural supplies or equipment.  No batteries or spare parts for equipment.  No exports.  No air traffic.  No travel.

An Israeli official commented that the idea was “to put Palestinians on a diet” by just allowing enough food to enter the Gaza Strip so they do not starve.

The results of siege are constant power outages and fuel shortages, food depravation, malnutrition, childhood anemia, poisoned water, and minimal medical care.  Gaza could only endure because of construction of an elaborate tunnel system into Egypt.

The U.S. approved coup d’état of the Morsi government brought the dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to power in Egypt in 2013.  Former army chief General Sisi, being a tool of the United States and Israel, immediately flooded the tunnels and closed the Rafah border, cutting Gaza off from the Egypt and North Africa.

Forty percent of Gaza’s 2 million residents are under the age of 14 and fully 75 percent are under the age of 25, making treatment of the strip’s youth the largest case of organized child abuse on earth.

In 2007, war criminals led by President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams who took part in the infamous Iran/Contra terrorist affair, engineered a coup designed to topple Hamas from power.  They armed Fatah chieftain Muhammad Dahlan to provoke a civil war in the occupied territories.  Guided by Lieutenant General Keith Drayton, Dahlan and Fatah launched a war of attrition against Hamas that culminated in a Hamas victory in Gaza. The Palestinian leadership was split.  The Palestinian Authority of Abbas runs enclaves in the West Bank.  Hamas under the leadership of Ismail Haniya runs the Gaza Strip.

Palestinians have tried to end the siege of Gaza by peaceful protests and win their rights as refugees under international law.  The “Great March of Return” involved sustained peaceful protests demanding the ‘Right of Return’ of refugees to their ancestral homes and lands stolen from them in 1948 and an end to the blockade of Gaza.  The protests were staged every Friday, beginning on March 30, 2018, and continued for two years.

The setter state responded with savage repression murdering 260 protesters, many with a bullet to the head fired by a marksman.  An additional 20,000 people were injured.  Palestinians who were demonstrating and waving flags behind enclosed barriers in the Gaza Strip were simply shot down by Israel’s cowardly military forces.

There was not a whimper of protest uttered by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, or any member of the ‘international community’ ostensibly committed to defending human rights.

The occupation of Palestine has become normalized.  Zionists want the world to forget about Palestine. The project of ethnic cleansing continues unabated with full support of the Western democracies.  The sheer magnitude and duration of the suffering experienced by the Palestinian people is sanitized from political discourse.

The barbaric siege of Gaza and the Judaization of East Jerusalem and the West Bank have proceeded unrelentingly.

The rockets fired by Hamas remind the world that Gaza is connected to struggles in Jerusalem, the West Bank, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.  The fighters in Gaza are part of an “axis of resistance” to imperialism and Zionism in the region.

Normalization of oppression is only broken by resistance.  What is missing in Western media reports that attempt to explain “unrest in the Middle East” by alluding to “periodic clashes”, “escalation of tensions”, and “outbreaks of violence” is any reference to the daily deprivation, humiliation, oppression, and violence suffered by Palestinians living under occupation and apartheid.

Israel would like the world to forget about Gaza.  Try as they might to strangle inhabitants of the strip, an unrelenting struggle for survival and liberation persists, resonating throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

The cynical Prime Minister of Israel may wish to escalate the conflict to save his political career.  The self-proclaimed Zionist Joe Biden supports Netanyahu and allows the massacre in Gaza to proceed by claiming that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Presumably, Palestinians have no right to self-defense in the eyes of America’s commander and chief, who recently vowed to support “basic human rights” during his first “State of the Union Address” to the nation.  For Zionists, the enemies of Israel are the enemies of the United States and those enemies have no rights.

The truth is at odds with duplicitous rhetoric.  An occupying power that ethnically cleanses peoples from their historic homeland and murders them when they fight back is not defending itself.  It is engaging in an act of state sponsored terrorism.

Israel is a terror state that is butchering an occupied population to defend its theft of their land.

Despite all efforts, the settler state has never extinguished resistance in Gaza.   The isolated coastal strip remains a symbol of resistance for the people of Palestine who are now more united than any time since the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000.  That unity, and the international solidarity it inspires, may doom a Zionist project that is desperately trying to prevail by reliance on force and violence.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Donald Monaco is a political analyst who lives in Brooklyn, New York.  He received his Master’s Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 and was radicalized by the Vietnam War.  He writes from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist perspective.  His recent book is titled, The Politics ofTerrorism, and is available at amazon.com  

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from tommiesunshine/instagram

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Late Wednesday, cabinet members unanimously agreed to intensify IDF terror-bombing of Gaza — including strikes on civilian targets.

War minister Gantz said “Gaza will burn” — meaning an intent to commit greater crimes of war and against humanity than already.

He lied accusing Hamas of using civilians as human shields.

Israeli warplanes continue terror-bombing civilian neighborhoods as it’s done before during preemptive wars on the Strip.

Residential and government buildings, schools, medical facilities, at least one mosque, agricultural lands, farmers in their fields, children in harm’s way, and Strip infrastructure was struck to make conditions for Gazans more untenable than already.

Mass slaughter and destruction keeps increasing by the hour.

Cold-blooded murder of Arabs is longstanding Israeli policy.

According to Defense for Children International – Palestine on Wednesday:

“Israeli forces continue to exhibit…complete disregard for international law, deploying explosive weapons and attacking densely-populated civilian areas in Gaza,” adding:

“As Palestinian children and families seek shelter from Israeli attacks, there is no safe space in the Gaza Strip.” 

“Palestinian children in Gaza increasingly bear the brunt of Israel’s repeated military offensives and a human-made humanitarian crisis as a result of Israel’s closure policy toward the Gaza Strip.”

Deputy mayor of Lod, Ami Kaufman, said “hundreds of armed settlers from the West Bank are on their way to the city.”

“I suggest to every Arab resident not to leave their homes.”

“This has potential to be a bloodbath.”

Palestinian students in Israeli universities are being attacked, including in their dorms.

The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights condemned “intentional and disproportionate targeting of civilians and civilian properties” by Israeli terror-bombing and cross-border shelling,” adding:

The organization sharply criticized  “inaction of the international community, as Gaza is pushed into perpetually worse security and humanitarian conditions.” 

On Thursday, Al Jazeera reported that “residents and shop owners in Gaza City walked among the rubble and what is left of their homes and businesses following the heavy Israeli bombardment,” adding:

Shop owner Zakria Al-Halees  struggled for words to explain damage affecting “the whole area.”

Images show widespread debris from days of ruthless IDF terror-bombing, defenseless civilians bearing the brunt of it — while the world community yawns and does nothing to hold Israel accountable for the highest of high crimes.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called for Muslim countries to unite against Israel, saying:

“The tragic incidents of the last few days and the crimes of the Zionist regime, more than ever, remind us of the need for unity and cooperation of Islamic countries to confront the Zionist coercion and occupation.”

“It is necessary for the Islamic countries to work together to defend the Palestinian people, and to confront the aggression and hostile and racist actions of the Zionist regime that we have witnessed in recent days and during the holy month of Ramadan.”

“The attacks and aggressions of the Zionist regime against the people of Palestine and Gaza Strip should stop immediately and we must not allow the Palestinian people to be oppressed anymore.”

In Damascus for discussions on “bilateral, regional and international issues,” Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif condemned the “Israeli regime’s brutal aggression against Palestinians,” separately tweeting:

“It wasn’t enough for the Israeli regime to

-Steal people’s land & homes;

-Create an Apartheid regime; 

It had to shoot innocent worshippers inside Islam’s 3rd Holiest Mosque upon Islam’s Holiest Eid.”

On Thursday, the Syrian People’s Assembly (PA) “condemned in the strongest terms the barbaric Zionist racist practices against the defenseless Palestinian Arab people, stressing that these practices are a flagrant violation of all international pacts, resolutions and norms, and a violation of the most basic rules of the international humanitarian law” — the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported, adding:

The PA “affirmed its stand by the Palestinians in Occupied Jerusalem and in every part of the land of Palestine, indicating that the Syrians, who have faced for years and are still facing the forces of evil and terrorism, will continue to support their Palestinian brothers, as their enemy is one, and their fate and victory are the same.”

In vain, it urged the world community to intervene against Israeli aggression on their behalf.

It hasn’t happened since Israeli forces stole historic Palestine for exclusive Jewish use and development.

Nor is Israel ever held accountable for the highest of high crimes of war, against humanity, and other atrocities against Palestinians and other Arabs.

Separately on Thursday, Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh said “(r)esistance responds to the crimes of the occupying regime in Quds, the Gaza Strip and everywhere.”

“If the occupying regime wants to continue its attacks, we will also continue more attacks.”

According to the Hamas Al-Qassam Brigades’ Abu Obeida:

Its forces fired a cruise “missile…at (Israel’s) Ramon airport, about 220km from Gaza.”

Reuters reported that the facility continues to operate, saying it wasn’t struck.

According to Palestinian/American writer/activist Yousef Munayyer:

“Israeli lynch mobs (are) attacking Palestinians” unobstructed while IDF warplanes terror-bomb Gaza.

Armed and dangerous, extremist settlers are assaulting Palestinians in public, storming their homes, beating and terrorizing them — including women and children — while nearby Israeli security forces do nothing to stop them. 

They’ve been roaming East Jerusalem streets, shouting “Death to Arabs.”

In Occupied Palestine, the safety and welfare of non-Jews is never secure at all times.

Today in apartheid Israel, Arabs are in mortal danger — from Netanyahu regime security forces and extremist settlers out for blood.

A Final Comment

Instead of condemning Israeli ruthlessness and demanding accountability, spokesman for UN secretary general Guterres, Stephane Dujarric, merely called on the Netanyahu regime to “exercise maximum restraint and respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly,” according to a UN statement.

“The secretary general reiterates his commitment, including through the Middle East Quartet, to supporting Palestinians and Israelis to resolve the conflict on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions, international law and bilateral agreements,” Dujarric added.

Time and again, Guterres disgraced himself and the office he holds by failing to denounce US/NATO/Israeli aggression and demand accountability for high crimes too serious to ignore.

Meaningless weak-kneed statements — directly or through his spokesman — are issued time and again instead of doing the right thing he consistently avoids.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”


“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”


Featured image is from Mondoweiss/Instagram

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) has reintroduced legislation to eliminate a controversial program that channels military-grade weapons and equipment to local and state police forces around the nation. The “1033” program was created in the early 1990s, and has resulted in a flood of rifles, armored personnel carriers and other instruments of war being shipped to local police departments. President Trump and his Administration fully supported the program, and former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper encouraged governors to “dominate the battlespace” in U.S. cities during ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests.

“When our police forces are equipped like an occupying army, they act like one, treating New Yorkers and the American people as an enemy force,” Velázquez said. “The deadly consequences of this policy disproportionately affect people of color and this initiative should be scrapped, completely.”

Between 2006 and 2014, local law enforcement agencies received an array of military equipment worth over $1.5 billion. This included more than 6,000 mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, designed for use in warzones like Iraq and Afghanistan. Two such vehicles were sent to New York City. Nationally, the transferred equipment also encompassed nearly 80,000 assault rifles, 205 grenade launchers, 12,000 bayonets, more than 470 aircraft, camouflage and other equipment.

Studies have repeatedly found that when local police departments receive military equipment, they are much more likely to use force. One study indicated that when a county goes from having no military equipment to receiving $2.5 million worth of weaponry the following year as one locality did, civilian deaths at the hands of police are likely to double.

“In the past year, we saw footage of these military-grade vehicles being used to confront peaceful protestors who are exercising their first amendment rights to say, ‘Black Lives Matter’ and call for police reform,” Velázquez added. “Not only does deploying this military hardware fail to deescalate tensions, it actually makes the situation far more dangerous and leads to violence.”

A wide range of advocacy groups praised the measure and called for its swift enactment.

“As an international humanitarian agency, Oxfam sees firsthand how the unchecked flow of weapons fuels human rights abuses and suffering around the world,” said Noah Gottschalk, Global Policy Lead at Oxfam America. “We’re seeing the same patterns here in the US, where the weapons of war transferred through the 1033 Program have not made people safer, but instead led to increased violence against civilians, particularly Black and historically marginalized communities by increasingly militarized police forces. Oxfam fully supports the Congressional leaders who are demanding the immediate end to the 1033 Program as a key step in the urgent movement to reimagine the future of policing, community safety and justice in the United States.”

“Ensuring that our public safety officers are properly equipped to work with their communities while also taking a demilitarized approach to law enforcement are not mutually exclusive,” said Chris Purdy Veterans for American Ideals Project Manager at Human Rights First. “By taking armored vehicles and other weapons of war off our streets, we are empowering our law enforcement agencies to act in the best interests of the people they’re charged to serve and protect.”

“Demilitarizing the police is a crucial step towards the broader goals of ending institutional racism and stopping police brutality,” said Yasmine Taeb, Human Rights Lawyer and Progressive Strategist. “Militarized policing supported by weapons of war has terrorized our communities, and in particular, our communities of color. We join millions of Americans across the country calling on Congress to shut down the 1033 Program once and for all.”

“For more than 20 years, the 1033 Program has sustained and promoted a military-like culture in U.S. law enforcement, the brunt of which has been felt in communities of color,” said Maritza Perez, Director of National Affairs Office at the Drug Policy Alliance. “We know that the increased transfer of military equipment through the 1033 Program increases the number of police killings, particularly in the context of the drug war and SWAT raids, and that the Program has been grossly mismanaged over the years. To truly achieve public safety and save lives, Congress must abolish 1033.”

“The 1033 Program is one of the most visible emblems of the relationship between a violent domestic and violent foreign policy, normalizing militarized violence as part and parcel of U.S. policing, and deteriorating civil and human rights in the process,” said Mac Hamilton, Advocacy Director at Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND). “The problems facing communities across the U.S.—including hunger, housing insecurity, sexual and gender-based violence, mass incarceration, and healthcare access—will never be solved by violent policing. It’s time to take military-grade weapons off of our streets and invest in systems of care and diplomacy, both at home and abroad. Ending the 1033 Program is a critical first step towards this goal.”

Organizations endorsing the bill include:

About Face: 18 Million Rising,

About Face: Veterans Against the War,

Action Center on Race & the Economy,

Activated Massachusetts African Community,

Advocacy Without Borders,

The Advocates for Human Rights,

African American Ministers In Action,

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC),

American Civil Liberties Union,

American Family Voices,

American Friends Service Committee,

American Muslim Empowerment Network (AMEN),

Amnesty International USA,

Arab American Institute,

Arab Resource & Organizing Center (AROC),

Armenian-American Action Network (AAAN),

Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence,

Autistic Self Advocacy Network,

Bend the Arc: Jewish Action,

Beyond the Bomb,

Brennan Center for Justice,

Bridges Faith Initiative,

Campaign for Liberty Center for American Progress,

Center for Civilians in Conflict,

Center for Constitutional Rights,

Center for Disability Rights,

Center for International Policy,

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP),

Center for Victims of Torture,

Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law at New York University School of Law,

Church of Scientology National Affairs Office,

Church World Service,


Color Of Change,

Common Defense,

Community Alliance on Prisons,

Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd,

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR),

Daily Kos,

The Daniel Initiative,

Defending Rights & Dissent,

Dignity & Power NOW,

Dream Corps JUSTICE,

Drug Policy Alliance,

Empowering Pacific Islander Communities (EPIC),

Equal Justice Society,

Equal Rights Advocates,

Essie Justice Group,

The Feminist Foreign Policy Project,

Foreign Policy for America,

Franciscan Action Network,

Friends Committee on National Legislation,

Futures Without Violence,


Government Information Watch,

Grassroots Global Justice Alliance,

Greenpeace US,

Hispanic Federation,

Historians for Peace and Democracy,

Human Rights Campaign,

Human Rights First,

ICNA Council for Social Justice Impact Fund,


Interfaith Action for Human Rights,

Japanese American Citizens League,

Jetpac Resource Center, Inc.,

Jewish Council for Public Affairs,

Justice For Muslims Collective,

Justice is Global,

Justice Strategies,

Juvenile Law Center,

LatinoJustice PRLDEF,

La Union Del Pueblo Entero,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,

Louisiana Advocates for Immigrants in Detention,


Massachusetts Peace Action,

Media Alliance,


Metropolitan Community Churches,

Global Justice Institute,


Mothers Against Police Brutality,

Multicultural AIDS Coalition,

Muslim Justice League,

NARAL Pro-Choice America,

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd,

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,

National Association of Social Workers,

The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls,

National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC),

National Disability Rights Network (NDRN),

National Education Association,

National Homelessness Law Center,

National Immigrant Justice Center,

National Immigration Project (NIP-NLG),

National Iranian American Council Action (NIAC Action),

National Network of Arab American Communities (NNAAC),

National Organization for Women,

National Partnership for Women & Families,

National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies,

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies,

Oakland Privacy,

Open Society Policy Center,

Organized Communities Against Deportations,

Our Revolution,

OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition,

Oxfam America,

Peace Action,

People’s Action,

Poder in Action,


Poligon Education Fund,


Progressive Democrats of America,

Project Blueprint,

Project On Government Oversight,

Project South,

Public Citizen,

Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft,

Racial Justice NOW,

Restore The Fourth,

Rethinking Foreign Policy,

Revolutionary Love Project,

Revolving Door Project,

Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights,


Secure Families Initiative,

Security Policy Reform Institute (SPRI),

Sierra Club,

Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF),

The Sikh Coalition,

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT),

Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund,

TN State Conference NAACP,

UndocuBlack Network,

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee,

United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries,

United for Peace and Justice,

United We Dream Network,

U.S. Labor Against Racism and War Veterans for American Ideals,

Voices for Progress,

Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs,

WESPAC Foundation, Inc.,

Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center,

Win Without War,

Women’s Action for New Directions,

Women Watch Afrika,

Working Families Party,

World BEYOND War,

World Can’t Wait Hawai`I,

World Without Genocide

In addition to Velázquez, the bill is cosponsored by

Chellie Pingree,

Eleanor Holmes Norton,

Ayanna Pressley,

Mark Pocan,

Ro Khanna, Kathy Castor,

Yvette D. Clarke,

Adriano Espaillat,

Barbara Lee,

Carolyn Maloney,

James P. McGovern,

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,

Ilhan Omar,

Rashida Tlaib,

Jan Schakowsky,

Cori Bush,

Don Beyer.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Operation Barbarossa, whose 80th anniversary falls next month, was the largest military operation ever undertaken. This German invasion of the Soviet Union proved to be the decisive confrontation of the Second World War, and the effects of its outcome lasts to the current day.

The Austrian-born autocrat, Adolf Hitler, embarked upon his wars of conquest without firstly placing the German nation on a Total War footing. Hitler’s refusal from 1939, to direct the Third Reich’s full resources towards military means, was a critical reason behind the Nazis’ eventual defeat. Hitler’s regime made moves in enacting Total War policies only from early 1943, after the disaster at Stalingrad, and at least two years too late.

Hitler had ignored the theories of his predecessor as dictator, General Erich Ludendorff. He was the German Empire’s ruling warlord from August 1916 to October 1918, and during the mid-1920s he had been a political ally of Hitler. The Ludendorff biographer and historian, Lt. Col. Donald J. Goodspeed, recognised that the general “possessed outstanding military talent”. (1)

Ludendorff was a strong proponent of Total War from the early 20th century, and he believed that a country’s combined assets – including every fit man, woman and adolescent – must be engineered towards the business of war, on the battlefield or in the armament factories, and that peace is merely an interlude between conflicts. For Ludendorff, “The total state and total mobilisation provided essential preconditions for fighting successful war”. (2)

In 1935, the 70-year-old Ludendorff re-entered German national consciousness when he completed his book and life’s work titled, Der Totale Krieg (The Total War). In it he insisted, “War is the highest expression of the national will to live, and therefore politics must serve war-making”.

Hitler read Ludendorff’s book, but the latter’s beliefs pertaining to Total War were not accepted by the Third Reich’s General Staff. They felt Ludendorff’s views to be too ruthless and extreme (3). His doctrines on waging conflict were undoubtedly that, yet all wars of aggression are ruthless and extreme. By the mid-1930s Ludendorff had long since fallen out with Hitler. The general criticised the Nazis in pamphlets that he wrote from his home in Bavaria, and in a small newspaper which he established; his attacks were due, in part, because Ludendorff felt Hitler was too soft on Roman Catholic influence in Germany (4). Ludendorff was the only person in the Reich who was allowed to rebuke the Nazis with impunity.

Analysing Ludendorff’s Total War views, Dr Jan Willem Honig, a senior lecturer in War Studies at King’s College London, outlined that “Ludendorff’s concept of Total War shows how well he had internalised the shift in the political rationalisation of war, and the resulting need for its means and methods to change”. (5)

Ludendorff’s advocacy of maximising a country’s productivity to fight wars was, in effect, supported by Albert Speer, the so-called “Good Nazi” and one of the less sinister men among Hitler’s top brass. Speer was initially an architect by trade, but on 8 February 1942 he had been appointed by Hitler as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. From 1942 until war’s end, Speer was one of the Reich’s most powerful men.

In Spandau Prison on 29 March 1947, Speer wrote a highly significant passage stating,

“In the middle of 1941, Hitler could easily have had an army equipped twice as powerfully as it was. For the production of those fundamental industries that determine the volume of armaments was scarcely higher in 1941 than in 1944. What would have kept us from attaining the later production figures by the spring of 1942? We could even have mobilised approximately three million more men of the younger age groups before 1942 without losses in production – nor would we have needed forced labour from the occupied territories, if women could have been brought into the labour force, as they were in England and the United States. Some five million women would have been available for armaments production; and three million additional men would have added up to many divisions. These, moreover, could have been excellently equipped as a result of the increased production”. (6)

The above had escaped Hitler at the time, it seems. Hitler had no trade to speak of, having been prevented in his late teens from entering the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. He did not have the necessary qualifications either to pursue a career in architecture, as his secondary school studies went uncompleted. Maybe it was this more than anything, which ensured that Hitler later became a superficial expert in various fields, a dilettante with an aptitude for perceptive and amateurish reasoning.

Speer noted on 6 May 1960,

“Someone ought to write on Hitler’s dilettantism some day. He had the ignorance, the curiosity, the enthusiasm and the temerity of the born dilettante; and along with that, inspiration, imagination, lack of bias. In short, if I had to find a phrase to fit him, to sum him up aptly and succinctly, I would say that he was a genius of dilettantism”. (7)

Hitler’s dilettantism extended inevitably to the military arena. Due to having seemingly no other prospects, he remained in the German armed forces until 31 March 1920. With the First World War over, he showed no ambition to rise through the army’s ranks beyond that of lance-corporal. From the spring of 1920, Hitler chose instead to enter politics and worked for the new Nazi Party. In following years, he became a skilled and unscrupulous politician but would remain inexperienced in military matters.

When Ludendorff assumed the de facto German dictatorship in autumn 1916, he almost immediately set about instituting Total War measures, at first by issuing a compulsory labour law. For the war’s remainder, every German male aged between 15 and 60 was pressed into the service of the state. The Canadian historian Goodspeed observed, “Before the year [1916] was out, the labour law considerably eased Germany’s manpower shortage”, and it was “One of his most important – and unpopular – measures” (8). Ludendorff himself acknowledged that his Total War strategy was indeed not well liked, but for him there was too much at stake, and the German masses did not revolt at his harsh methods.

Moreover, Ludendorff employed large numbers of German women in the munitions plants after August 1916. Compulsory enrolling of women in the arms industry is, of course, essential to a more effective prosecution of a modern war economy. The percentage of females in any nation’s populace amounts to at least 50%, and those of working age perhaps 30% or more. Not to make use of the considerable abilities of women is an enormous waste. Nazi policy towards women was sexist and domineering, viewing their positions in society as strictly mother and wife who belonged in the homestead.

From the Second World War’s outset in September 1939, Hitler had been afraid to implement Total War policies, for fear that it would affect his standing with the German public. He lacked the single-minded focus of the military fanatic who wants to direct everything towards winning the war. Into 1942 and beyond, the Hitler regime continued to dither and organise the war in a dilettantish fashion; most starkly, by making scant use of the millions of German females.

In the spring of 1942 businessmen met with the armaments minister Speer, and showed him statistics proving that employment of German women was much higher during World War I, when Ludendorff was in charge. Photographs were produced of female workers streaming out of factories in 1918, whereas photos of the same plants in 1942 revealed scarcely any women. (9)

In early April 1942, with this vital issue on his mind Speer went to see Fritz Sauckel, the General Plenipotentiary for Labour Deployment. Speer proposed to Sauckel that they recruit women en masse to be deployed in the factories. Sauckel’s response was not conciliatory, but he sought a meeting on the topic with Hermann Göring, president of the Reichstag.

Sauckel expounded to Göring that factory work could affect the “psychic and emotional life” of German girls, along with their ability to bear children. Göring agreed with him. Speer recalled how “to be absolutely sure, Sauckel went to Hitler immediately after the conference and had him confirm the decision. All my good arguments were thereby blown to the winds” (10). Almost two years later on 28 January 1944, and 12 months after the Stalingrad defeat, Speer sent a withering message to Sauckel whereby the war minister outlined “the employment of women has progressed much further in England than here”. (11)

Regarding the manpower of Wehrmacht forces, by May 1940 as they attacked France and the Low Countries, it consisted of around 3.5 million German soldiers, according to the influential British military historian, Basil Liddell Hart (12). From 1939, a complete mobilisation could have produced another two or three million German troops by the summer of 1940, as was the case the next year. In the event, 3.5 million was more than adequate to rout a decaying French Army. In how they were used the following summer, roughly the same figure was not enough for a repeat outcome in the Soviet Union, a far larger country whose soldiers did not collapse like the French.

Hitler had in 1925 declared in Mein Kampf “when we speak of new territory in Europe today we must think principally of Russia, and her border vassal states” (13). Hitler first seriously began to plan out his dream of expanding eastwards 15 years later, from July 1940. His increased focus on the Soviet Union had been influenced too by circumstances, as Britain was stubbornly resisting him which he found confusing; but his decision to attack Russia was cemented before London’s rejection of his peace offer, as Captain Liddell Hart realised (14). On 21 July 1940 Hitler asked Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch, the German Army Commander-in-Chief, to advise him on the possibility of invading Soviet Russia in the autumn of 1940.

Operation Barbarossa Infobox.jpg

Clockwise from top left: German soldiers advance through Northern Russia, German flamethrower team in the Soviet Union, Soviet planes flying over German positions near Moscow, Soviet prisoners of war on the way to German prison camps, Soviet soldiers fire at German positions. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Eight days later, on 29 July, Hitler nevertheless informed his Chief of Operations Alfred Jodl that an attack on Russia, in August or September 1940, was no longer logistically practical. It was too late in the year, with the Russian autumn rains and winter snow on the horizon. Hitler said to General Jodl that the invasion would have to be postponed for a few months.

On 31 July 1940, an important conference was held at the Berghof residence in the Bavarian Alps. Among those in attendance were Brauchitsch and Jodl along with Hitler’s close military adviser, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. Hitler said that a German victory over Russia would compel the English to come to terms with them, and he further remarked, “England’s hope is Russia and America. If hope of Russia disappears, America disappears too” (15). Keitel was one of few to later advise against attacking Russia, because the 58-year-old field marshal foresaw the risks involved, but though Hitler respected his opinion he did not accept it on this subject.

Despite having over 10 months to prepare for the invasion of Russia, the final details for Operation Barbarossa were poorly worked out and grossly ambitious in scope. German reconnaissance estimates of enemy strength were faulty and based mainly on guesswork. This lack of knowledge seeped through to the highest echelon of the German command. Austrian Lt. Col. Otto Skorzeny, who freed Italian dictator Benito Mussolini from captivity on 12 September 1943, wrote in early 1975, “Hitler certainly made grave errors in his appraisal of the war situation – but primarily because he was badly informed”. (16)

There is no doubt that Hitler was misled on Soviet fighting capacity, but he initially allowed himself to be. It suited his prejudices against Bolshevism and the Slavic race, reflected by the brutal and exploitative manner of the invasion which he stressed to his generals was necessary.

Top ranking figures such as General Franz Halder, Chief of Staff of the German Army High Command, had played a central role in unwittingly misinforming Hitler. At the invasion’s beginning, the 56-year-old Halder led Hitler to believe there were 200 Red Army divisions in existence. Subsequently on 11 August 1941 Halder admitted in his diary “up to now we have already counted 360” (17). Less than two months into the attack, Soviet troop numbers were almost double the size of what Halder had predicted. With Hitler’s agreement and input, the experienced Halder had prepared both the planning and execution of Operation Barbarossa.

Image on the right: OKH commander Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch and Hitler study maps during the early days of Hitler’s Russian Campaign (Public Domain)

When receiving a solid picture of realities on the ground, Hitler demonstrated an expertise for grasping complex problems with ease and explaining them clearly. Recalling his stay at Hitler’s compound near Rastenburg, East Prussia from 10 September 1944, Skorzeny wrote that, “During my three days at the Wolfsschanze I was astonished, not only by Hitler’s extraordinary memory, but by the intuitive sense he possessed for military and political situations, their possible developments and eventual solutions of the problems associated with them. General Jodl knew how to present a military situation. But when Hitler spoke afterwards, everything was much simpler and clearer”. (18)

German military intelligence did not make Hitler aware either that, from the high summer of 1941, the Soviets were successfully achieving a vast relocation of industrial capacity further east – in order to safeguard and strengthen Russian war capabilities against the Nazi onslaught. John Sweeney, professor emeritus of geography at Maynooth University in Ireland, wrote of the Soviet initiatives, “Over 1,500 industrial enterprises were transplanted between July and November 1941 alone to what were considered relatively safe refuges in the interior. The Urals (which received 667 of these enterprises), Kazakhstan and Central Asia (308), West Siberia (244), the Volga Region (226) and East Siberia (78) benefited permanently from this massive injection of industrial investment, and it was in this heartland area that urban growth during the post-war recovery period was concentrated”. (19)

Focusing on the misjudgments of people like General Halder relating to Russian manpower, there was hardly an excuse for it. The Russian Empire conducted its first census in January 1897, 44 years before Barbarossa, and it stated that its population amounted to 125 million (20). This was more than the 109 million living in Nazi Germany and its occupied regions in 1940. Tsarist Russia could have fielded more divisions than Hitler’s Reich, and Russia’s population would grow in coming decades.

The next full census was held under the Soviets in December 1926 – before Joseph Stalin had consolidated his rule in 1928 – and it showed that the USSR’s population was 147 million (21). The results were soon published, and military figures or historians in Nazi Germany could have unearthed it if they had tried.

Another Soviet census was taken in January 1937, which found that the population had climbed again and was 162 million; this census result was unknown outside of the Kremlin, Stalin refused to put it to print as he expected the total to be higher; a final pre-war Soviet census was conducted in January 1939, claiming that 170 million people lived there.

The population of the USSR’s two largest cities, Moscow and Leningrad, had together risen by 3.6 million from 1926 to 1939. Sweeney, who is commonly regarded as Ireland’s foremost climate scientist, wrote that the rapid population increase in Moscow and Leningrad was “a remarkable fact considering the very low contribution made to this total by natural increase”. (22)

Sweeney noted that the unprecedented growth in Soviet urban populations occurred largely due to “a massive influx to the older centres of European Russia” and was “primarily attributable to an exodus from the land rather than any natural increase in the pre-existing urban population”. (23)

Some details of the 1939 Soviet census were printed in the Russian press. Key passages from it were discussed, for example, in a spring 1941 study published in London with the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, weeks before Barbarossa (24). Apparently no-one in positions of power in Berlin were made aware of such accounts.

This report printed with the Royal Statistical Society was written by a Russian-born lecturer and naturalised British citizen, named Sergey Petrovich Turin, or S. P. Turin (originally Tyurin). In his account, Turin revealed that the Soviet population in 1941 “is about 193 million people” (25). Its populace had increased further since 1939, because Stalin absorbed into USSR territory the eastern half of Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, while he also took over 9% of Finnish land.

As the German invasion was launched, the Soviet population was nearly twice larger than the Third Reich’s. Huge numbers of Soviet divisions should have come as little surprise to the German hierarchy. All too late, General Halder wrote in his diary on 11 August 1941, “we destroy a dozen of them [Soviet divisions], then the Russians put another dozen in their place”.

Hitler was likewise misinformed by Nazi intelligence on Soviet armament strength. In mid-August 1941, Hitler confided to the Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels that he had “estimated the number of Soviet tanks as 5,000, when in reality they had around 20,000. We thought they had about 10,000 aircraft, in fact they had over 20,000” (26). On 4 June 1942 Hitler told Finland’s Commander-in-Chief, Gustav Mannerheim, that he had since learnt the Soviets actually possessed “35,000 tanks” in the second half of 1941. (27)


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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


1 Donald J. Goodspeed, Ludendorff: Soldier: Dictator: Revolutionary (Hart-Davis; 1st edition, 1 Jan. 1966) p. 248

Jan Willem Honig, “The Idea of Total War: From Clausewitz to Ludendorff”, published in 2012, Moodle.suttongrammar.sutton.sch.uk

3 Goodspeed, Ludendorff, p. 247

4 Ibid.

5 Honig, “The Idea of Total War: From Clausewitz to Ludendorff”

6 Albert Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries (Fontana, London, 1977) pp. 62-63.

7 Ibid., p. 366-367

8 Goodspeed, Ludendorff, p. 157

9 Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich (Simon & Schuster; Reissue edition, 1 April 1997) p. 220

10 Ibid., p. 221

11 Ibid., p. 540

12 Basil Liddell Hart, “Battle of France, World War II [1940]”, Britannica.com

13 John Simkin, “Operation Barbarossa”, Spartacus Educational

14 Basil Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War (Pan Macmillan Australia, 1973) p. 143

15 Klaus P. Fischer, Hitler and America (University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc., 23 June 2011) p. 126

16 Otto Skorzeny, My Commando Operations: The Memoirs of Hitler’s Most Daring Commando (Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1 Jan. 1995) p. 198

17 Peter Longerich, Hitler: A Biography (Oxford University Press; Illustrated edition, 3 Oct. 2019) p. 749

18 Skorzeny, My Commando Operations, p. 309

19 John Sweeney, Regional Patterns of Urban Growth in the USSR, Geographical Association, p. 3 of 8, Jstor

20 David Moon, The Russian Peasantry 1600-1930: The World the Peasants Made (Routledge; 1st edition, 16 July 2014) p. 12

21 Dimensions of Soviet economic power; studies, United States Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 1 Jan. 1962, p. 508

22 Sweeney, Regional Patterns of Urban Growth in the USSR, p. 2 of 8, Jstor

23 Ibid.

24 S. P. Turin, Some Observations on the Population of Soviet Russia at the Census of January 17th, 1939, published by Wiley for the Royal Statistical Society, p. 1 of 3, Jstor

25 Ibid.

26 Longerich, Hitler: A Biography, p. 749

27 ElMehdi El Azhary, “Hitler’s Only Known Interview”, Medium, 15 March 2021

Napoleone tra guerra e rivoluzione

May 14th, 2021 by Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


La Rivoluzione francese non fu un semplice “evento” storico, ma un processo lungo e complesso all’interno del quale si possono identificare diverse fasi. Alcune di queste, comprese le importanti fasi iniziale e finale che indicheremo in seguito, furono di natura più contro-rivoluzionaria che rivoluzionaria. E, per quanto riguarda gli stadi veramente rivoluzionari, è possibile individuarne due.

Il primo fu “il 1789”, la rivoluzione moderata. Questa pose termine all’Ancien Régime, caratterizzato dall’assolutismo reale e dal feudalesimo o, detto in altro modo, al monopolio del potere da parte del monarca e ai privilegi della nobiltà e della Chiesa. Tra le realizzazioni importanti de “il 1789” sono da annoverare la Dichiarazione dei diritti dell’uomo, l’uguaglianza di tutti i francesi di fronte alla legge, la separazione tra Stato e Chiesa, un sistema parlamentare basato su un diritto di voto seppur ristretto e la creazione di uno Stato francese “moderno”, centralizzato e “indivisibile”. Queste realizzazioni che, complessivamente, costituirono un enorme “passo in avanti” nella storia della Francia, vennero iscritte in una costituzione che, non senza un qualche ritardo, sarà promulgata nel 1791.

L’Ancien Régime, ossia la Francia prima del 1789, era associata alla monarchia assoluta e il sistema rivoluzionario del 1789 avrebbe potuto trovare una sua collocazione adeguata anche all’interno di una monarchia parlamentare e costituzionale. La cosa non fu possibile a causa della condotta di Luigi XVI e così nel 1792 nacque una nuova forma di stato, la repubblica. Il “1789” fu possibile grazie all’intervento dei sans-culottes di Parigi, ma il suo sbocco fu fondamentalmente opera di moderati, quasi esclusivamente membri della borghesia facoltosa. Furono questi ultimi che, sulle rovine dell’Ancien Régime già al servizio degli interessi della nobiltà e del clero, fonderanno uno stato che doveva essere invece al servizio dell’(alta) borghesia.

Sul piano politico, questi solidi borghesi, originari di tutta la Francia, troveranno subito una sede nel club dei Foglianti e in seguito in quello dei Girondini, il cui nome riflette le loro origini : erano membri della borghesia della regione di Bordeaux , la cui ricchezza proveniva essenzialmente, oltre che dal vino, dal commercio degli schiavi.

Il secondo stadio rivoluzionario fu “il 1793”, che vuol dire rivoluzione “popolare”, radicale, egualitaria, con i diritti sociali come il diritto al lavoro e riforme socio-economiche relativamente spinte – rispecchiate in una costituzione, quella dell’anno Io o1793, che tuttavia non entrerà mai in vigore. In questa fase, personificata da Massimiliano Robespierre, la Rivoluzione si orientò in senso sociale e si apprestò a regolare l’economia del paese – e perciò a limitare in una certa misura la libertà individuale a favore del “bene comune”, vale a dire a profitto della “comunità”. Dato che, contemporaneamente, il diritto di proprietà venne preservato, il “1793” si può qualificare come “social-democratico” piuttosto che “socialista”. Il “1793” fu opera di Robespierre, del gruppo dei Montagna e di altri Giacobini, ossia di rivoluzionari radicali, essenzialmente piccola-borghesia i cui principi, al fondo, erano altrettanto “liberali” di quelli dell’alta borghesia. Le loro misure cercavano di soddisfare anche i bisogni elementari della plebe parigina, soprattutto artigiani e altri lavoratori sans-culottes, punta di lancia della rivoluzione. I sans-culottes erano persone comuni che portavano calzoni lunghi al posto di mutandoni (culottes) cui venivano aggiunte delle calze impreziosite di sete, modo tipico di vestire degli aristocratici e dei ricchi borghesi. I sanculotti furono in effetti gli alleati indispensabili ai Giacobini nella loro lotta non solo contro i Girondini, i rivoluzionari moderati, ma anche e soprattutto contro la contro-rivoluzione.

Sotto molteplici aspetti, la fase radicale della rivoluzione fu un fenomeno parigino, una rivoluzione fatta da e per Parigi. L’opposizione veniva essenzialmente da fuori della capitale, ovvero dalla grande borghesia residente nelle città di provincia, rappresentata e diretta dai Girondini e sostenuta dai contadini delle campagne. Con il “1793”, la rivoluzione diventa una sorta di conflitto tra Parigi e il resto della Francia.

La contro-rivoluzione si poneva invece contro sia “il 1789” che ”il 1793” e non voleva niente di meno che un ritorno all’Ancien Régime. I suoi campioni – emigrati della nobiltà, preti recalcitranti e contadini in rivolta in Vandea e in altre province – si battevano per il re e per la Chiesa. La borghesia facoltosa, concentrata soprattutto nelle grandi città francesi di provincia, dimostrava ostilità al “1793”, ma favore al “1789”. La borghesia era contro “il 1793” perchè, al contrario dei sanculotti parigini, non aveva nulla da guadagnare e tutto da perdere da uno sviluppo rivoluzionario radicale volto nella direzione indicata dai Montagnardi e dalla loro costituzione del 1793 con il suo egualitarismo e statalismo. La borghesia rimaneva comunque ugualmente contraria ad un ritorno dell’Ancien Régime nel quale lo Stato sarebbe di nuovo stato messo al servizio di nobiltà e clero. “Il 1789” voleva invece dire Stato francese per la borghesia e “il 1789” era in effetti stata la rivoluzione della borghesia per la borghesia.

Un “ritorno all’indietro” verso la rivoluzione borghese e moderata del 1789 – ma con una repubblica al posto di una monarchia costituzionale – ecco l’obiettivo e, sotto molti aspetti, il risultato della “reazione del Termidoro” del 1794, il colpo di stato che pone fine al regime – e alla vita – di Robespierre. Il Termidoro produsse la costituzione dell’anno IIIo che, come ha scritto lo storico Charles Morazé, “garantì la proprietà privata e le idee liberali, [ma] soppresse tutto quello che andava oltre la rivoluzione borghese, nella direzione del socialismo”. L’aggiornamento termidoriano del “1789” produsse di conseguenza uno stato descritto come la “repubblica borghese” o la “repubblica dei proprietari”. Nacque così anche il “Direttorio”, un regime autoritario dissimulato da una mano sottile di vernice democratica sotto forma di assemblee legislative. Il Direttorio, tuttavia, trovò estremamente difficile sopravvivere nel destreggiarsi tra una Cariddi realista di destra, che mirava a un ritorno all’Ancien Régime, e una Scilla di Giacobini e sanculotti di sinistra che militavano per una nuova radicalizzazione in senso rivoluzionario. Ci furono delle insurrezioni, sia dei realisti che dei Giacobini, e una di queste venne soffocata nel sangue da un generale ambizioso e popolare, Napoleone Bonaparte.

Tutti questi problemi vennero risolti dal colpo di stato del “18 Brumaio”, vale a dire con l’istituzione di una dittatura militare affidata a Bonaparte. Si può dire che il “18 Brumaio” la borghesia facoltosa di Francia trasferì a Bonaparte il potere politico che possedeva allo scopo di non perderlo nè sul fianco dei realisti né su quello dei Giacobini.

Ci si aspettava che il Corso avrebbe messo lo Stato francese, d’ora in avanti una dittatura, al servizio della (alta) borghesia e prendesse le misure che ci si attendeva. Il primo compito fu l’eliminazione della duplice minaccia che tormentava i suoi padrini dell’alta borghesia. Il pericolo realista e pertanto contro-rivoluzionario poteva essere essere tenuto a bada con l’aiuto del “bastone” della repressione, ma anche soprattutto con la “carota” delle concessioni, dei compromessi e della riconciliazione. Napoleone permise agli aristocratici emigrati di tornare in Francia, di recuperare le loro proprietà e di approfittare dei privilegi che aveva concesso non solo ai grandi borghesi, ma ai “benestanti” in generale. Inoltre trovò un modus vivendi con la Chiesa cattolica firmando un concordato con il Papa.

Allo scopo di esorcizzare la minaccia (neo-)giacobina, ovvero il rischio di una rinnovata radicalizzazione della rivoluzione, Napoleone si servì di uno strumento immaginato dai Girondini e diligentemente utilizzato dal Direttorio, ossia la guerra. In effetti, se pensiamo alla dittatura di Bonaparte non ci tornano alla mente, contrariamente a quanto aveva contrassegnato gli anni dal 1789 al 1794, eventi rivoluzionari o contro-rivoluzionari accaduti nella capitale francese, quanto piuttosto un’interminabile serie di guerre condotte lontano da Parigi e, in molti casi, al di fuori dalle frontiere francesi. Non fu per caso. Queste guerre dette “rivoluzionarie” e “napoleoniche” erano estremamente funzionali all’obiettivo primario dei partigiani della rivoluzione moderata, compresi i bonapartisti e i loro sostenitori : conservare le acquisizione del “1789” ed impedire sia un ritorno all’Ancien Régime che a una riedizione del “1793”.

Con il loro Terrore, Robespierre e i Montagnardi avevano voluto non solo proteggere la rivoluzione, ma anche approfondirla, radicalizzarla, intensificarla, cosa che significava contemporaneamente “internalizzarla” nel seno della stessa Francia e, innanzitutto, nel cuore della sua capitale, Parigi. Non era accidentale che le esecuzioni mediante ghigliottina, strettamente associate alla rivoluzione radicale, avessero luogo nel centro della piazza della città situata nel centro del paese. Per concentrare le proprie energie e quelle dei sanculotti e di tutti i veri rivoluzionari su questa “internalizzazione” della rivoluzione, Robespierre e i suoi amici Giacobini – al contrario dei Girondini e di Napoleone – erano contrari per principio alle guerre oltre confine in quanto le ritenevano un dispendio di energie rivoluzionarie e un pericolo per la rivoluzione. Di contro, la serie interminabile di conflitti che vennero scatenati in seguito, inizialmente sotto gli auspici del Direttorio termidoriano e poi sotto Bonaparte, rimandavano ad una “esternalizzazione” della rivoluzione, ad una esportazione della rivoluzione borghese del 1789 che serviva contemporaneamente a bloccare la sua “internalizzazione” ovvero la “radicalizzazione” della rivoluzione del 1793.

La guerra internazionale, il conflitto con lo straniero, serviva a liquidare la rivoluzione nazionale in due modi. In primo luogo, la guerra fece sparire i rivoluzionari più appassionati dalla patria della rivoluzione, Parigi. Dapprima volontariamente, innumerevoli giovani sanculotti scomparvero dalla capitale Parigi per andare a battersi all’estero e, in troppi casi, senza farvi più ritorno. In questo modo, per le azioni rivoluzionarie collettive, come la presa della Bastiglia, non restavano a Parigi, oltre alle donne, che un pugno d’uomini, troppo pochi per poter ripetere i successi della massa dei sans-culottes del 1789, come dimostreranno i fallimenti delle insurrezioni giacobine che avevano tormentato il Direttorio. Inoltre, sotto Bonaparte, l’introduzione del servizio militare obbligatorio rese permanente questa situazione. “Fu lui [Napoleone]”, scrive lo storico Henri Guillemin, “che inviò i giovani plebei potenzialmente pericolosi lontano da Parigi e li mandò persino fino a Mosca – con gran sollievo dei benestanti.”

In secondo luogo, la notizia delle grandi vittorie suscita nella massa dei sanculotti, anche tra i suoi membri rimasti in patria, un orgoglio patriottico che va a soppiantare l’entusiasmo rivoluzionario. Con qualche aiuto da parte del dio della guerra, Marte, l’energia rivoluzionaria della sanculotteria e del popolo francese potè venire convogliata su percorsi meno radicali, dal punto di vista rivoluzionario. Abbiamo qui a che fare con quello che in inglese viene denominato un displacement process, un processo di transfert : il popolo francese, compresi i sanculotti parigini, perse progressivamente il suo entusiasmo per la rivoluzione e per tutte le idee di libertà, uguaglianza e solidarietà tra i francesi e con i popoli vicini e si rivolse sempre più verso l’adorazione del vitello d’oro dello chauvinismo nazionale, dell’espansione territoriale nella direzione di frontiere considerate “naturali” come il Reno, e della gloria internazione della “grande nazione” e – dopo il 18 brumaio – del suo capo, Bonaparte.

Questo ci porta anche a capire la reazione ambivalente dei popoli europei di fronte alle guerre ed alle conquiste della Francia in quelle circostanze. Mentre certuni – le élite dell’Ancien Régime, ad esempio, e i contadini – respingevano nella sua totalità la Rivoluzione francese, e altri – innanzitutto i Giacobini locali come i “patrioti” olandesi – l’applaudivano abbastanza incondizionatamente, ma molti e indubbiamente la maggior parte passeranno dalla Cariddi dell’ammirazione per le idee e le realizzazioni della Rivoluzione francese alla Scilla della ripulsa nei confronti del militarismo, dello chauvinismo senza freni e allo spietato imperialismo della Francia dopo Termidoro, durante l’epoca del Direttorio e sotto Napoleone.

Numerosi non francesi lotteranno tra ammirazione e repulsione simultanee nei confronti della Rivoluzione francese. Per altri, l’entusiasmo iniziale lasciò presto o tardi il passo alla disillusione. Gli inglesi, ad esempio, accolsero con favore il “1789”, perché interpretarono non senza ragione la Rivoluzione francese nel suo stadio moderato come l’importazione in Francia di una sorta di monarchia costituzionale e parlamentare che loro stessi avevano già introdotto circa cent’anni prima all’epoca della loro famosa Glorious Revolution. Il poeta William Wordsworth tradusse questo entusiasmo dell’inizio in questi versi famosi :

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,

But to be young was very heaven !

Che benedizione essere vivi in quest’alba,

Ma essere giovani allora fu il vero paradiso !

Dopo il “1793”, la rivoluzione radicale e il Terrore, tuttavia, la maggior parte, o almeno un buon numero di inglesi prese a considerare con esecrazione gli eventi che si stavano svolgendo dall’altra parte del Canale (Channel). Il loro porta-parola fu Edmund Burke, il cui libro Reflections on the Revolution in France – già pubblicato nel novembre del 1790 – divenne una vera Bibbia per i contro-rivoluzionari, non solo in Inghilterra, ma in tutto il mondo. Un secolo e mezzo dopo, George Orwell avrebbe potuto scrivere che “per l’inglese medio, la Rivoluzione francese non aveva altro significato che una piramide di teste mozzate”. Avrebbe potuto dire la stessa cosa della quasi totalità degli altri non-francesi sia della sua epoca che di oggi.

Fu per mettere fine alla Rivoluzione nella Francia stessa, che Napoleone strappò la rivoluzione – quella del 1789 – dalla sua culla, Parigi e l’esportò verso il resto d’Europa. Fu per porre ostacoli e impedire alla potente corrente della rivoluzione di scavare ancora più in profondità il suo alveo – a Parigi e nel resto della Francia – che dapprima i Girondini, poi il Direttorio, ma soprattutto Bonaparte, fecero straripare le turbolente acque rivoluzionarie fuori dagli argini delle frontiere francesi per inondare tutta l’Europa.

Per togliere la rivoluzione dalla sua culla parigina, per porre un termine a quello che fu per molti aspetti un progetto radicale dei Giacobini, dei sanculotti piccolo-borghesi di Parigi e, di contro, per consolidare la rivoluzione moderata cara alla borghesia, Napoleone Bonaparte era stato sapientemente scelto sul piano simbolico. Era nativo di Ajaccio, la città di provincia più lontana dalla capitale. Inoltre, Napoleone era un “figlio della cerchia dei gentiluomini corsi”, in altre parole il rampollo di una famiglia di cui si poteva ugualmente dire che apparteneva all’alta borghesia con pretese nobiliari o anche alla piccola nobiltà ma con lo stile di vita dell’alta borghesia. In ogni caso, a ben vedere, i Bonaparte facevano parte dell’alta borghesia, la classe che, in tutta la Francia, grazie al “1789”, aveva raggiunto i suoi obiettivi e cercava di consolidarli con una dittatura militare di fronte alle minacce provenienti sia dalla sinistra che dalla destra. Napoleone incarnava la (alta) borghesia di provincia che, sul modello dei Girondini, privilegiava una rivoluzione moderata, cristallizzata in uno Stato, più o meno democratico se possibile ma rigorosamente autoritario se necessario, che facilitasse l’allargamento del potere e delle ricchezze di questa classe. Le esperienze del Direttorio avevano dimostrato le deficienze, da questo punto di vista, di una repubblica fornita di istituzioni relativamente democratiche e per questa ragione la borghesia optò alla fine per una dittatura.

Questa dittatura militare, che prese il posto della “repubblica borghese” post-Termidoro, nacque a Saint-Cloud, un sobborgo parigino, il “18 brumaio” dell’anno VIII, ossia il 9 novembre 1799. È notevole che questo passaggio politico decisivo nel processo per bloccare la rivoluzione abbia contemporaneamente segnato un passaggio geografico in cui ci si allontanava da Parigi, dal crogiolo della rivoluzione, dalla tana del leone dei Giacobini e dei sanculotti fin troppo rivoluzionari, in direzione della campagna ben meno radicale o anche più o meno contro-rivoluzionaria. Ed ecco un altro piccolo dettaglio ironico : Saint-Cloud si trova sulla strada che va da Parigi a Versailles, la residenza dei re assoluti di prima della Rivoluzione. Il fatto che il colpo di stato che instaurava un sistema autoritario avvenne in quel luogo fu il riflesso topografico del fatto storico che dopo l’esperienza democratica della rivoluzione, la Francia imbocca di nuovo la via verso un sistema politico assolutista come quello di cui Versailles era stato il “sole”. Questa volta, tuttavia, la destinazione era un sistema assolutista sotto la direzione di un Bonaparte e non più di un Borbone e, ancora più importante : un sistema assolutista al servizio della borghesia e non più della nobiltà.

The coup d’état of Saint-Cloud on a British caricature by James Gillray (Public Domain)

Nei confronti della rivoluzione, la dittatura di Bonaparte è ambivalente. Da un lato, con il suo avvento la rivoluzione termina, è liquidata, nel senso che si decreta la fine non solo del genere di esperimenti ugualitari del “1793”, ma anche della facciata democratica repubblicana del “1789”. D’altro canto, le realizzazioni essenziali del “1789” vennero preservate ed anche consolidate. Alla domanda se Napoleone sia stato o meno un rivoluzionario si può rispondere in questo modo. Era per la rivoluzione nello stesso senso in cui era contro la contro-rivoluzione realista e siccome due negazioni si elidono a vicenda, chi è ostile alla contro-rivoluzione è automaticamente un rivoluzionario. Ma si può anche dire era allo stesso tempo per e contro la rivoluzione : era per la rivoluzione borghese moderata del 1789, quella dei Foglianti-Girondini-Termidoriani, ma contro la rivoluzione radicale del 1793, quella dei Giacobini e dei sanculotti di Parigi.

Nel suo libro La Révolution, une exception française ?, la storica Annie Jourdan cita quanto scrive nel 1815 un commentatore dell’epoca, un tedesco o più precisamente della Prussia, che aveva già allora compreso come Bonaparte “non era mai stato altro che la personificazione di una delle diverse fasi della rivoluzione”. Questa fase era quella della rivoluzione borghese, “il 1789”, che Napoleone consolidò in Francia e poi esporterà nel resto dell’Europa.

Napoleone eliminò pertanto i pericoli realisti e giacobini, ma rese un ulteriore grande servizio alla borghesia incidendo nel marmo della legislazione il diritto alla proprietà privata, pietra angolare dell’ideologia liberale cara al cuore della borghesia. Questo diritto era già stato sancito nel 1791 nella costituzione della rivoluzione nella sua fase borghese e moderata. Aggiungendo gli atti alle parole, nel 1802 il Corso reintrodusse nelle colonie francesi la schiavitù. All’epoca, gli schiavi erano ancora considerati come una forma legittima di proprietà, tuttavia la Francia era stata il primo paese ad abolire la schiavitù, allora, nella fase radicale della rivoluzione con il favore di Robespierre e i timori dei suoi avversari, i Girondini, precursori di Bonaparte in quanto campioni della causa borghese e del pensiero liberale di questa classe.

Lo storico Georges Dupeux ha scritto che “la borghesia ha trovato in Napoleone allo stesso tempo un protettore e un padrone.” Il Corso fu indubbiamente un protettore, anche un grande campione, dell’alta borghesia, ma non ne fu mai il padrone. In realtà, egli era al servizio dei grandi uomini d’affari e soprattutto dei banchieri dell’alta borghesia del paese, gli stessi che avevano il controllo della Francia ai tempi del Direttorio, la “repubblica dei proprietari”, e che gli avevano affidato la regia del paese. Sul piano finanziario, non solo lui ma tutto lo Stato francese si ritroveranno alle dipendenze di una istituzione privata che era proprietà – e lo è tuttora – dell’élite più facoltosa del paese, anche se la cosa era stata in qualche modo edulcorata con l’apposizione di un’etichetta – Banca di Francia – che dava l’impressione si trattasse di un’istituzione dello Stato. Al prezzo di alti interessi, questi banchieri mettevano a disposizione di Napoleone il denaro che gli era necessario per dirigere la Francia, armarla, condurre la guerra – e fargli interpretare, in gran pompa, il ruolo dell’Imperatore. Alla fine, Napoleone non fu nient’altro che la figura di facciata di un regime, ed anche di una dittatura, dell’alta borghesia, un regime vero ma ben camuffato in una magnifica coreografia “romana”, dapprima consolare, in seguito imperiale.

Ed eccoci al ruolo delle interminabili guerre condotte da Napoleone, alle avventure militari che si pretende abbiano apportato tanta gloria alla “grande nazione” e al suo imperatore. Sappiamo già che questi conflitti servirono in primo luogo a liquidare la rivoluzione radicale in Francia. Permisero anche alla borghesia di guadagnare parecchio denaro. Con forniture e approvvigionamenti all’esercito di armi, uniformi, ecc., industriali e commercianti accumularono fortune. E le campagne vittoriose miravano a fonti di materie prime e a mercati di sbocco a disposizione dell’industria francese, il cui sviluppo poté accelerare considerevolmente. In questo modo, gli industriali francesi poterono giocare un ruolo sempre più importante in seno alla borghesia. In effetti, fu sotto Napoleone che, in Francia, il capitalismo industriale tipico del secolo XIX iniziò a soppiantare il capitalismo commerciale caratteristico di alcuni secoli prima. (Detto en passant : l’accumulazione di capitale commerciale era stata resa possibile soprattutto grazie al commercio di schiavi, mentre quella del capitale industriale ebbe molto a che fare con la serie quasi ininterrotta di guerre che vennero condotte, dapprima dal Direttorio e in seguito da Napoleone. In questo senso Balzac aveva ragione quando scriveva che “dietro ogni grande fortuna si nasconde un crimine”).

Le guerre napoleoniche stimolarono lo sviluppo del sistema industriale di produzione e suonarono i rintocchi funebri per l’antico sistema artigianale di fabbricazione, su piccola scala, di prodotti che gli artigiani realizzavano in modo tradizionale, non meccanizzato, nei loro laboratori. Tramite la guerra, la borghesia bonapartista non fa solo scomparire fisicamente gli sanculotti – sostanzialmente un gruppo eterogeneo di artigiani, negozianti e altri piccoli produttori – di Parigi ma li fa svanire anche dal paesaggio socio-economico. Durante la Rivoluzione, la massa dei sanculotti aveva potuto svolgere un ruolo di primo piano. Di fatto, con le guerre rivoluzionarie che liquideranno la rivoluzione, spariranno dalle scene della storia. In questo senso, la rivoluzione ha divorato i suoi figli.

Come gli antropofagi, la borghesia francese divorò il suo nemico di classe. Si trattava, tuttavia, di una vittoria di Pirro. Perché? L’avvenire economico ormai non apparteneva più ai laboratori e ai loro artigiani, “indipendenti” e pertanto piccolo-borghesi, che lavoravano manualmente, ma alle fabbriche e ai loro proprietari, gli industriali, nonché ai loro lavoratori, gli “operai di fabbrica” poveri e mal pagati. In questo “proletariato” tipico del XIXo secolo, la borghesia troverà un antagonista di classe ben più temibile che la congerie dei sanculotti caratteristica della fine del XVIIIo secolo. Questi proletari sogneranno una rivoluzione ancor più radicale di quella del “1793”, quella di Robespierre. Tutto questo, tuttavia, sarà un problema dei regimi borghesi che succederanno a quello di Napoleone il Grande, compreso quello di suo nipote, il terzo Napoleone, disdegnato come “Napoleone il Piccolo” da Victor Hugo.

Nella stessa Francia e in ben altri paesi, molti, compresi uomini politici e storici, disprezzano Robespierre e i Giacobini oltre che i sanculotti e li condannano per gli spargimenti di sangue che sono andati di pari passo con la loro rivoluzione “popolare” e radicale, con il “1793”. Queste stesse persone manifestano spesso allo stesso tempo una grande ammirazione per Napoleone, il salvatore della rivoluzione borghese, moderata del “1789”. Condannano la internalizzazione della Rivoluzione francese, asseritamente perchè è arrivata di pari passo con il Terrore che, in Francia e soprattutto a Parigi, ha prelevato un contributo di più di mille vittime e ne rigettano la colpa sull’ideologia giacobina e/o la sete di sangue ritenuta innata del “popolo”. Manifestamente non comprendono – o non vogliono comprendere – che l’esternalizzazione della rivoluzione promossa dai Termidoriani e da Napoleone, e associata alle guerre internazionali che dureranno per più di vent’anni, costò la vita a molti milioni di persone in tutta Europa, compreso un gran numero di francesi. In effetti, si può dire che queste guerre hanno costituito una forma di terrore molto più minacciosa e sanguinaria di quello che fu il potere del terrore dei Montagnardi.

Si stima che il terrore associato alla rivoluzione radicale, personificata da Robespierre, sia costato la vita a 50.000 persone, che rappresentavano lo 0,2 per cento della popolazione francese. “È molto o poco ?”, chiede lo storico Michel Vovelle che cita queste cifre in uno dei suoi libri. In confronto al numero di vittime delle guerre dovute all’espansione territoriale temporanea della “grande nazione” e per la gloria di Bonaparte, è poco. La sola battaglia di Waterloo, l’ultima della pretesa “gloriosa” carriera di Napoleone, produsse tra i 45.000 e i 50.000 tra morti e feriti. Se si aggiungono le “scaramucce” preliminari di Ligny e Quatre-Bras si arriva ad un totale di 80.000 o 90.000 vittime. Nella battaglia di Lipsia del 1813, ugualmente persa da Napoleone, ma oggi quasi totalmente dimenticata, si ebbero all’incirca 140.000 tra morti e feriti. Per quel che riguarda la catastrofica campagna di Russia, Napoleone vi lasciò centinaia di migliaia di morti e di mutilati, anche se non si parla mai di un “terrore” bonapartista e la France conta innumerevoli monumenti, vie e pubbliche piazze che dovrebbero rendere immortali i “grandi fatti eroici” del Corso.

Antoine Wiertz, “Une scène de l’enfer”, Wiertz Museum, Brussels

Nel sostituire alla rivoluzione permanente in Francia, e soprattutto a Parigi, con una guerra permanente attraverso tutta l’Europa, osservavano già Marx ed Engels, i Termidoriani e i loro successori, soprattutto Bonaparte, “perfezioneranno” il Terrore, in altri termini, faranno versare una quantità infinitamente maggiore di sangue che il “governo del terrore” di Robespierre. In ogni caso, è innegabile che l’esternalizzazione, tramite la guerra, della rivoluzione borghese, prelevò un tributo di lutti ben più pesante del tentativo da parte dei Giacobini d’intensificare e radicalizzare la rivoluzione con il terrore, di internalizzarla nella stessa Francia e, innanzitutto, a Parigi.

Molti, come parecchi uomini politici e i nostri media, ad esempio, oltre alla maggior parte degli storici continuano, tuttavia, a considerare la guerra come un’attività perfettamente legittima di uno Stato, fonte di gloria e di orgoglio per i vincitori e, in numerosi casi, anche per i perdenti, che in quell’occasione si comportano da “eroi”. Di contro, le migliaia, decine o centinaia di migliaia, se non milioni di vittime delle guerre – oggi, ad esempio, provocate dai bombardamenti aerei – non ricevono mai la stessa attenzione o simpatia delle vittime del “terrore”, molto meno numerose, colpite da una forma di violenza che non è (direttamente) sponsorizzata da uno Stato e che, per questo, viene considerata come illegittima.

Anche ora l’eterna “guerra contro il terrorismo”, una volta di più una forma di guerra permanente che, per quanto riguarda la grande potenza che-non-smette-mai-di-far-la-guerra, accende tra i “semplici cittadini” americani – i sanculotti americani, in qualche modo! – uno chauvinismo sconsiderato, fa sventolare di bandiere e allo stesso tempo riserva, ai più poveri tra di loro, tempo di lavoro sotto forma di una carriera nei marines. A profitto dell’industria americana, questa guerra garantisce nel frattempo le fonti di materie prime vitali, come il petrolio e, per i fabbricanti d’armi e ogni sorta d’altra impresa, soprattutto di quelle che hanno amici alla Casa Bianca, funziona come un corno dell’abbondanza dai vertiginosi profitti. Le similitudini con le guerre di Bonaparte sono a portata di mano. Come diceva il giornalista e romanziere Alphonse Karr : “Più si cambia e più è la stessa cosa.”.

Statue of Napoleon in Waterloo (Photo by J. Pauwels)

Con Bonaparte, la rivoluzione si conclude là dove doveva finire, almeno per quanto riguarda la borghesia francese. Bonaparte vuol dire il trionfo della borghesia francese. Non è pertanto un caso se, nelle città francesi, i “notabili”, vale a dire gli uomini d’affari, i banchieri, gli avvocati e altri rappresentanti dell’alta borghesia prediligano riunirsi in caffè o ristoranti che portano il nome “Napoleone”, come ha fatto osservare il grande sociologo Pierre Bourdieu in una delle sue opere. L’alta borghesia è sempre riconoscente a Napoleone per i grandi servizi che gli ha reso. Il maggiore fu sicuramente la liquidazione della rivoluzione radicale, del “1793”, che minacciava i guadagni considerevoli che la borghesia aveva acquisito a spese dell’aristocrazia e del clero mediante il “1789”, la rivoluzione moderata. (Di contro, l’odio della borghesia nei confronti di Robespierre, personificazione del “1793”, spiega la quasi totale assenza di monumenti, musei e nomi di strade che onorino la sua memoria.)

Napoleone è ammirato anche fuori dalla Francia, in Belgio, in Italia, in Germania, ecc., soprattutto dalla borghesia. La ragione è indubbiamente dovuta al fatto che in quasi tutti questi paesi, fino ad allora società feudali senza eccezioni, egli liquidò l’ancien régime e importò la rivoluzione moderata. Come in Fancia, questa rivoluzione portò considerevoli benefici per tutta la popolazione, ma privilegiò la borghesia. Questo spiega probabilmente perché a Waterloo, anche oggi, Napoleone è la star dello spettacolo turistico, creando persino l’impressione che sia stato lui il vincitore della battaglia !


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Traduzione di Silvio Calzavarini

Le Paris des sans-culottes: Guide du Paris révolutionnaire 1789-1799

By Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels

Tel un guide touristique, Jacques Pauwels emmène le lecteur dans un voyage à travers les années sans doute les plus orageuses de l’histoire de la capitale française. Dans un style alerte et avec le souci du détail, il sait attirer l’attention sur les événements décisifs qui bouleversèrent la France et le monde. Le déroulement historique de la Révolution devient ainsi une promenade à travers le Paris de l’époque comme celui d’aujourd’hui.

JACQUES PAUWELS, né à Gand en 1946, il réside au Canada depuis 1969. Il a enseigné dans différentes universités ontariennes, notamment aux universités de Toronto, de Waterloo et de Guelph. Outre La Grande Guerre des classes (première édition, Aden, 2014, deuxième édition mise à jour Delga 2016), on lui doit également Le Mythe de la bonne guerre (Aden, 2005) et Big Business avec Hitler (Aden, 2013), Les Mythes de l’histoire moderne (Investig’action, 2019).

Click here to order.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has, in a 60 Minutes interview, accused China of acting “repressively at home and more aggressively abroad,” emphasizing it as a “fact.”

He repeated unfounded claims that “1 million” Uyghurs are being interned in facilities in China’s western region of Xinjiang and referred to it as “genocide.”

He also referred to what he and the US establishment regularly call a “rules-based” international order and insisted that the United States is not trying to “contain” China, but merely upholding this “order” he claims China is challenging.

Secretary Blinken would also claim that the US is not seeking conflict with China and that it doesn’t serve US interests to even head in that direction.

In reality – US policies of containing China have been ongoing for decades and it could easily be argued that the US is already at conflict with China.

Geopolitical Projection 

The accusations made by the US are a form of projection – the taking of one’s own unacceptable qualities or feelings and “projecting” them onto others – but on a geopolitical level.

Secretary Blinken unflinchingly made these claims about China even as the US wages multiple illegal wars of aggression and enduring military occupations around the globe including in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, while also backing several more proxy conflicts including in Yemen – a conflict the UN itself has claimed is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

Claims of “1 million” Uyghurs being interned within China – even if it were true – would pale in comparison to the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq alone, in which a million Iraqis died.

In the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq the US maintained crippling economic sanctions on Iraq. In another 60 Minutes interview – this time with then US Ambassador to the UN Madeline Albright – she was asked if she had heard half a million children died because of US sanctions and if that price was worth it. Albright would respond by claiming, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

The US military intervention in Libya – transforming one of the wealthiest and most developed nations on the African continent into a divided failed state – is another showcase of US – not “Chinese” aggression.

Far from “whataboutism,” there is nothing that China has even been accused of doing this century that is even remotely comparable.

The US is already at Conflict with China 

The Chinese presence in the South China Sea cited by Blinken, is countering the uninvited presence of US warships. It can hardly be considered “aggression” rather than the logical, defensive response to the military presence of a foreign nation already in the middle of multiple wars of aggression around the globe including one directly on China’s own borders.

Indeed, US troops are still occupying Afghanistan – a nation that actually shares part of its border with China. And whether US forces withdraw or not – the US fully plans to maintain military contractors and intelligence operators within the country for many more years to come – a war by any other name.

The US presence in Afghanistan has deliberately fanned the flames of extremism across Central Asia and has been one of several vectors of extremism flowing into China’s western region of Xinjiang.

Blinken – in his 60 Minutes interview – would claim the US “doesn’t see” the terrorist threat Beijing has cited as the impetus for security operations and deradicalization programs implemented in Xinjiang.

But a causal search through even the West’s own media in previous years indicates not only a genuine terrorism problem – but one many times more widespread than alleged terrorism targeting the West.

One 2014 BBC article titled, “Why is there tension between China and the Uighurs?,” would list a multitude of terrorist attacks over just two years (emphasis added):

In June 2012, six Uighurs reportedly tried to hijack a plane from Hotan to Urumqi before they were overpowered by passengers and crew. 

There was bloodshed in April 2013 and in June that year, 27 people died in Shanshan county after police opened fire on what state media described as a mob armed with knives attacking local government buildings

At least 31 people were killed and more than 90 suffered injuries in May 2014 when two cars crashed through an Urumqi market and explosives were tossed into the crowd. China called it a “violent terrorist incident”. 

It followed a bomb and knife attack at Urumqi’s south railway station in April, which killed three and injured 79 others. 

In July, authorities said a knife-wielding gang attacked a police station and government offices in Yarkant, leaving 96 dead. The imam of China’s largest mosque, Jume Tahir, was stabbed to death days later. 

In September about 50 died in blasts in Luntai county outside police stations, a market and a shop. Details of both incidents are unclear and activists have contested some accounts of incidents in state media.

Some violence has also spilled out of Xinjiang. A March stabbing spree in Kunming in Yunnan province that killed 29 people was blamed on Xinjiang separatists, as was an October 2013 incident where a car ploughed into a crowd and burst into flames in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.

The terrorism is part of a separatist movement the US – through its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – has openly supported. The US NED’s own webpage for programs it funds in Xinjiang (also referred to by the separatist nomenclature, “East Turkestan”) lists the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) as US government funding recipients. The WUC openly advocates separatism on its official website.

Backing separatism in China – something the US would most likely consider an act of war were China openly doing it to the US – is not the United State attempting to “avoid” conflict – but obviously already well in the middle of it.

Between the US military presence on China’s furthermost western border and tens of thousands of US forces present in Japan and South Korea to China’s immediate east – the US is also involved in multiple proxy conflicts and destabilization campaigns across the whole of Southeast Asia targeting some of China’s closest allies in the region.

Both Thailand and Myanmar current face US-backed anti-government protests with US-backed subversion in Myanmar quickly escalating into armed conflict. US-backed opposition groups in both countries have – for years – opposed and have attempted to stop joint infrastructure projects proposed by China as part of its One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative.

The US funds these opposition groups through a variety of organizations, foundations, and agencies including the NED.

Matthew Twining, president of NED subsidiary – the International Republican Institute (IRI) – would admit the US government’s role and NED specifically in building up opposition groups in Southeast Asia, installing them into power and how these client regimes would then block Chinese-led infrastructure investments.

At a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) talk titled, “Supporting Democracy in Challenging Times,” Twining would admit – regarding Malaysia specifically:

…for 15 years working with NED resources we worked to strengthen Malaysian opposition parties and guess what happened two months ago [2018]? After 61 years they won. I visited and I was sitting there with many of the leaders – the new leaders of this government. Guess what the first step – really one of the first steps the new government took? It froze Chinese infrastructure investments.

US foreign policy stretching back from an openly detailed containment strategy referenced in the 1969-leaked “Pentagon Papers” – to the current Biden administration under which Blinken serves – is fully committed to the containment of China. Claiming during his 60 Minutes interview that the US is not trying to contain China is just one of many outright lies the US has increasingly needed to buttress its foreign policy objectives with.

Not only do more and more people in the world see the US and its containment strategy against China – including the demonstrable threat to global peace and stability it is creating – they now see the US openly lying about it.

If there is a “rules-based” international order – the US had demonstrated that it itself is the greatest danger to it – and not by attacking it front on as they claim China is doing – but by hiding behind it and undermining whatever principles it is supposedly predicated upon. An “international order” that is unable to hold a nation like the United State accountable is an “international order” that at the very least requires revision – but most likely needs to be displaced entirely by competing visions of multipolarism and the idea of a global balance of power to keep abuses in check versus an American empire disguised as a self-appointed arbiter “policing” the world.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.  

Featured image: Tony Blinken At His Confirmation Hearing, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 19, 2021. Screenshot. via Mondoweiss

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


You can count on the French to say “no” with irreverance and style to authoritarian measures trying to confine their conscience by selling fear.

Watch this colorful group of people singing and dancing in a train station in Paris (Gare the l’Est) on April 8, 2021. Vive la France!  

Catherine Austin Fitts




La Prise de la Bastille 2021. The Storming of the Bastille 2021

The Storming of the Bastille occurred in Paris on the afternoon of July 14, 1789. The Bastille was a medieval armory, fortress, and political prison. It was the symbol of Royal Authority under the reign of Louis XVI.

“Danser Encore” in Paris confronts the lies of a corrupt French government which serves the interests of the financial establishment.

What is required is to Break the Legitimacy and Authority of  the architects of the infamous Covid Project.

What we need is the development of a broad based grassroots network (nationally and internationally) which confronts both the powerful financial elites as well as the corrupt governments involved in carrying out the lockdown and closure of economic activity as a means to combating “V the Virus”.

The logic of the Prise de la Bastille 1789 was to break the legitimacy of France’s Royal Authority.

Today’s Prise de la Bastille 2021″ is not a “protest movement” narrowly defined. We do not seek to negotiate with corrupt government officials.  “The Storming of the Bastille 2021” is a mass movement which questions the legitimacy and authority of Big Money, Big Pharma, the Military Industrial complex. It underscores the criminal nature of the lockdown policies and the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. It confronts the lies of the politicians in high office.

Its objective is to repeal the fear campaign and break the official “Covid Consensus”. That consensus is extremely fragile because it is based on “a pack of lies”. The truth is a very powerful and peaceful weapon.

More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis.

The legitimacy of politicians and their powerful corporate sponsors must be questioned, including the police state measures adopted to enforce the various policies. (Face masks, social distancing, public gatherings, etc. )

This network would be established (nationally and internationally) at all levels of society, in towns and villages, work places, parishes. Trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, veterans associations, church groups would be called upon to integrate this movement.

The first task would be to disable the fear campaign and media disinformation as well put an end to Big Pharma’s Covid vaccination programme.

The corporate media would be directly challenged, without specifically targeting mainstream journalists, many of whom have been instructed to abide by the official narrative.

This endeavour would require a parallel process at the grassroots level, of sensitizing and educating fellow citizens on the nature of  virus, the PCR test, the impacts of the lockdown, the face mask and social distancing.

“Spreading the word” through social media and independent online media outlets will be undertaken bearing in mind that Google as well as Facebook are instruments of censorship.

The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the financial elites as well as the structures of political authority at the national level, is no easy task. It will require a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in World history.

Storming the Bastille 2021 will also require breaking down political and ideological barriers within society (i.e. between political parties) and acting with a single voice.

We must also understand that the “corona project” is an integral part of the U.S. imperial agenda. It has geopolitical and strategic implications. It will also require eventually unseating the architects of this diabolical “pandemic” and indicting them for crimes against humanity.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 14, 2021


Parts of the above text were published in Chapter X of Michel Chossudovsky’s E Book, entitled:

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

“Trust WHO”? Clandestine Influences Revealed

May 14th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


“TrustWHO,” a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck, delves into the corruption behind the World Health Organization

Industry influences, from Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, dictated WHO’s global agenda from the start; WHO’s 2009 H1N1 pandemic response was heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry

WHO works closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a promotor of the nuclear industry, and has downplayed health effects caused by the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters

WHO’s investigation into COVID-19’s origins is corrupt, as China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) that was being investigated

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest funder of WHO when Donald Trump stopped U.S. funding, making Gates’ priorities the backbone of WHO

Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily influenced, if not outright controlled, by Bill Gates and industry, WHO’s usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be reevaluated


The World Health Organization was created in 1948, founded by 61 member states and financed from their contributions. It appeared to be a promising start, intended to end human suffering and save lives but, according to Robert Parsons, a journalist based in Geneva, Switzerland, where the WHO headquarters are based, “it was infiltrated by industry from the very start.”

Parsons is just one expert interviewed in “TrustWHO,” a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck that delves into the corruption behind the preeminent organization that’s being trusted with public health. It started in the 1950s, a time when the scientific evidence on the harms of smoking was emerging, and has continued through nuclear disasters and at least two pandemics — swine flu in 2009 and COVID-19 in 2020.

Tobacco Industry Infiltrated WHO

It’s well known that the tobacco industry launched a public relations campaign to undermine the emerging science and keep cigarettes in a favorable light with the public.1 In its first decades, WHO did little to oppose it. As late as 1994, tobacco heads testified before U.S. congress, saying nicotine is not addictive.

Gradually, tobacco companies were required to publish their internal documents, which revealed their strategies to combat WHO. Among them was the Boca Raton Action Plan, which was developed by Philip Morris executives.2 In regard to WHO, it stated, “This organization has extraordinary influence on government and consumers and we must find a way to diffuse this …”3

WHO, put under pressure, released a report in 2000 stating that the tobacco industry worked for many years to subvert WHO efforts to control tobacco use, noting, “The attempted subversion has been elaborate, well financed, sophisticated and usually invisible.”4

WHO special envoy Thomas Zeltner was among those who investigated the tobacco industry, finding that it founded institutes and bought scientists to represent their position without disclosing their industry ties.

One prominent name in the scandal is Paul Dietrich, a U.S. lawyer with close ties to the tobacco industry. While claiming to be an independent expert, Dietrich advised the tobacco industry, spoke at conferences and wrote articles against WHO. While receiving a monthly retainer from British American Tobacco, he was appointed to the development committee of the Pan American Health Organization, which serves as the WHO’s regional office for the Americas, a BMJ report noted.5

While serving in this role, he convinced the Pan American Health Organization to focus on vaccines and cholera instead of tobacco control.6 Frank Sullivan is another example. He worked as a tobacco company consultant and, while challenging data that tobacco smoke was harmful, was also advising WHO.7

In 2000, the documentary notes, Sullivan’s collaboration with the tobacco industry became public, but he still continued to advise WHO. Franck requested to see Sullivan’s conflict of interest forms, which should have been on file, but they were never provided.

WHO’s Swine Flu Pandemic Plan Influenced by Big Pharma

The pharmaceutical industry has a similar history with the WHO, which became a glaring conflict during the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. Secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1 pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by WHO.

The documentary shows how, six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried about the virus, but the media was nonetheless exaggerating the dangers. Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, WHO changed the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”8

This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide, and it’s why COVID-19 is still promoted as a pandemic even though plenty of data suggest the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with the seasonal flu.9

Kracken interviewed Marie-Paule Kieny, a French virologist who at the time was WHO’s assistant director-general but is now leading the organization’s Health Systems and Innovation cluster,10asking her why severity was deleted from the criteria to declare a pandemic. She said:

“There was a series of meetings between experts in order to arrive at objective criteria for declaring a pandemic. It’s always difficult to talk about the severity of a disease, especially at the beginning.

The severity depends on the state of health of those who are infected. So the experts thought it would be better to proceed from objective criteria. Objective criteria mean that it can be proven whether transfer within the community is taking place and in how many countries this happens.”

WHO Drug Industry Ties Influenced Decision-Making

Before working at WHO, Kieny worked at the French pharmaceutical company Transgene S.A., not unlike many of the scientists advising WHO officials, who also had conflicts of interest with the industry. Transparency was a major problem, even for those on the inside.

In the documentary, German Velasquez, former WHO director in the public health department, stated that he and most of his colleagues were excluded from a meeting between the director-general and prospective vaccine manufacturers:

“I was head of department in the WHO and one of the Director-General’s closest associates — an important member of staff in the organization … Even though I was a leading official at the WHO responsible for an important topic that was under discussions there, I wasn’t allowed to enter. That demonstrates that there wasn’t enough transparency about what was being negotiated.”

The lack of transparency was investigated by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, which concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making, “resulting in a distortion of public health priorities.”11

The Council of Europe demanded changes, but even though the WHO was found to have had serious conflicts of interest with the drug industry, nothing has actually changed since then. WHO can operate in clandestine ways because there’s no accountability.

In another example of WHO acting as little more than a Big Pharma front group, in 2019 a report — “Corrupting Influence: Purdue & the WHO”12 — produced by U.S. Reps. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and Hal Rogers, R-Ky., concluded Purdue Pharma had influenced WHO’s opioid guidelines.13

WHO Works Closely With the Nuclear Industry

In 1959 WHO signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is “promoting peaceful use of atomic energy,” making it subordinate to the agency in relation to ionizing radiation. The grassroots organization IndependentWHO is calling on WHO to revise the agreement and protect people who are victims of radioactive contamination.14

WHO has downplayed the health effects caused by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, stating that only 50 deaths were directly caused by the incident and “a total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure” from the disaster.15

Ian Fairlie, an independent radiation biologist, published “The Other Report on Chernobyl” (TORCH),16 and estimated that 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths could occur, in addition to other health effects like cataracts, cardiovascular diseases and heritable effects that could influence future generations.

Keith Baverstock, a former radiation adviser for WHO, published a study in 1992 that linked a rise in thyroid cancer in children to Chernobyl.17 WHO told him to withdraw the paper, and threatened that his career would be shortened if he didn’t.

WHO’s response to the Fukushima radiation disaster in 2011 was also criticized, with evidence of a high-level coverup.18 WHO once again downplayed the risks, stating “the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.”19

WHO Is a Slave to Its Funders

When it was founded, WHO could decide how to distribute its contributions. Now, 70% of its budget is tied to specific projects, countries or regions, which are dictated by the funders. It’s not a coincidence, then, that Bill Gates said of WHO, “Our priorities, are your priorities,” as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation became the biggest funder of WHO when Donald Trump stopped the U.S. funding of WHO. (The Biden administration has since reinstated the funding.)

Whether he comes in first or second in funding, Gates’ priorities are the backbone of WHO. “Humankind has never had a more urgent task than creating broad immunity for coronavirus,” Gates wrote on his blog in April 2020. “Realistically, if we’re going to return to normal, we need to develop a safe, effective vaccine. We need to make billions of doses, we need to get them out to every part of the world, and we need all of this to happen as quickly as possible.”20

Gates has even stated he “suspect[s] the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule”21 and has gone on record saying the U.S. needs disease surveillance and a national tracking system22 that could involve vaccine records embedded on our bodies (such as invisible ink quantum dot tattoos described in a Science Translational Medicine paper).23,24

WHO COVID-19 Investigation Is Corrupt

WHO’s investigation into COVID-19 origins is also blatantly corrupt, as China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory from the very start, and, wouldn’t you know, WHO has now officially cleared WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.25

Molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology and member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee of Rutgers University and the Working Group on Pathogen Security of the state of New Jersey, called out the members of the WHO-instigated investigative team as “participants in disinformation.”26

An open letter signed by 26 scientists is now demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the origins of the pandemic.27

In response to growing critique, and in a similar move as occurred with Big Tobacco, WHO has now entered damage control mode with Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, while 13 other world leaders have joined the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.”28

Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily influenced, if not outright controlled, by Bill Gates and industry, WHO’s usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be reevaluated.

Decentralized pandemic planning — moving from the global and federal levels to the state and local levels — makes sense, as both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being applied.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


1 Am J Public Health. 2012 January; 102(1): 63–71

2 The Wall Street Journal August 2, 2000

3 BitChute, TrustWHO

4, 7 WHO, Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities, July 2000

5, 6 BMJ. 2000 Aug 5; 321(7257): 314–315

8 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness September 2, 2009 (PDF)

9 Greek Reporter June 27, 2020

10 WHO, Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny

11 Assembly.coe.int June 24, 2010

12 Corrupting Influence: Purdue & the WHO May 22, 2019 (PDF)

13 Washington Posts May 22, 2019

14 IndependentWHO

15 WHO, Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident September 5, 2005

16 ChernobylReport.org, The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH)

17 Nature volume 359, pages21–22(1992)

18 The Ecologist March 8, 2014

19 WHO February 28, 2013

20, 21 GatesNotes April 30, 2020

22 Forbes March 18, 2020

23 Science Translational Medicine December 18, 2019; 11(523): eaay7162

24 Scientific American December 18, 2019

25 The Washington Post February 9, 2021

26 Independent Science News March 24, 2021

27 Open Letter March 4, 2021 (PDF)

28 Washington Post March 30, 2021

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said Wednesday they see a “plausible causal association” between the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine and potentially life-threatening blood clot disorders after identifying 28 cases — including three deaths — among people who received the vaccine.

Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s immunization safety office, presented the new cases at a Wednesday meeting of CDC panel advisers, The New York Times reported.

Shimabukuro’s presentation identified 28 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) among people vaccinated with the J&J shot. The cases were based on reports submitted to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, known as VAERS. TTS involves blood clots accompanied by a low level of platelets.

Shimabukuro said four of the 28 people with TTS remained in the hospital as of May 7, one of whom was in the ICU. Two were discharged to a post-acute care facility, 19 patients were discharged and three resulted in deaths.

Current evidence “suggests a plausible causal association” with the J&J vaccine and cases of TTS, Shimabukuro said.

Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) is one form of TTS reported with J&J’s vaccine where clots form in the veins that drain blood from the brain, putting patients at risk for a stroke. The condition appears similar to what is being observed following administration of the AstraZeneca COVID shots in Europe, Shimabukuro said.

Most of the J&J cases in the U.S. were among women ages 18 to 49, and six cases were in men, the CDC said. Rates among women 30 to 39 years old and 40 to 49 were particularly high — 12.4 cases per million and 9.4 cases per million — according to the presentation.

Of the 28 TTS cases, 19 affected the brain, with 10 of those patients suffering from a cerebral hemorrhage, Shimabukuro said. The other clots formed in the lower extremities, pulmonary arteries or other areas of the body.

All of the patients received the J&J vaccine before the vaccine was temporarily paused on April 13.

The CDC’s Dr. Sara Oliver said the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risk and no updates to vaccine policy are needed at this time.

As of April 25, the CDC had acknowledged only 17 cases of clotting among nearly 8 million people given J&J vaccines.

Children’s Health Defense queried the VAERS data for adverse events associated with blood clotting disorders between Dec.14, 2020 and April 30, and found 2,808 reports associated with all three vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S.

Of the 2,808 cases reported, 1043 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 893 reports to Moderna and 860 reports to J&J — 832 cases more than the 28 cases reported by the CDC Wednesday.

According to Shimabukuro’s presentation, the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration search VAERS daily for blood clotting disorders associated with vaccines, including rare thromboses (like cerebral venous thrombosis), deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary thromboembolism, ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction.

Using only the CDC’s search criteria, VAERS revealed 1,082 cases of blood clotting disorders associated with all three vaccines, including 315 reports attributed to J&J, 437 reports attributed to Pfizer and 328 cases to Moderna.

Yet according to the CDC, there were only 28 cases of blood clotting disorders associated with J&J’s vaccine and no confirmed cases of TTS associated with Moderna or Pfizer.

As The Defender reported May 10, a Utah teen remains hospitalized with blood clots in his brain after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

Everest Romney, 17, received the vaccine April 21 and one day later began experiencing neck pain, fever and severe headaches. After more than a week of symptoms and being unable to freely move his neck, he was diagnosed with two blood clots inside his brain, and one outside.

The Utah Department of Health told FOX 13 the CDC is tasked with investigating possible vaccine side effects. After administering nearly 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine, the CDC reported there hasn’t been a single related case of a blood clot forming in the brain as of April 12.

The CDC’s April 12 statement contradicts numerous news reports, studies, scientists and the agency’s own system for monitoring adverse reactions.

As reported Tuesday, The Defender contacted the CDC March 8 with a list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines to discern how the CDC conducts its investigations, whether it is investigating blood clots associated with mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna and where the public can access the findings of various investigations reported in the media. It has been 66 days with no response.

The CDC said it is committed to open and transparent communication of vaccine safety information.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

One of our most popular articles, first published on March 1st, 2013


Today, May 13, 2021, we commemorate The Nakba. 73 years ago on May 13, 1948.

The Palestinian Catastrophe prevails. In a 2018 report, the United Nations stated that Gaza had become “unliveable”:

With an economy in free fall, 70 per cent youth unemployment, widely contaminated drinking water and a collapsed health care system, Gaza has become “unliveable”, according to the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian Territories”

Israel is currently proceeding with the plan to annex large chunks of Palestinian territory “while keeping the Palestinian inhabitants in conditions of severe deprivation and isolation.Creating conditions of extreme poverty and economic collapse constitute the means for triggering the expulsion and exodus of Palestinians from their homeland.  It is part of the process of annexation.

“If the manoeuvre is successful, Israel will end up with all of the territories it conquered during the 1967 war, including all of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem and most of the Palestinian Territories, including the best sources of water and agricultural land.

The West Bank will find itself in the same situation as the Gaza strip, cut off from the outside world and surrounded by hostile Israeli military forces and Israeli settlements.” (South Front)

“Greater Israel would create a number of proxy states. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia.”

“Palestine Is Gone! Gone! راحت فلسطين . The Palestinian plight is savagely painful and the pain is compounded by the bafflingly off-hand dismissal and erasure by Western powers of that pain, Rima Najjar, Global Research, June, 7, 2020



The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government,  the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. 

President Donald Trump had confirmed in January 2017 his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank). The Trump administration expressed its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. And now the entire West Bank is being annexed to Israel. 

Under the Biden administration, despite rhetorical shifts in the political narrative, Washington remains supportive of Israel plans to annex the entire Jordan River valley as well the illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Bear in mind: The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is to extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.  

In this regard, Washington’s strategy consists in destabilizing and weakening regional economic powers in the Middle East including Turkey and Iran. This policy –which is consistent with the Greater Israel–  is  accompanied by a process of political fragmentation.

Since the Gulf war (1991), the Pentagon has contemplated the creation of a “Free Kurdistan” which would include the annexation of  parts of Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as Turkey


“The New Middle East”:  Unofficial US Military Academy Map by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters


According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East bears an intimate relationship to the 2003 invasion of  Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia.

The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the Saudi-Israeli rapprochement is from Netanyahu’s viewpoint a means to expanding Israel’s spheres of influence in the Middle East as well as confronting Iran. Needless to day, the “Greater Israel” project is consistent with America’s imperial design.

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman,

A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and

• control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.

Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”


The Zionist project has supported the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

“Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of  the process of Israeli territorial expansion.

In this regard, the defeat of US sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah constitute a significant setback for Israel.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated September 13, 2019,  revised June 7, 2020, May 13, 2021

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East 

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”


Oded Yinon’s

“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Published by the

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)

Table of Contents

  Publisher’s Note1

Introductory Note by Dr. Khalil Nakhleh

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.


The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.


This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication,  Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.


The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967” that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.”


The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled  “Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.


It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.


Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982


by Israel Shahak


The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:


1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.


2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.


3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.


The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.

Israel Shahak

June 13, 1982


A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14–Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.


At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes which the country, the region and the world are undergoing. We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics are totally different from what we have hitherto known. That is why we need an understanding of the central processes which typify this historical epoch on the one hand, and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy in accordance with the new conditions. The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.


This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose, and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle. The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance. The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation have been based on several “truths” which are presently disappearing–for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs. This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man’s requirements, his economic needs or his demographic constraints. In a world in which there are four billion human beings and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind, it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society, 1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do–that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.


The vision of man’s limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life, when we witness the break-up of world order around us. The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes. The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism and especially by Communism into a laughing stock. There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas, but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice. In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years, the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has: that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism, but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2


The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West, are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations. Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war, in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child’s play. The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in Israel. That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world. 3 The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know, given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located. We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future.


The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World. That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage, win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West’s military might well be destroyed and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism, is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence. Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz’ dictum into “War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means,” and made it the motto which guides all their policies. Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world, and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country’s security policy and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4


The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging. 5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today).


Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria. Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other, an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians. In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a “second” Christian Lebanon in Egypt.


All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb. Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi’ite Alawi ruling minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble.


Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi’ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren’t for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq’s future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi’ites in Iraq view as their natural leader.


All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the Shi’ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the UAE, Shi’ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi’ite minority. In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power.


Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus. All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps, the Iraqi army Shi’ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.


Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. Half of Iran’s population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group. Turkey’s population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi’ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million

Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state.


This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.


In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups and a huge mass of poor people. Most of the Arabs have an average yearly income of 300 dollars. That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya, and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces. It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities (Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan, in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest, in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave, in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO and Major Haddad’s state of Christians and half a million Shi’ites). Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army. Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger, half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world. Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6


In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world, but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee. 7 The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad, and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example. A sad and very stormy situation surrounds Israel and creates challenges for it, problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967. Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today.


The “peace” policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing. 8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.


In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil. 9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.


(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979. 10


Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-

Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day. 11


The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into “fact.” In reality, however, Egypt’s power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow. 12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.


Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run. 13


The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today. 14


Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization. 15


The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure. 16


Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run.


There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan. 17


Within Israel the distinction between the areas of ’67 and the territories beyond them, those of ’48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river and beyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.


Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today. l8


Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation. l9


From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with no compromises. 20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future. 21


Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.



Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.


The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being “explained” in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian “unrest” on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The “states” proposed by Yinon are “Haddadland” and “Village Associations,” and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be “punished” either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.


It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.


Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin’s speeches) has to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid “persuaders” and “explainers” (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then “learn it,” more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was “in opposition”) the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering “the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity” was explained in the years 1965-67.


Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?


In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a “closed society” to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak

June 17, 1982 Jerusalem

About the Translator

Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)


 1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today’s world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.

 2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

 3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, “USSR’s Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.

 4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.

 5. Elie Kedourie, “The End of the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968.

 6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, “Egypt’s Population Problem,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.

 7. E. Kanovsky, “Arab Haves and Have Nots,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79.

 8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June ’67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel’s policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma’ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.

 9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.

The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.

 10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet’s programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10.

According to these sources, Egypt’s military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha’aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.

 11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East,” Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, “The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors,” Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.

 12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai…by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.

 13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.

 14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha’aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80.

 15.  J.P.  Peroncell  Hugoz,  Le  Monde,  Paris  4/28/80;  Dr.  Abbas  Kelidar,  Middle  East  Review,  Summer  1979;

Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha’aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979.

 16. Arnold Hottinger, “The Rich Arab States in Trouble,” The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab Press Service, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79.

 17. As for Jordan’s policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma’ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa’amr program of the Israeli Arabs was published in Ha’aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha’aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma’ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO’s position towards Israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al’Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, “The Palestinian Problem,” Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, “The Palestinian Myth,” Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, “The Palestinians and the PLO,” Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1980.

 18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, “Samaria–The Basis for Israel’s Security,” Ma’arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya’akov Hasdai, “Peace, the Way and the Right to Know,” Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, “Strategic Depth–An Israeli Perspective,” Ma’arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, “Israel’s Defense Problems in the Eighties,” Ma’arakhot October 1979.

 19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime’s Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance Israel, Truth Versus Legend (Reshafim, 1981).

 20. Henry Kissinger, “The Lessons of the Past,” The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, “OPEC’s Challenge to the West,” The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, “Oil and the Decline of the West,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report–“Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?” U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, “Reflections on the Present Danger,” The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez “The illusions of SALT” Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, “The Present Danger,” Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, “Oil and American Power Six Years Later,” Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, “The Abandonment of Israel,” Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, “Misreading the Middle East,” Commentary July 1979.

 21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.


This Week’s Most Popular Articles

May 14th, 2021 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This Week’s Most Popular Articles

The Big Lie Strategy of the “Global Super-Rich”. The Weaknesses of the Human Mind

By Emanuel Pastreich, May 13, 2021

The massive concentration of wealth over the last few years has made it possible for a tiny handful of individuals to control the means of extraction, production, and distribution, the sales of food and products, and the value of money.

Europe: A War Game Ground for the US-NATO Strategy

By Manlio Dinucci, May 13, 2021

In 2020 land mobility of people in the European Union was paralyzed by lockdowns, mainly following the tourism blockade. The same happened in air mobility: according to a study by the European Parliament (March 2021), it suffered a net loss of 56 billion euros and 191,000 direct jobs, plus over a million in related industries. In 2021, the recovery promises to be very problematic. Only one sector has greatly increased its mobility going against the trend: the military sector.

The Table Top “Event 201” Pandemic Rehearsal and Its Aftermath

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, May 13, 2021

Less than two months prior to Event 201 (October 19, 2019), Bill Gates invested up to 55 million dollars in BioNTech stock – the company that co-developed – with Pfizer – the first experimental (and still unapproved (by the FDA) 2-dose mRNA vaccine.)

Kissinger’s “Insider View”: The Tragedy of the US Deep State

By Pepe Escobar, May 13, 2021

Henry Kissinger, 97, Henry the K. for those he keeps close, is either a Delphic oracle-style strategic thinker or a certified war criminal for those kept not so close. He now seems to have been taking time off his usual Divide and Rule stock in trade – advising the combo behind POTUS, a.k.a. Crash Test Dummy – to emit some realpolitik pearls of wisdom.

Breaking: Hamas Fires Iranian-Made Cruise Missiles for First Time, Five Israelis Killed

By Richard Silverstein, May 13, 2021

An Israeli security source has revealed to Tikun Olam that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used a weapon never before seen in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Iranian-made cruise missiles, perhaps of the type which wiped out half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production, were fired on Israeli targets and caused extensive damage in communities in the south and around Tel Aviv.

Biden Administration Reportedly Blocking UN Cease-Fire Statement as Israel Bombards Gaza

By Jake Johnson, May 13, 2021

The Biden administration is reportedly blocking the release of a United Nations Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire as Israel continues its devastating assault on the occupied Gaza Strip, killing dozens of Palestinians and injuring hundreds more.

CDC Embarks on New COVID Cover-Up

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 13, 2021

For many months, experts have warned that COVID-19 is not so much a viral pandemic as it is a “casedemic” — a pandemic of false positive tests — and the thing that kept the fraud going was the fact that laboratories were using excessively high cycle thresholds (CTs) when processing the PCR tests.

Two Young Mothers Paralyzed after Receiving Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine

By Celeste McGovern, May 13, 2021

Brandy McFadden in Nashville, Tennessee and Rachel Cecere in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, both experienced intense neck pain and were unable to walk shortly receiving a Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

By Israel Shahak and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 13, 2021

The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government,  the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.

The Great Transformation: From the Welfare State to the Imperial Police State

By Prof. James Petras, May 13, 2021

The United States has experienced the biggest political upheaval in its recent history: the transformation of a burgeoning welfare state into a rapidly expanding, highly intrusive and deeply entrenched police state, linked to the most developed technological innovations.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

First published on August 30, 2018


Developing the tradition charted by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 classic The Power Elite, in his latest book, Professor Peter Phillips starts by reviewing the transition from the nation state power elites described by authors such as Mills to a transnational power elite centralized on the control of global capital.

Thus, in his just-released study Giants: The Global Power Elite, Phillips, a professor of political sociology at Sonoma State University in the USA, identifies the world’s top seventeen asset management firms, such as BlackRock and J.P Morgan Chase, each with more than one trillion dollars of investment capital under management, as the ‘Giants’ of world capitalism. The seventeen firms collectively manage more than $US41.1 trillion in a self-invested network of interlocking capital that spans the globe.

[These are the financial actors behind the “Great Reset”]

This $41 trillion represents the wealth invested for profit by thousands of millionaires, billionaires and corporations. The seventeen Giants operate in nearly every country in the world and are ‘the central institutions of the financial capital that powers the global economic system’. They invest in anything considered profitable, ranging from ‘agricultural lands on which indigenous farmers are replaced by power elite investors’ to public assets (such as energy and water utilities) to war.

In addition, Phillips identifies the most important networks of the Global Power Elite and the individuals therein. He names 389 individuals (a small number of whom are women and a token number of whom are from countries other than the United States and the wealthier countries of Western Europe) at the core of the policy planning nongovernmental networks that manage, facilitate and defend the continued concentration of global capital. The Global Power Elite perform two key uniting functions, he argues: they provide ideological justifications for their shared interests (promulgated through their corporate media), and define the parameters of action for transnational governmental organizations and capitalist nation-states.

More precisely, Phillips identifies the 199 directors of the seventeen global financial Giants and offers short biographies and public information on their individual net wealth. These individuals are closely interconnected through numerous networks of association including the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference, university affiliations, various policy councils, social clubs, and cultural enterprises. For a taste of one of these clubs, see this account of The Links in New York. As Phillips observes: ‘It is certainly safe to conclude they all know each other personally or know of each other in the shared context of their positions of power.’

The Giants, Phillips documents, invest in each other but also in many hundreds of investment management firms, many of which are near-Giants. This results in tens of trillions of dollars coordinated in a single vast network of global capital controlled by a very small number of people. ‘Their constant objective is to find enough safe investment opportunities for a return on capital that allows for continued growth. Inadequate capital-placement opportunities lead to dangerous speculative investments, buying up of public assets, and permanent war spending.’

Because the directors of these seventeen asset management firms represent the central core of international capital, ‘Individuals can retire or pass away, and other similar people will move into their place, making the overall structure a self-perpetuating network of global capital control. As such, these 199 people share a common goal of maximum return on investments for themselves and their clients, and they may seek to achieve returns by any means necessary – legal or not…. the institutional and structural arrangements within the money management systems of global capital relentlessly seek ways to achieve maximum return on investment, and … the conditions for manipulations – legal or not – are always present.’

Like some researchers before him, Phillips identifies the importance of those transnational institutions that serve a unifying function. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, G20, G7, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Economic Forum (WEF), Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Bank for International Settlements, Group of 30 (G30), the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Monetary Conference serve as institutional mechanisms for consensus building within the transnational capitalist class, and power elite policy formulation and implementation. ‘These international institutions serve the interests of the global financial Giants by supporting policies and regulations that seek to protect the free, unrestricted flow of capital and debt collection worldwide.’

But within this network of transnational institutions, Phillips identifies two very important global elite policy-planning organizations: the Group of Thirty (which has 32 members) and the extended executive committee of the Trilateral Commission (which has 55 members). These nonprofit corporations, which each have a research and support staff, formulate elite policy and issue instructions for their implementation by the transnational governmental institutions like the G7, G20, IMF, WTO, and World Bank. Elite policies are also implemented following instruction of the relevant agent, including governments, in the context. These agents then do as they are instructed. Thus, these 85 members (because two overlap) of the Group of Thirty and the Trilateral Commission comprise a central group of facilitators of global capitalism, ensuring that ‘global capital remains safe, secure, and growing’.

So, while many of the major international institutions are controlled by nation-state representatives and central bankers (with proportional power exercised by dominant financial supporters such as the United States and European Union countries), Phillips is more concerned with the transnational policy groups that are nongovernmental because these organizations ‘help to unite TCC power elites as a class’ and the individuals involved in these organizations facilitate world capitalism. ‘They serve as policy elites who seek the continued growth of capital in the world.’

Developing this list of 199 directors of the largest money management firms in the world, Phillips argues, is an important step toward understanding how capitalism works globally today. These global power elite directors make the decisions regarding the investment of trillions of dollars. Supposedly in competition, the concentrated wealth they share requires them to cooperate for their greater good by identifying investment opportunities and shared risk agreements, and working collectively for political arrangements that create advantages for their profit-generating system as a whole.

Their fundamental priority is to secure an average return on investment of 3 to 10 percent, or even more. The nature of any investment is less important than what it yields: continuous returns that support growth in the overall market. Hence, capital investment in tobacco products, weapons of war, toxic chemicals, pollution, and other socially destructive goods and services are judged purely by their profitability. Concern for the social and environmental costs of the investment are non-existent. In other words, inflicting death and destruction are fine because they are profitable.

So what is the global elite’s purpose? In a few sentences Phillips characterizes it thus: The elite is largely united in support of the US/NATO military empire that prosecutes a repressive war against resisting groups – typically labeled ‘terrorists’ – around the world. The real purpose of ‘the war on terror’ is defense of transnational globalization, the unimpeded flow of financial capital around the world, dollar hegemony and access to oil; it has nothing to do with repressing terrorism which it generates, perpetuates and finances to provide cover for its real agenda. This is why the United States has a long history of CIA and military interventions around the world ostensibly in defense of ‘national interests’.

Wealth and Power

An interesting point that emerges for me from reading Phillips thoughtful analysis is that there is a clear distinction between those individuals and families who have wealth and those individuals who have (sometimes significantly) less wealth (which, nevertheless,  is still considerable) but, through their positions and connections, wield a great deal of power. As Phillips explains this distinction, ‘the sociology of elites is more important than particular elite individuals and their families’. Just 199 individuals decide how more than $40 trillion will be invested. And this is his central point. Let me briefly elaborate.

There are some really wealthy families in the world, notably including the families Rothschild (France and the United Kingdom), Rockefeller (USA), Goldman-Sachs (USA), Warburgs (Germany), Lehmann (USA), Lazards (France), Kuhn Loebs (USA), Israel Moses Seifs (Italy), Al-Saud (Saudi Arabia), Walton (USA), Koch (USA), Mars (USA), Cargill-MacMillan (USA) and Cox (USA). However, not all of these families overtly seek power to shape the world as they wish.

Similarly, the world’s extremely wealthy individuals such as Jeff Bezos (USA), Bill Gates (USA), Warren Buffett (USA), Bernard Arnault (France), Carlos Slim Helu (Mexico) and Francoise Bettencourt Meyers (France) are not necessarily connected in such a way that they exercise enormous power. In fact, they may have little interest in power as such, despite their obvious interest in wealth.

In essence, some individuals and families are content to simply take advantage of how capitalism and its ancilliary governmental and transnational instruments function while others are more politically engaged in seeking to manipulate major institutions to achieve outcomes that not only maximize their own profit and hence wealth but also shape the world itself.

So if you look at the list of 199 individuals that Phillips identifies at the centre of global capital, it does not include names such as Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Koch, Walton or even Rothschild, Rockefeller or Windsor (the Queen of England) despite their well-known and extraordinary wealth. As an aside, many of these names are also missing from the lists compiled by groups such as Forbes and Bloomberg, but their absence from these lists is for a very different reason given the penchant for many really wealthy individuals and families to avoid certain types of publicity and their power to ensure that they do.

In contrast to the names just listed, in Phillips’ analysis names like Laurence (Larry) Fink (Chairman and CEO of BlackRock), James (Jamie) Dimon (Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase) and John McFarlane (Chairman of Barclays Bank), while not as wealthy as those listed immediately above, wield far more power because of their positions and connections within the global elite network of 199 individuals.

Predictably then, Phillips observes, these three individuals have similar lifestyles and ideological orientations. They believe capitalism is beneficial for the world and while inequality and poverty are important issues, they believe that capital growth will eventually solve these problems. They are relatively non-expressive about environmental issues, but recognize that investment opportunities may change in response to climate ‘modifications’. As millionaires they own multiple homes. They attended elite universities and rose quickly in international finance to reach their current status as giants of the global power elite. ‘The institutions they manage have been shown to engage in illegal collusions with others, but the regulatory fines by governments are essentially seen as just part of doing business.’

In short, as I would characterize this description: They are devoid of a legal or moral framework to guide their actions, whether in relation to business, fellow human beings, war or the environment and climate. They are obviously typical of the elite.

Any apparent concern for people, such as that expressed by Fink and Dimon in response to the racist violence in Charlottesville, USA in August 2017, is simply designed to promote ‘stability’ or more precisely, a stable (that is, profitable) investment and consumer climate.


Source: World Economic Forum

The lack of concern for people and issues that might concern many of us is also evident from a consideration of the agenda at elite gatherings. Consider the International Monetary Conference. Founded in 1956, it is a private yearly meeting of the top few hundred bankers in the world. The American Bankers Association (ABA) serves as the secretariat for the conference. But, as Phillips notes: ‘Nothing on the agenda seems to address the socioeconomic consequences of investments to determine the impacts on people and the environment.’ A casual perusal of the agenda at any elite gathering reveals that this comment applies equally to any elite forum. See, for example, the agenda of the recent WEF meeting in Davos. Any talk of ‘concern’ is misleading rhetoric.

Hence, in the words of Phillips: The 199 directors of the global Giants are ‘a very select set of people. They all know each other personally or know of each other. At least 69 have attended the annual World Economic Forum, where they often serve on panels or give public presentations. They mostly attended the same elite universities, and interact in upperclass social setting[s] in the major cities of the world. They all are wealthy and have significant stock holdings in one or more of the financial Giants. They are all deeply invested in the importance of maintaining capital growth in the world. Some are sensitive to environmental and social justice issues, but they seem to be unable to link these issues to global capital concentration.’

Of course, the global elite cannot manage the world system alone: the elite requires agents to perform many of the functions necessary to control national societies and the individuals within them. ‘The interests of the Global Power Elite and the TCC are fully recognized by major institutions in society. Governments, intelligence services, policymakers, universities, police forces, military, and corporate media all work in support of their vital interests.’

In other words, to elaborate Phillips’ point and extend it a little, through their economic power, the Giants control all of the instruments through which their policies are implemented. Whether it be governments, national military forces, ‘military contractors’ or mercenaries (with at least $200 billion spent on private security globally, the industry currently employs some fifteen million people worldwide) used both in ‘foreign’ wars but also likely deployed in future for domestic control, key ‘intelligence’ agencies, legal systems and police forces, major nongovernment organizations, or the academic, educational, ‘public relations propaganda’, corporate media, medical, psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries, all instruments are fully responsive to elite control and are designed to misinform, deceive, disempower, intimidate, repress, imprison (in a jail or psychiatric ward), exploit and/or kill (depending on the constituency) the rest of us, as is readily evident.

Defending Elite Power

Phillips observes that the power elite continually worries about rebellion by the ‘unruly exploited masses’ against their structure of concentrated wealth. This is why the US military empire has long played the role of defender of global capitalism. As a result, the United States has more than 800 military bases (with some scholars suggesting 1,000) in 70 countries and territories. In comparison, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia have about 30 foreign bases. In addition, US military forces are now deployed in 70 percent of the world’s nations with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) having troops in 147 countries, an increase of 80 percent since 2010. These forces conduct counterterrorism strikes regularly, including drone assassinations and kill/capture raids.

‘The US military empire stands on hundreds of years of colonial exploitation and continues to support repressive, exploitative governments that cooperate with global capital’s imperial agenda. Governments that accept external capital investment, whereby a small segment of a country’s elite benefits, do so knowing that capital inevitably requires a return on investment that entails using up resources and people for economic gain. The whole system continues wealth concentration for elites and expanded wretched inequality for the masses….

‘Understanding permanent war as an economic relief valve for surplus capital is a vital part of comprehending capitalism in the world today. War provides investment opportunity for the Giants and TCC elites and a guaranteed return on capital. War also serves a repressive function of keeping the suffering masses of humanity afraid and compliant.’

As Phillips elaborates: This is why defense of global capital is the prime reason that NATO countries now account for 85 percent of the world’s military spending; the United States spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

In essence, ‘the Global Power Elite uses NATO and the US military empire for its worldwide security. This is part of an expanding strategy of US military domination around the world, whereby the US/ NATO military empire, advised by the power elite’s Atlantic Council, operates in service to the Transnational Corporate Class for the protection of international capital everywhere in the world’.

This entails ‘further pauperization of the bottom half of the world’s population and an unrelenting downward spiral of wages for 80 percent of the world. The world is facing economic crisis, and the neoliberal solution is to spend less on human needs and more on security. It is a world of financial institutions run amok, where the answer to economic collapse is to print more money through quantitative easing, flooding the population with trillions of new inflation-producing dollars. It is a world of permanent war, whereby spending for destruction requires further spending to rebuild, a cycle that profits the Giants and global networks of economic power. It is a world of drone killings, extrajudicial assassinations, death, and destruction, at home and abroad.’

Where is this all heading?

So what are the implications of this state of affairs? Phillips responds unequivocally: ‘This concentration of protected wealth leads to a crisis of humanity, whereby poverty, war, starvation, mass alienation, media propaganda, and environmental devastation are reaching a species-level threat. We realize that humankind is in danger of possible extinction’.

He goes on to state that the Global Power Elite is probably the only entity ‘capable of correcting this condition without major civil unrest, war, and chaos’ and elaborates an important aim of his book: to raise awareness of the importance of systemic change and the redistribution of wealth among both the book’s general readers but also the elite, ‘in the hope that they can begin the process of saving humanity.’ The book’s postscript is a ‘A Letter to the Global Power Elite’, co-signed by Phillips and 90 others, beseeching the elite to act accordingly.

‘It is no longer acceptable for you to believe that you can manage capitalism to grow its way out of the gross inequalities we all now face. The environment cannot accept more pollution and waste, and civil unrest is everywhere inevitable at some point. Humanity needs you to step up and insure that trickle-down becomes a river of resources that reaches every child, every family, and all human beings. We urge you to use your power and make the needed changes for humanity’s survival.’

But he also emphasizes that nonviolent social movements, using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a moral code, can accelerate the process of redistributing wealth by pressuring the elite into action.


Peter Phillips has written an important book. For those of us interested in understanding elite control of the world, this book is a vital addition to the bookshelf. And like any good book, as you will see from my comments both above and below, it raised more questions for me even while it answered many.

As I read Phillips’ insightful and candid account of elite behavior in this regard, I am reminded, yet again, that the global power elite is extraordinarily violent and utterly insane: content to kill people in vast numbers (whether through starvation or military violence) and destroy the biosphere for profit, with zero sense of humanity’s now limited future. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’ and ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’ with more detailed explanations for the violence and insanity here: ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

For this reason I do not share his faith in moral appeals to the elite, as articulated in the letter in his postscript. It is fine to make the appeal but history offers no evidence to suggest that there will be any significant response. The death and destruction inflicted by elites is highly profitable, centuries-old and ongoing. It will take powerful, strategically-focused nonviolent campaigns (or societal collapse) to compel the necessary changes in elite behavior. Hence, I fully endorse his call for nonviolent social movements to compel elite action where we cannot make the necessary changes without their involvement. See ‘A Nonviolent Strategy to End Violence and Avert Human Extinction’ and Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

I would also encourage independent action, in one or more of several ways, by those individuals and communities powerful enough to do so. This includes nurturing more powerful individuals by making ‘My Promise to Children’, participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ and signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Fundamentally, Giants: The Global Power Elite is a call to action. Professor Peter Phillips is highly aware of our predicament – politically, socially, economically, environmentally and climatically – and the critical role played by the global power elite in generating that predicament.

If we cannot persuade the global power elite to respond sensibly to that predicament, or nonviolently compel it to do so, humanity’s time on Earth is indeed limited.


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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Exposing the Giants: The Global Power Elite. Prof. Peter Phillips

First published by Global Research on April 20, 2017

On the day that you read this article, 200 species of life on Earth (plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects, reptiles) will cease to exist. Tomorrow, another 200 species will vanish forever.

The human onslaught to destroy life on Earth is unprecedented in Earth’s history. Planet Earth is now experiencing its sixth mass extinction event and Homo sapiens is the cause. Moreover, this mass extinction event is accelerating and is so comprehensive in its impact that the piecemeal measures being taken by the United Nations, international agencies and governments constitute a tokenism that is breathtaking in the extreme.

And it is no longer the case that mainly ‘invisible’ species are vanishing: those insects, amphibians and small animals about which you had never even heard, assuming they have been identified and given a name by humans.

You and I are on the brink of driving to extinction some of the most iconic species alive today. For a photo gallery of threatened species, some of which are ‘critically endangered’, see ‘World’s wildlife being pushed to the edge by humans – in pictures’.

If you want to read more about some aspects of the extinction threat, you can do so in these recent reports: ‘World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in protected species’ and ‘2016 Living Planet Report’  which includes these words: ‘The main statistic from the report … shows a 58% decline between 1970 and 2012. This means that, on average, animal populations are roughly half the size they were 42 years ago.’

And if you want to read just one aspect of what is happening in the world’s oceans, this recent UN report will give you something to ponder: ‘New UN report finds marine debris harming more than 800 species, costing countries millions’. 

Of course, some of what is happening is related to the ongoing climate catastrophe and there isn’t any good news on that front. See ‘What’s Happening in the Arctic is Astonishing’.

But not everything that is going badly wrong is well known either. Did you know that we are destroying the Earth’s soil? See ‘Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues’.

And did you realise that even nitrogen is now a huge problem too? See ‘Scientists shine a spotlight on the overlooked menace of nitrogen’.

Of course, military violence has devastating consequences on the Earth’s ecosystems too, destroying land, water and atmosphere (not to mention killing human beings) in the fight over resources. You will get no joy from the article ‘Iraq’s oil inferno – government inaction in the face of eco-terrorism’ or the website of the Toxic Remnants of War Project. 

But every single aspect of military spending is ultimately used to destroy. It has no other function.

While 2.5 billion human beings do not have enough to eat. See ‘One in three people suffers malnutrition at global cost of $3.5 trillion a year’

As you read all this, you might say ‘Not me’! But you are wrong. You don’t have to be an impoverished African driven to killing elephants for their tusks so that you can survive yourself. You don’t have to be a farmer who is destroying the soil with synthetic poisons. You don’t have to be a soldier who kills and destroys or a person who works for a corporation that, one way to another, forces peasants off their land.

You just have to be an ‘ordinary’ person who pays your military taxes and consumes more than your share of world resources while participating without challenge in the global system of violence and exploitation managed by the global elite.

‘Why is this?’ you might ask.

This is because the primary driver of the human-induced mass extinction is not such things as some people hunting a particular lifeform to extinction, horrendous though this is. In fact, just two things drive most species over the edge: our systematic destruction of land habitat – forests, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, mangroves… – in our endless effort to capture more of the Earth’s wild places for human use (whether it be residential, commercial, mining, farming or military) and our destruction of waterways and the ocean habitat by dumping into them radioactive contaminants, carbon dioxide, a multitude of poisons and chemical pollutants, and even plastic.

And do you know what drives this destruction of land and water habitats? Your demand for consumer products, all of which are produced by using land and water habitats, and the resources derived from them, often far from where you live. The most basic products, such as food and clothing, are produced on agricultural land, sometimes created by destroying rainforests, or taken from the ocean (where overfishing has savagely depleted global fish stocks). But in using these resources, we have ignored the needs of the land, oceans and the waterways for adequate regenerative inputs and recovery time.

We also participate, almost invariably without question or challenge, in the inequitable distribution of resources that compels some impoverished people to take desperate measures to survive through such means as farming marginal land or killing endangered wildlife.

So don’t sit back waiting for some miracle by the United Nations, international agencies or governments to solve this problem. It cannot happen for the simple reason that these organizations are all taking action within the existing paradigm that prioritizes corporate profit and military violence over human equity and ecological sustainability.

Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, they are encouraging overconsumption by industrialized populations and facilitating the inequitable distribution of income and wealth precisely because this benefits those who control these organizations, agencies and governments: the insane corporate elites who are devoid of the capacity to see any value beyond the ‘bottom line’. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane’. 

If you want action on the greatest challenge human beings have ever faced – to avert our own extinction by learning to live in harmony with our biosphere and equity with our fellow humans – then I encourage you to take personal responsibility.

If you do, you need to act. At the simplest level, you can make some difficult but valuable personal choices. Like becoming a vegan or vegetarian, buying/growing organic/biodynamic food, and resolutely refusing to use any form of poison or to drive a car or take an airline flight.

But if you want to take an integrated approach, the most powerful way you can do this is to systematically reduce your own personal consumption while increasing your self-reliance. Anita McKone and I have mapped out a fifteen-year strategy for doing this in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

You might also consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ which obviously includes nonviolence towards our fellow species.

One of the hidden tragedies of modern human existence is that we have been terrorized into believing that we are not personally responsible. See ‘The Delusion “I Am Not Responsible”‘.

For a fuller explanation, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’. 

It isn’t true but few people feel powerful enough to make a difference.

And every time you decide to do nothing and to leave it to someone else, you demonstrate why no-one else should do anything either.

Extinction beckons. What will you do?

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?‘http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence His email address is [email protected] and his website is at http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Life on Earth is Dying. Thousands of Species Cease to Exist. Homo Sapiens is the Cause
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).


The massive concentration of wealth over the last few years has made it possible for a tiny handful of individuals to control the means of extraction, production, and distribution, the sales of food and products, and the value of money.

They are free to demand at will the statements they need to justify totalitarian rule, customized to the tastes of specific communities, from their pet experts at Harvard University, at the World Health Organization, at the New York Times, and in the government of the United States, and of most other countries.   

The rate at which wealth has been concentrated is unprecedented in human history, in part because of the exponential evolution of technology that permits a global manipulation of currency and other financial products in a complex manner beyond the capacity of most to comprehend.

New AI technology allows for the promotion of false information globally through the commercial media in a confusing manner. The super-rich use this confusion to divide and to confuse the citizens of the United States, and of the world, presenting contradictory opinions through the authority figures that they promote, often opinions that lack any scientific basis.

Understanding why so many highly-educated Americans are incapable of responding to the current crisis, and endorse a vaccine regime that they do not believe in, requires us to look at the larger strategy for manipulating choices offered to establishment intellectuals. In part, it is a matter of lag time. Intellectuals are shocked by the rapid shifts in geopolitics. They find it easier to wallow in self-pity, or to bury their heads in denial. The period of time required for a new generation of committed intellectuals to emerge is not fast enough to keep up with the rate of change—and thus have failed to organize anti-fascist movements like those of the 1930s that formed the kernel of true resistance to totalitarianism.

It is helpful to focus on a few of the false choices, the baited gambits, that have been skillfully set up by the advisors to the super-rich so as to create fissures in American society that fragment the establishment, and create internal conflicts in a predetermined manner, so that no broad consensus is reached and citizens unknowingly do the dirty work for the super-rich.

Let us consider the central baited gambits being utilized today.

The New Cold War

The commercial media is pumping out a uniform story about a New Cold War between the United States and China that has been reformatted in different political flavors for distribution on hundreds of media platforms. There are conservative and progressive flavors to this story about unprecedented tensions between China and the United States born of Chinese expansionism.

Not everything about Chinese actions in Xinjiang, or in Hong Kong, is false, but for the most part the tale is so grotesquely distorted that we might as well file it under fiction in our library.

I have not found any serious discussions about how this New Cold War is being promoted by media interests whose stock is owned by the same concerns who want to make a fortune from the massive increase in the US military budget that resulted from the Defense Appropriations Bill of 2020.

Nor does anyone mention the process by which multinational banks and corporate interests have encouraged national conflicts over territory and ethnic identity so as to push for militarization in the years before the First World War, or how that cynical ploy was related to overcapacity and overproduction and how the alchemy of wartime demand was used to make liability into a godsend. French, British and German banks were happy to play footsie in that tragicomedy and the hidden profiteering continued even after the war began.

It would not take more than a few minutes of comparison between the tricks used by global finance leaders in London, Paris and Berlin in 1914, and the similar tricks being employed by US and Chinese financial interests today, for citizens to get the idea.

In place of analysis, we are force-fed the tired and trite tale of the “Thucydides trap” endlessly promoted by the highest-paid minion of the investment bankers, the made-to-order prophet lauded and feted by CEOs in New York and Shanghai, Harvard’s own éminence grise Graham Ellison.

If we want to understand what is taking place in the unhealthy “Frankenstein Alliance,” in the pact signed between elites in Washington and Beijing, we must first break out of this foolish “nation state” schemata peddled to intellectuals by global bankers and look directly at the massive collaboration between the super-rich globally for the purpose of destroying the lives of workers, and unfold and unravel their schemes to play American workers against Chinese workers so as to stop any unity of purpose on the part of citizens.

Graham Ellison and his Harvard friends are never going to talk about how Harvard’s de facto majority shareholder Goldman Sachs plans to use economic conflict between the United States and China as a means to push through the complete automation of factories and the massive implementation of AI in both countries in the name of “competition.”

The battle is not so much between Beijing and Washington, although that battle is also plenty real, but more about the drive of global finance to control the assets, the money, the activities, the identity, and the bodies of every single worker in both countries. What cannot be forced through in China, will be forced through in the United States first, or vise versa—or in another country first.

Maybe Elon Musk and Jack Ma are not voices of reason crying out against a nationalistic narrow-minded national agenda in the United States and China, but partners in a scheme to monopolize the resources and the assets of the entire world.

That process, even though it can be documented without too much effort using open-source materials, must be dismissed as a conspiracy theory beyond the pale. The only accurate means to understand the conflicts between China and the United States today, we are told by the authorities, is through an analogy to a war between Sparta and Athens in the fifth century B.C.

The possibility that neither China nor America exist today as political units in light of the radical concentration of wealth is the most likely explanation for what we witness today. You will not read that analysis anywhere.

What are the immediate results of the increase in defense spending for this “New Cold War?”

The opportunity to increase massively defense spending in the United States, China, and throughout East Asia—and now throughout the world–has the banks drooling. Many financial interests stand to benefit from all that spending, that artificially created demand. Citizens are force-fed cold war fiction without a word about who makes the money from weapon systems globally—including in China.

The spending, in the US Department of Defense, or the intelligence community, is no longer aimed at training people in Chinese, or developing a new generation of people who understand the politics and cultures of the nations of Asia. Increasingly, those who studied in China (to learn Chinese) cannot get the security clearances required to work in government.

Most of that money is tagged for ridiculously overpriced fighter planes, tanks, anti-missile systems, and satellites that, in many cases, already have been shown to be ineffective, or useless.

Those at the working-level in the military and intelligence are still trying to do their jobs in spite of the increasingly absurd orders that they receive. To some degree they can convince themselves that the reports of threats from Chinese AI, drones and robots are credible. Certainly the round-the-clock work schedule that is forced on them (similar to what was done before the Iraq invasion) makes it nearly impossible to concentrate.

What no one is going to tell citizens, or even personnel with top secret/SCI clearance, is that the AI being developed is meant to be a weapon to degrade the ability of citizens to think (starting with military personnel) through destructive stimulation of the brain using commercial media, and to divide and confuse the populations of both nations, using different time frames and agendas, so as to soften up the citizens of the Earth for the absolute rule of the super-rich.

Will the next generation micro drones and robots, energy weapons on low-orbit satellites, be used in some glorious Normandy Landing, or Athens-Sparta conflict between civilizations and nation states? Or might the final intention be to employ these weapons so as to attack the citizens of China and of the United States, if they try to resist this global power grab?

The war has already been declared. Both China and the United States, and many other countries, have become the battle ground in the drive to completely corrupt science, and to make all sources of information spigots for propaganda in support of “bio-fascist” regimes like COVID19.

Whether in Dallas or Wuhan, Osaka or Dresden, AI logarithms are being used now to shut down civil society, and stacks of drones and robots that can attack whoever they are programmed to attack, are waiting in the wings.

It is worth noting that the New York Times have taken a sudden interest in police violence over the last year after completely ignoring the issue for decades. Moreover, they are not interested in systemic corruption, but rather in gaudy incidents which are played up in the news cycle just long enough to create a consensus for a policy shift.

Perhaps the goal is not to reduce police violence, but rather to undermine public confidence in police officers as a means of defunding the human police. But, is the intention of such a move to create a more human police force with closer ties to the community? Or might this rather be the first stage in softening up the public to accept the replacement of human police with drones and robots that may have smiles on their faces but are capable of a ruthlessness beyond any human?

Your choice: Climate Change or COVID-19?

Multinational investment banks, corporations, and the super-rich that control them, have paid their operators to set up a “false choices” for citizens that are meant to divide us and to discourage organized resistance. Prefabricated liberal-conservative conflicts are core to this effort. Although this effort has gone on for decades, the classified programs to engineer conflicts based on ethnicity, culture or gender, has gone into warp drive as the blatant power grab of the elite becomes increasingly obvious.

Central among the baited gambits offered up is the false choice between addressing climate change and acknowledging that COVID19 is a massive fraud. Anyone who tries to take on both issues at once will find that he or she cannot get anything published anywhere. Everyone is given a choice or choosing one, or the other, or disappearing from public discourse altogether. For the ego-driven “public intellectuals” so accustomed to seeing their precious names in print, the compromise is of little significance.

You can either recognize that the climate is adversely impacted by emissions, the destruction of the ecosystem and by an economy driven by a dangerous model of “growth” and “consumption” or you can argue that COVID19 has no scientific basis and that the forced-vaccine regime is an attempt by rich and powerful to take control of our bodies and to deny us the right to work, to go to school, or to seek medical treatment for random reasons.

On the one side, we see progressive-flavored intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges talking about the danger of fossil fossil fuels and the ignorance of science displayed by Republicans in the pay of the oil companies. Some parts of their arguments are true. Other are tailored to the needs of investment banks. For example, they are happy to push for solar power and wind power, but they do not mention that these renewable energy projects are planned and pushed through by corporate banks. Nor do these intellectuals describe how citizens produced their own renewable energy before John Rockefeller forced them to become dependent on big oil.

These progressives also leave Bill Gates book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster” alone, preferring to give the Gates Foundation all the slack it needs to use the “climate crisis” to tighten political and ideological control.

In the other corner we find those, often associated with Donald Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who stand united in their condemnation of the COVID19 “plandemic,” the mask mandate and the vaccine regime. These forces have developed increasingly sophisticated media sources and they support their critiques with substantial scientific data. For the most part, these groups are dismissed out of hand by the Nation or Greenpeace as extremists, or anti-science, when they speak the truth.

As good as the science for these groups may be regarding COVID19 (and it is not always accurate) they are silent on, or even dismissive of, the threats of climate change, the collapse of biodiversity, the destruction of the environment by fracking and micro-plastics. They are willing to stand up to Bill Gates and George Soros, but get wobbly knees when it comes to BP and Exxon.

Another part of this scheme to drive a stake through science in the United States establishment is the engineered split in interpretive communities concerning the 9/11 incident: a powerful shibboleth in American politics. This obvious fraud, which defies the principles taught in high school physics, is a taboo for the progressive groups standing up in self-righteous indignation over climate change, social injustice and systemic racism.

9/11 is not taboo, however, for conservative groups. But there is a catch. Some of the scientific discussions of 9/11, or of COVID19, are narrated with reference to Christian philosophy concerning the nature of evil, and are supported with references to the Book of Revelations. Although such references may be valid, they inherently limit the appeal of these reports for the public.

The critiques in these reports lack a systematic analysis of the interlocking financial interests around the world that were behind that incident. These conservative news sources lack the systematic analysis of who owns what found in books like Giants: The Global Power Elite (Peter Phillips).

The focus on the trafficking of youth for pedophiles by high-ranking political figures and their alleged participation in Satanic practices, also limits the impact of these conservative reports. There is plenty of evidence of pedophilia among power players in Washington D.C., and there exists documentation that such incidents have been purposely set up to collect damaging information about politicians.

But this political practice is but one of a variety of methods for buying and intimidating, and not as central as these reports suggest.

It is possible that high ranking politicians engaged in Satanic rituals as well, but from what I have seen of the exercise of power in Washington D.C. its seems rather unlikely that Satanic practices are that prominent. I suspect that although there may be some truth to those claims, that stressing Satanism is a condition for getting the word out because it limits the audience. Perhaps secret law not only blocks reporting on COVID19 in the mainstream media, but also requires that those who are allowed to report on the topic introduce a heavy dose of Christian ideology that cuts down on circulation among progressive groups.


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

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

Featured image is from Emanuel Pastreich

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).


Less than two months prior to Event 201 (October 19, 2019), Bill Gates invested up to 55 million dollars in BioNTech stock – the company that co-developed – with Pfizer – the first experimental (and still unapproved (by the FDA) 2-dose mRNA vaccine.)

On October 19, 2019, 15 invited – and well-rehearsed – spokespersons of 15 different billion-dollar trans-national corporate entities participated in a well-rehearsed table-top “pandemic coronavirus” exercise that planner Bill Gates labeled “Event 201”.

The institutions at the exercise included among others:

  • The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC
  • The World Health Organization (WHO)
  • The UN Foundation,
  • Johnson & Johnson ( J & J),
  • John Hopkins University,
  • the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF),
  • The World Economic Forum (WEF),
  • The Central Intelligence Agency  (CIA),
  • Marriott,
  • MasterCard,
  • Lufthansa Airlines,
  • The World Bank
  • The UPS Foundation.

It should be obvious to any casual observer that each of those powerful and wealthy, for-profit entities has long-term financial or reputational conflicts of interest in any future crisis – planned or otherwise.

It is important for anyone with a shred of common sense and a little bit of suspicion about anything involving the above profiteering entities to look back at what has transpired over the past 18 months, involving any of the following 5 items:

1] The World Economic Forum’s announced its “Great Reset” (= “New World Order” outline) program for the world’s economies;

2] The Big Pharma-controlled Mainstream Media exerted total censorship control over potentially fair-minded, unbiased reporting about the epidemic;

3] Many uber-wealthy global entities (including the ubiquitous tax-exempt “Foundations”) experienced massive profits during the 2020 “Plague Year” at the same exact time when millions of small businesses (that aren’t listed on any stock exchange) suffered such serious financial losses and/or failures;

4] For the past 12 months there have been 24/7 government propaganda campaigns pushing the already-purchased, still experimental Covid-19 “vaccines”, that are still unproven to be either safe or effective long-term; and

5] Big Pharma corporations were not required to do animal lab safety testing before human (guinea pig) trials were done with the experimental vaccines.


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

Dr Kohls practiced holistic mental health care in Duluth for the last decade of his family practice career prior to his retirement in 2008, primarily helping patients who had become addicted to cocktails of psychiatric drugs to safely go through the complex withdrawal process. His column often deals with various unappreciated health issues, including those caused by Big Pharma’s over-drugging, Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating, Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas and Big Food’s malnourishing food industry. Those four sociopathic entities can combine to even more adversely affect the physical, mental, spiritual and economic health of the recipients of the vaccines, drugs, medical treatments and the eaters of the tasty and ubiquitous “Franken Foods” – particularly when they are consumed in combinations, doses and potencies that have never been tested for safety or long-term effectiveness.

Dr Kohls’ Duty to Warn columns are archived at: http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;


http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national; https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/; and 


All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Henry Kissinger, 97, Henry the K. for those he keeps close, is either a Delphic oracle-style strategic thinker or a certified war criminal for those kept not so close.

He now seems to have been taking time off his usual Divide and Rule stock in trade – advising the combo behind POTUS, a.k.a. Crash Test Dummy – to emit some realpolitik pearls of wisdom.

At a recent forum in Arizona, referring to the festering, larger than life Sino-American clash, Henry the K. said,

“It’s the biggest problem for America; it’s the biggest problem for the world. Because if we can’t solve that, then the risk is that all over the world a kind of cold war will develop between China and the United States.”

In realpolitik terms, this “kind of Cold War” is already on; across the Beltway, China is unanimously regarded as the premier US national security threat.

Kissinger added US policy toward China must be a mix of stressing US “principles” to demand China’s respect and dialogue to find areas of cooperation:

I’m not saying that diplomacy will always lead to beneficial results…This is the complex task we have… Nobody has succeeded in doing it completely.”

Henry the K. actually must have lost the – diplomatic – plot. What Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are now involved in, full time, is to demonstrate – mostly to the Global South – how the American-enforced “rules-based international order” has absolutely nothing to do with international law and the respect of national sovereignty.

At first I had archived these Henry the K. platitudes out of sight. But then someone who used to hold a stellar position at the top of the US Deep State showed he had been paying close attention.

This personality – let’s call him Mr. S. – has been one of my invaluable, trustworthy sources since the early 2000s. Mutual confidence was always key. I asked him if I could publish selected passages of his analysis, not naming names. Consent was given – ruefully. So fasten your seat belts.

Dancin’ with Mr. S.

Mr. S., in a quite intriguing fashion, seems to be expressing the collective views of a number of extremely qualified people. Right from the start, he points out how Henry the K.’s observations explain today’s Russia-China-Iran triangle.

The first point that we make is that it was not Kissinger who created policy for Nixon, but the Deep State. Kissinger was just a messenger boy.  In the 1972 situation the Deep State wanted to get out of Vietnam, which policy was put in place as containment of communist China and Russia.  We were there based on the domino theory.

He goes on:

The Deep State wanted to achieve a number of objectives in approaching Chairman Mao, who was antagonized by Russia. It wanted to ally in 1972 with China against Russia. That made Vietnam meaningless, for China would become the containing party of Russia and Vietnam no longer meant anything. We wanted to balance China against Russia.  Now, China was not a major power in 1972 but it could drain Russia, forcing it to place 400,000 troops on their border.  And our Deep State policy worked. We in the Deep State had thought it through, and not Kissinger. 400,000 troops on the Chinese border was a drain on their budget, as later Afghanistan became with over 100,000 troops, and the Warsaw Pact had another 600,000 troops.

And that brings us into Afghanistan:

The Deep State wanted to start a Vietnam for Russia in Afghanistan in 1979.  I was among those against it, as this would needlessly use the Afghani people as cannon fodder and that was unfair. I was overruled. Here Brzezinski was playing Kissinger; another overrated nothing who just carried messages.

The Deep State also decided to crash the oil price, as that would economically weaken Russia. And that worked in 1985, driving the price to eight dollars a barrel, which ate up half the Russian budget. Then, we basically gave permission for Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait as a ploy to send in our advanced army to knock him out and demonstrate our superiority to the world in weaponry, which very much demoralized the Russians and put the fear of God into Islamic oil.  Then we created the Star Wars fiction.  Russia to our surprise lost their nerve and collapsed.

Mr. S. defines all of the above as “wonderful” in his opinion, as “communism went out and Christianity came in”:

We then wanted to welcome Russia into the community of Christian nations, but the Deep State wanted to dismember them. That was stupid, as they would balance against China at least from their Mackinder point of view. It was naive on my part to hope to a return of Christianity, as the West was moving rapidly toward total moral disintegration.

In the meantime, our ally China continues to grow as we were not finished with the dismemberment of Russia and the advisors we sent to Russia destroyed the whole economy in the 1990s against my objections. The 78-day Belgrade bombing finally woke Russia up and they started a massive re-militarization as it was obvious that the intention was in the end to bomb Moscow into the ground. So defensive missiles became essential. Thus, the S-300, S-400, S-500 and soon S-600s.

The Deep State had been warned by me at our meetings on how bombing Belgrade in 1999 would cause Russia to remilitarize and I lost the argument. Belgrade was bombed for 78 days versus the vengeance bombing of Hitler for two days.  And China continues to grow.

Why balance of power doesn’t work

And that bring us to a new era – that started in practice with the Chinese announcement of the New Silk Roads in 2013 and Maidan in Kiev in 2014:

China wakes up to all of this in that they begin to realize that they have been just used, and that the US fleet controls their trade routes, and decides to approach Russia in 2014 just about the time of their witnessing the Maidan overthrow of Ukraine.  This overthrow was organized by the Deep State when they started to understand that they had lost the arms race, and did not even know what was happening. 

The Deep State wanted to draw Russia into a Vietnam again in the Ukraine to drain them and crash the oil price again, which they did.  Beijing studied this and saw the light. If Russia is overthrown, the West will control all their natural resources, which they see themselves needing as they grew into a giant economy larger than the US.  And Beijing starts to open up a warm relationship with Moscow seeking to obtain land based natural resources as oil and natural gas from Russia to avoid the seas for natural resources as much as they can. In the meantime, Beijing massively accelerates its building of submarines carrying missiles capable of destroying the US fleets.

So where does Kissinger in Arizona fit in?

Now, Kissinger reflects the Deep State angst on the Russia-Chinese relationship and wants this split up for dear life. This is interestingly covered here by Kissinger. He does not want to tell the truth about balance of power realities. He describes them as “our values”, when the US has no values left but anarchy, looting, and burning down hundreds of cities. Biden hopes to buy all these disenfranchised masses as money printing goes wild.

So we are back to Kissinger shocked at the new Russian-Chinese alliance. They must be separated.

Now, I do not agree with the balance of power intriguers in that morality or noble values should govern international relations, and not power. The US has been following balance of power dreams since 1900 and now it faces economic ruin. These ideas do not work.  There is no reason the US cannot be a friend of Russia and China and the differences can be worked out. But you cannot get to first base as balance of power considerations dominate everything. That is the tragedy of our time.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Global Research Needs Your Support. Fundraising Campaign

May 13th, 2021 by The Global Research Team

In an era of media disinformation, our focus has essentially been to center on the “unspoken truth”.

Twenty years ago, in the Summer of 2001, the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) launched the  globalresearch.ca website. In the course of the last 20 years, we have published more than 100,000 articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media. Our thanks to our authors and our readers. 

This has not been an easy task. We are living one of the most serious crises in modern history. Censorship of independent media is ongoing. Fundamental human rights are being threatened.

In order to keep the Global Research website alive and well in 2022 and beyond, we are launching a fundraising campaign from now until the end of June.

Our goal is to raise $25,000, which we will put towards covering multiple running costs associated with GlobalResearch.ca, its partner websites Mondialisation.ca (français), Globalizacion.ca (Español) and Asia-PacificResearch.com.

Other activities include the GRTV program, the Newsletter (sent to GR subscribers) and the Global Research News Hour (GRNH) radio program which airs on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg as well as by several college and community radio stations in Canada and the US.

With 700,000 monthly visitors and 2 million monthly page views, we have retained a solid readership for which we are extremely grateful.

We are committed to making our content accessible to a broad readership worldwide. GR articles can now be read in 51 languages using our translation AI plugin.

Can you help us cover our expenses and protect independent thought and analysis online by becoming a member or making a donation?

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


An Israeli security source has revealed to Tikun Olam that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used a weapon never before seen in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Iranian-made cruise missiles, perhaps of the type which wiped out half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production, were fired on Israeli targets and caused extensive damage in communities in the south and around Tel Aviv. This development is under military censorship and Israeli media may not report this major new development.   Five Israelis have been killed as well in the missile fire.  Two Israeli Palestinians were killed in a neighborhood of Lod: because it is “unrecognized” under racist Israeli regulations, its 600 residents may not build bomb shelters to protect themselves and the municipality refuses to do so.

Reports that Hamas has these advanced weapons are not new.  In fact, last year Avigdor Lieberman accused Netanyahu and defense minister Gantz of covering up this information:

“Hamas is developing cruise missiles, cluster bombs and unmanned aerial vehicles with jet engines,” Lieberman said in the Knesset. “Do you know what it means for the residents of Israel if, God forbid, a conflict breaks out?”

“Do you know what price we will pay? Why is the prime minister hiding it? If I was you I would have summoned all the (regional council heads of Gaza border communities) to a meeting with the Defense Minister, so he could explain to them what he intends to do to fight against cruise missiles and cluster bombs,” Lieberman added.

gaza attacks

Israel wantonly attacks civilian residential targets in Gaza (Source: Tikun Olam)

As you can see, his complaints were reported in Israeli media. But apparently, today the censor believes that Israelis have a short attention span; and she doesn’t want to remind citizens that the weapons killing them are ones the IDF knew about a year ago and still cannot protect against.

In the past, Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted many of the previous generation of rockets from Gaza.  But the defensive system has limited effectiveness against cruise missiles. Which is why so many have hit targets inside Israel and caused such extensive damage.

This places the latest escalation in violence in an entirely different context.   No longer are we “merely” talking about Israel incitement against Israeli Palestinians over restrictions on access to their holy site,  Haram al Sharif.   Instead,  Hamas has taken up the cause,  broadening the conflict, possibly at the behest of Iran.  The latter has many scores to settle with the Israelis: this includes key  Israeli communication intercepts which permitted the US to locate and murder Qassem Soleimani; and even the assassination of the founder of the Iranian nuclear program, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Iran has been itching for a fight.  And Hamas appears eager and willing to oblige. This is a perfect example of the danger of a minor act of incitement leading to widespread conflagration.  Of course,  because Pres. Trump thumbed his nose at the Palestinians and waged a hostile campaign against Iran, the US no longer has any leverage or credibility in either place.   And because Trump did nothing but coddle the Israelis,  we have lost any capacity to jawbone them as well.

The US,  UN, EU have all been not just ineffective,  but pathetic in their attempts to ratchet down hostilities.  Their feeble expressions of concern were met with a vague shrug by Israeli leaders and IDF generals.

Strong measures,  such as those I advocated here,  are nowhere to be found.  Politicians seems scared of their own tails as Gaza’s children die. Pres. Biden and his secretary of state, Antony Blinken seem congenital averse to saying an unkind word to Israel.  As I noted in yesterday’s post,  we’ve even put the kibosh on the most assertive statement formulated so far by the international community–a UN Security Council resolution. The world is standing back as Gaza burns. 30 dead as of today and an entire high rise apartment building toppled by Israeli missiles.

In Israel, we are seeing developments on the ground never seen before.  Instead of universal support for military action,  Israeli Palestinians have gone on the rampage in both their own and mixed communities.  In Lod,  in particular,  Jewish residents have been told to remain locked in their homes as protesters roam the streets setting fire to vehicles and vandalizing synagogues. This level of social unrest is unheard of during wartime. Israeli police in inciting mass violence at Haram al Sharif,  have kicked a slumbering tiger.  And they are shocked when he roars in anger and seeks revenge.

The latest escalation offers a strange confluence of interests between Hamas and Bibi Netanyahu. As for the former, after canceling  yet another round of elections,  Hamas is eager to punish Mahmoud Abbas for his betrayal of Palestinian representative rights. In addition,  Hamas relies heavily on Iran for aid and is willing, if not eager, to show off the new weapons provided to them by their patrons.

Netanyahu too is more than pleased with this new round of fighting. First, whenever Israel attacks Palestine, the Israeli public credits the prime minister with toughness.   Second, as long as there are chaos, sirens and rockets in the Israeli streets, Yair Lapid can make no progress in forming a new center-right government which will exclude him.

As long as chaos reigns, it suits both Israel’s leader and Hamas.  But of course,  the victims of these cynical machinations are the Palestinians and to a lesser extent,  the Israeli public.

Finally,  it’s rather shocking that in light of the impending ICC investigation of Israel for war crimes against Palestinians since 2014, Netanyahu hasn’t realized that all of the acts of child murder seen in the past few days will bolster these charges and strengthen the chance for a court case and conviction of Israel’s military and political leadership.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: One of the cruise missile types Iran may have provided Hamas (Source: Tikun Olam)

Europe: A War Game Ground for the US-NATO Strategy

May 13th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


In 2020 land mobility of people in the European Union was paralyzed by lockdowns, mainly following the tourism blockade. The same happened in air mobility: according to a study by the European Parliament (March 2021), it suffered a net loss of 56 billion euros and 191,000 direct jobs, plus over a million in related industries. In 2021, the recovery promises to be very problematic. Only one sector has greatly increased its mobility going against the trend: the military sector.

At the moment, about 28,000 soldiers are passing from one country to another in Europe with tanks and planes: they are engaged in Defender-Europe 21, the US Army (not NATO) great exercise in Europe involving 25 European allies and partners. Italy participates in it not only with its armed forces but as a host country. At the same time, the NATO Steadfast Defender exercise is about to begin, mobilizing over 9,000 US and European soldiers, including  Italian soldiers. It constitutes the first large-scale test of the two new NATO commands: The Joint Force Command, with its headquarters in Norfolk (USA), and the Joint Support Command with its headquarters in Ulm (Germany). The «mission» of the Norfolk Command is «to protect the Atlantic routes between North America and Europe», which according to NATO would be threatened by Russian submarines; the «mission» of the Ulm Command is “to ensure troops mobility  across the European borders to allow a rapid strengthening of the Alliance on the Eastern front”, which would be threatened by Russian forces according to NATO.

For this second «mission» the European Union plays an important role, as the US Army has requested the establishment of “a military Schengen Area”. The Action Plan on military mobility, presented by the European Commission in 2018, envisages modifying “infrastructures (bridges, railways, and roads) that are not suitable for the weight or size of heavy military vehicles”. For example, if a bridge cannot carry the weight of a 70-ton tank column, it must be strengthened or rebuilt. After having earmarked an initial allocation of around 2 billion euros for this purpose, in public money subtracted from social expenses, the EU Ministers of Defense (Lorenzo Guerini for Italy) decided on May 8 to involve the United States, Canada, and Norway on the EU military mobility plan. NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg, who was present at the meeting, stressed that ” “Non-EU Allies play an essential role in protecting and defending Europe”. In this way, NATO (21 over 27 EU countries are NATO members), after having instructed the EU to carry out and pay for the restructuring of European infrastructures for military purposes, actually takes over the management of the “Military Schengen Area“.

In the European region transformed in a parade ground, the infrastructure adaptation to the US / NATO forces mobility  is tested in war trials, which include “the deployment of land and naval forces from North America to the Black Sea region“. They serve – quoting Stoltenberg’s words – to “demonstrate that NATO has the ability and the will to protect all allies from any threat“. The kind of “threat” was also declared by the G7 Foreign Ministers (United States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan), who met on May 5 in London. The seven Ministers (Luigi Di Maio for Italy), overturning the facts accused Russia of “irresponsible and destabilizing behavior, illegal annexation of Crimea, massing military forces on the Ukraine border, use of chemical weapons to poison opponents, malicious activities to undermine the democratic system of other countries, threaten the rules-based international order”. The fact that the G7 formulated these accusations with the same words used by the Pentagon and repeated by NATO, confirms the existence of the same matrix in the strategy of tension that pushes Europe into an increasingly dangerous situation.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

US Biolabs in Former Soviet States. Moscow Reacts

May 13th, 2021 by Andrew Korybko

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev told Sputnik earlier this week that the US is secretly developing biological weapons in some of the biolabs that it funds all across the world, building upon previous accusations that he made in the past regarding the danger that such facilities in former Soviet states pose to his country and the rest of the world more broadly.

Biological warfare has been on the tip of many people’s tongues since the outbreak of COVID-19 last year after many speculated that the virus was really a bioweapon that had accidentally leaked from a Chinese biolab. Although the World Health Organization’s (WHO) latest study into the matter concluded that this theory is extremely unlikely, the narrative still persists to this day. Regardless of its ultimate veracity or lack thereof, this interpretation of events sparked widespread interest in the danger that biological weapons programs pose to humanity. It’s with this in mind that everyone should listen really closely to what Secretary of the Russian Security Council Nikolai Patrushev recently had to say about such threats.

He told Sputnik earlier this week that “In recent years, the US and its NATO allies have significantly stepped up biological research in many countries across the world. The US is developing individual action plans for each country based on the needs of national biological programmes, primarily military ones.” This builds upon what he said last month in an interview with the popular Russian business daily Kommersant where he accused America of developing such weapons in close proximity to his country’s and China’s borders. Unlike what Western pundits claim about him sensationally exploiting the COVID-19 outbreak for political reasons, Patrushev has actually been warning about these threats since as early as 2015 according to RT.

So seriously does Russia take this danger that Foreign Minister Lavrov just agreed to a biosecrutiy pact with Armenia during his latest visit to the South Caucasus country which holds the ignoble distinction of hosting one of those American facilities. It also hopes to reach similar agreements with other former Soviet states that have allowed the US to so provocatively operate within their borders. The top Russian diplomat said last May that “We have reached an intergovernmental memorandum with Tajikistan, are working on a similar document with our colleagues from Uzbekistan and are in consultations with other post-Soviet countries, including Kazakhstan, Armenia and other neighbors.”

Of consistent concern for Russia has been the US biolab in neighboring Georgia. Moscow voiced concerns about that facility in 2013 and then again in 2018, during which time Russian officials claimed that the lab was linked to over 70 deaths. The South Caucasus country’s former Minister of State Security publicly speculated that same year that the site was secretly a biological weapons center. The US and Georgia both deny the allegations, but amid unconfirmed claims that COVID-19 might have leaked from a Chinese biolab despite the WHO’s latest study dismissing that theory, it’s understandable why Russia would at the very least want to ensure that such an accident doesn’t ever happen right on its own borders.

As I wrote in an op-ed in April 2020 for CGTN, “The U.S. Needs To Open Up About Its Biological Laboratories In The Former USSR”. That’s the only way to put everyone’s legitimate worries at ease and prevent any accidental leaks of whatever it is that America might really be testing there. Nevertheless, these well-intended concerns have been dishonestly misportrayed as “disinformation” by the Western Mainstream Media, which claims that any talk about those facilities is nothing more than a “conspiracy theory” that’s possibly being peddled at the behest of the Russian security services. That’s not true, and it would be equally legitimate for average Americans to demand transparency of any Russian biolabs near its borders if they were ever built there.

Patrushev isn’t pushing an information warfare narrative but is publicly expressing his country’s legitimate security concerns about the shadowy biolabs that its peer competitor built in its backyard. These facilities might be exactly what they say they are, innocuous sites for testing various diseases and whatnot, or they might really be secret bioweapon factories. Nobody really knows for sure until the US and/or its former Soviet partners finally open up about what’s truly going on there. Russia is demanding answers on behalf of the whole world, and slowly but surely, it hopes to receive them before it’s too late and an accident happens at one of those sites which might make COVID-19 look like child’s play in hindsight.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

CDC Embarks on New COVID Cover-Up

May 13th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


COVID-19 has been a pandemic of false positive tests; the thing that kept the fraud going was the fact that laboratories were using excessively high cycle thresholds (CTs) when processing the PCR tests, resulting in false positives

Now, as nearly 100 million Americans have been vaccinated against COVID-19, the CDC is lowering the [enlargement threshold cycle] CT from 40 to 28 when diagnosing vaccine breakthrough cases — cases where fully vaccinated individuals are diagnosed with COVID-19.

While healthy people have been misdiagnosed as having COVID-19 when they really didn’t because the CT was set to 40 or 45, the CDC is now trying to minimize the recorded number of breakthrough cases by using a CT that will minimize the number of false positives

As of April 26, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 9,245 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections. Of those, 55% were under the age of 60, 835 required hospitalization (9%) and 132 died (1%)

The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System appears to be backlogged for months. Rare but serious side effects may be occurring but we just can’t see the trend, and the longer the backlog, the more people will be exposed to a potentially dangerous vaccine


For many months, experts have warned that COVID-19 is not so much a viral pandemic as it is a “casedemic” — a pandemic of false positive tests — and the thing that kept the fraud going was the fact that laboratories were using excessively high cycle thresholds (CTs) when processing the PCR tests.1

I detailed this scheme in “COVID-19 Testing Scandal Deepens” and “Astonishing COVID-19 Testing Fraud Revealed.” Tests recommended by the World Health Organization were originally set to 45 CTs,2,3,4 and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend a CT of 40,5 yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless,6,7,8 as the accuracy will be a measly 3%. The remainder, 97%, are false positives.9

In addition to artificially driving up the case rate, the PCR test fraud also fueled the myth that asymptomatic people posed a potential health threat, and therefore businesses had to shut down and everyone had to stay at home and self-quarantine.

January 20, 2021, the day of Joe Biden’s inauguration as the 46th president of the United States, the WHO suddenly lowered the recommended CT,10 thereby guaranteeing that the number of “cases,” i.e., positive PCR test results, would plummet.

Now, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has lowered the CT even further, in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases, meaning cases in which fully vaccinated individuals are being diagnosed with COVID-19.

How the CDC Is Covering Up Breakthrough Cases

As part of its COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough case investigation, the CDC has issued guidelines11for public health, clinical and reference laboratories on how to test and diagnose cases where fully vaccinated individuals are suspected of having contracted COVID-19. In those guidelines, it specifies using a CT value of 28 or less.

So, in other words, while healthy people have, for the past year, been misdiagnosed as having COVID-19 when they really didn’t because the CT was set to 40 or 45, they’re now trying to minimize the recorded number of breakthrough cases by using a CT that will minimize false positives.12

Had a CT of 28 been used all along, we would have had nowhere near the number of “cases” currently touted and the pandemic would have been declared over sometime in 2020. Conversely, were a CT of 40 or 45 used to diagnose breakthrough cases, you can be sure the numbers would be far higher than currently reported.

Reported Breakthrough Cases Are Undercounted

As of April 26, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 9,245 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections via its national COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough REDCap database, into which state health department investigators can enter and manage data from their respective jurisdictions.13

Of those 9,245 breakthrough cases, 55% were under the age of 60, 835 required hospitalization (9%) and 132 died (1%). With an estimated 95 million Americans having been vaccinated, the reported breakthrough rate is only 0.0097%. However, the CDC also stresses that:14

“It is important to note that reported vaccine breakthrough cases will represent an undercount. This surveillance system is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments which may not be complete. Also, not all real-world breakthrough cases will be identified because of lack of testing.”

COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects Are Underreported Too

This is worth keeping in mind, as the same applies to reported COVID-19 vaccine side effects, which as of April 23, 2021, included a total of 118,902 adverse events, 12,618 of which were serious and 3,544 of which died.15

As tragic as those numbers are, these too represent an undercount, as the U.S. vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) is a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting. Historically, less than 10% of vaccine side effects are reported to VAERS.16 An investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services put it as low as 1%.17,18

What this means is side effects may actually be 10 times or even 100 times higher than reported. We could, in reality, be looking at anywhere from 126,000 to 1.2 million serious side effects, and anywhere from 35,440 to 354,400 vaccine-related deaths.

Right now, it’s also difficult to get an accurate idea of where we are with regard to side effects as VAERS appears to be backlogged for months. On Twitter, Alex Berenson19 noted that it had taken until the end of April for the CDC to respond to a report from January, which indicates the data you see on VAERS does not reflect the true, real-time numbers of adverse reactions being reported.

This is important to know, since the system’s primary goal is to “detect new, unusual or rare vaccine adverse events” as a way to monitor safety of vaccines. A backlog by months indicates that, quite possibly, there are so many reports coming in that that the CDC can’t handle them.

Rare but serious side effects may be occurring but we just can’t see the trend because the data isn’t showing, and the longer the backlog, the more people will be exposed to a potentially dangerous vaccine.

Why Are Thousands of Deaths Ignored?

In an interview with journalist Alex Newman (video above), Dr. Peter McCullough stated he believes the government’s response to the pandemic has resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and the mass vaccination program is now causing thousands more and they’re just letting it happen.

He’s baffled at the government’s nonexistent response to the thousands of deaths already logged into VAERS, noting that the 1976 swine flu pandemic mass vaccination program was pulled after just 25 deaths and a few hundred cases of paralysis. Drugs are also yanked from the market at around 50 unexplained deaths.

On average, there are 20 to 30 deaths reported following the seasonal flu vaccine, which is given to about 195 million Americans each year.20 Compare that to the COVID-19 vaccines. At 95 million vaccinations administered, the death count is already at 3,542, the highest for any vaccine in history. The contrast in response is “alarming,” McCullough says.

Even more concerning, after reviewing 1,600 of these deaths, the FDA declared not a single death was related to the vaccine. McCullough doesn’t believe it, because he knows from first-hand experience it would take months to investigate that many deaths.

“It is impossible for unnamed regulatory doctors without any experience with COVID 19 to opine that none of the deaths were related to the vaccine,” he says. “We’re sitting on, right now, the biggest number of vaccine deaths, there’s been tens of thousands of hospitalizations, all attributable to the vaccine, and going strong …

In my professional opinion, the safest vaccine on the market was the J&J vaccine. And that was pulled for very rare blood-clotting events. We had seven million people vaccinated but the estimates are for the other two vaccines available [Pfizer and Moderna], the blood-clotting rates are probably 30 times that of J&J, and these others are going strong.”

Active Vaccine Surveillance Months Away From Implementation

The FDA has also admitted that its analysis of vaccine safety data will be delayed for weeks, if not months, due to the pandemic hitting right as they were transitioning away from its Post-Licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring (PRISM) network, which was used to track side effects from the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, into a new system called the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety System (BEST).

Using a patchwork of passive reporting systems rather than one comprehensive, active and central one, may ultimately prove disastrous. As reported by Kaiser Health News:21

“Potentially dangerous, unanticipated reactions to vaccines may not be so obvious in VAERS, a system that is believed to miss many potential side effects — or in the nation’s additional monitoring systems, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink and the CDC’s new phone-based tracking program, v-safe.

‘It’s quite a hodgepodge of different systems of collecting data,’ said Dr. Katherine Yih, a biologist and epidemiologist who specializes in vaccine surveillance at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care …

The Vaccine Safety Datalink, though highly regarded, did not include enough vaccinations within its data from nine hospital systems covering 12 million people to catch the J&J issue, CDC officials said.

And enrollment in v-safe has been less than expected, with about 6 million people enrolled by the end of March, just 6.4% of those who had been vaccinated at that point.

That means that, at a time when about 100 million Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, the U.S. continues to rely on a patchwork network of vaccine monitoring systems that may fail to monitor a large enough swath of the population, experts told KHN …

PRISM, which was repurposed for drug safety … has not been used to track vaccine reactions during the COVID-19 pandemic, said [former director of vaccine safety at the National Vaccine Program Office, Daniel] Salmon, who oversaw safety monitoring for the H1N1 vaccine. ‘With PRISM, we tested it in a crisis and it operated for a decade … I was really surprised when it wasn’t used for COVID-19. That was why we built it’ …

FDA officials said PRISM’s capabilities have been incorporated into BEST, which can examine data from 100 million people. Experts told KHN that it has not been used extensively to monitor post-vaccination effects, but [FDA spokesperson Abby] Capobianco said: ‘We disagree. BEST is built as a state-of-the-art active surveillance system’ …

The concern is that officials have leaned heavily on VAERS, a ‘passive’ system that relies on reports from patients and health care providers to flag issues after vaccination that may or may not be related to the shots. A robust ‘active’ surveillance system can search large volumes of patient care records to compare rates of adverse events in people who received vaccines with those who didn’t.”

CDC Ignores Reports of Serious Adverse Effects

Getting back to the CDC, it has also decided it will no longer monitor all reported vaccine breakthrough cases (perhaps because they’re overloaded with reports of side effects?) and will only investigate vaccine breakthrough infections that result in hospitalization or death.22

Recent complaints from medical professionals raise questions about the CDC’s ability to do even that part of the job.

As reported by Review Journal,23,24 the medical team that treated an 18-year-old girl admitted for blood clots in the brain, low platelet count and other signs of a rare blood clotting disorder shortly after receiving Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 injection, “urgently sought guidance” from the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Johnson & Johnson for ideas on how to best treat their young patient.

Their inquiries and pleas for help were ignored all around. The FDA “basically hung up on me,” Dr. Brian Lipman told Review Journal, adding, “We basically got no help from anyone.” It took more than a week before the CDC even got around to calling back. That’s hardly what you’d expect from the world’s most preeminent infectious disease experts when you’re dealing with an acutely life-threatening case.

Rules for COVID-19 Death Reporting Changes Again

Signs that other countries are also starting to manipulate data in ways that will minimize vaccine failure rates can be seen in the U.K.’s decision to drop its rule that anyone having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 28 days of dying are to be counted as a COVID-19 death.

Now that vaccines are out, COVID-19 is only to be listed as the cause of death if the patient actually died from an active case of COVID-19 and nothing else. The hypocrisy is nothing if not predictable at this point. As reported by iNews:25

“The daily tally of coronavirus deaths within 28 days of a positive test is likely to be dropped after scientific advisers warned the Government it will become an increasingly inaccurate measure of the pandemic and vaccine success.

The modelling sub-group of the Government’s scientific advisory committee Sage says that the 28-day definition was useful before widespread vaccination, because deaths in hospital within a month of a positive test were most likely due to COVID-19.

However now that tens of millions of the UK population have received their jabs, deaths from other causes could still show up in the daily data if they have previously tested positive for coronavirus.

A senior Sage source said: ‘If the definition remains the same, these people would be counted as ‘vaccine failures’, whereas the vaccine prevented death from COVID, but they really died from something else.’”

Compensation for COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Is Limited

In closing, it’s also worth remembering that all who are injured by the COVID-19 “vaccines” are left to fend for themselves financially.

Not only did they volunteer to be guinea pigs for an experimental gene therapy — which is what you’re doing if you get these “vaccines” now, as the studies are nearly two years out from being completed and the injections only have emergency use authorization — they’re also financially responsible for any and all medical attention they might need as a result of their generosity.

If you decide to participate in this experiment and are injured, you can try to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP), under which COVID-19 “vaccines” are a covered countermeasure.26

You cannot apply for and will not receive compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers other vaccines, including the flu vaccine. You also cannot sue the vaccine manufacturer, the government, your doctor or anyone else involved in the manufacturing, distributing or administering of COVID-19 vaccines, as they have special liability protections under the PREP Act.

However, be aware that compensation from CICP is very limited, and only applies in cases of serious injury requiring hospitalization and resulting in significant disability and/or death. And, even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.

You must also file a request for benefits within one year of the date the vaccine was administered, and it is your responsibility to prove your injury was the “direct result of the countermeasure’s administration based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence beyond mere temporal association. In other words, you have to prove what the vaccine developer has yet to ascertain, seeing how you are part of their still-ongoing study. Good luck.

Additional details and hyperlinks to benefit request forms can be found in the Congressional Research Service’s legal sidebar, “Compensation Programs for Potential COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries.”27


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


1, 6 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020

2 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF)

3 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCOV by real-time RT-PCR, January 17, 2020 (PDF)

4 Eurosurveillance 2020 Jan 23; 25(3): 2000045

5 FDA.gov CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel Instructions, July 13, 2020 (PDF) Page 35

7 Jon Rappoport’s Blog November 6, 2020

8 YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 2020

9 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491

10 WHO.int Notice 2020/05 January 20, 2021

11 CDC.gov COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation Guidelines (PDF)

12 European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases April 27, 2020; 39: 1059-1061

13 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting

14 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting, How to Interpret These Data

15 The Defender April 30, 2021

16 BMJ 2005;330:433

17 AHRQ December 7, 2007

18 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020

19 Twitter Alex Berenson April 30, 2021

20 Leo Hohmann April 30, 2021

21 Yahoo News May 2, 2021

22 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting, Identifying and Investigating COVID-19 Breakthrough Cases

23 Review Journal April 21, 2021

24 Review Journal April 21, 2021 (Archived)

25 iNews April 26, 2021

26, 27 Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar CICP March 22, 2021 (PDF)

Featured image is from Shutterstock

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


The Biden administration is reportedly blocking the release of a United Nations Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire as Israel continues its devastating assault on the occupied Gaza Strip, killing dozens of Palestinians and injuring hundreds more.

According to Reuters, which cited anonymous diplomats and sources familiar with the Biden administration’s strategy, the United States is “delaying” the U.N. Security Council’s “efforts to issue a public statement on escalating tensions between Israel and the Palestinians because it could be harmful to behind-the-scenes efforts to end the violence.”

One source told the outlet that the U.S. is “actively engaged in diplomacy behind the scenes with all parties to achieve a cease-fire,” but the official did not specify how a U.N. Security Council joint statement—which must be agreed to by consensus—would undermine those talks.

The Guardian confirmed Reuters‘ reporting, noting early Wednesday that the Biden administration “blocked a U.N. Security Council statement calling for a cease-fire” as horrifying footage of the situation on the ground in Gaza continues to emerge.

During a press briefing on Tuesday, U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price repeatedly dodged when asked whether the Biden administration has dropped its opposition to the U.N. Security Council statement, which was first put forth by the Norwegian mission on Monday.

“The provocations that we have seen have resulted in a lamentable, deeply lamentable, loss of life—of Israeli life and of Palestinian life,” said Price, who a day earlier refused to condemn Israel’s killing of children in airstrikes on Gaza. “Our message continues to be one of de-escalation. We do not want to see any actor, be it a government or be it an intergovernmental body, take an action that could serve to escalate rather than de-escalate.”

The U.N. Security Council is set to hold another emergency meeting Wednesday to discuss the joint statement, a version of which reportedly calls on Israel to “cease settlement activities, demolitions, and evictions” in occupied East Jerusalem and elsewhere.

On Tuesday, a U.N. spokesperson said Secretary-General António Guterres is “gravely concerned by the serious escalations in the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel, including the latest escalation in Gaza, which add to the heightened tensions and violence in occupied East Jerusalem.”

“Israeli security forces must exercise maximum restraint and calibrate their use of force,” the spokesperson added. “The indiscriminate launching of rockets and mortars towards Israeli population centers is unacceptable. This spiraling escalation must cease immediately.”

As the Biden administration stands in the way of the U.N. Security Council statement, Israel is reportedly refusing to accept a cease-fire offer proposed by the U.N. and Egypt as the Netanyahu regime ramps up its bombardment of Gaza, killing civilians—including children—and destroying residential buildings in what observers are calling blatant war crimes.

Citing an unnamed senior Israeli official, The Jerusalem Post reported early Wednesday that “Israel will not negotiate a cease-fire before Hamas pays a price for its attacks.”

Hamas leaders, for their part, have said they are in contact with Egypt, Qatar, and other parties seeking to deescalate the deadly violence.

“We clarified that the one who started this campaign and aggression is Israel and not us,” Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political bureau, said in a speech Tuesday. “They are the ones who murdered and hurt women and children, and Israel is responsible. We are ready for an escalation and ready for calm, on the condition that they end the aggression.”

As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, the Biden administration is facing growing pressure from members of Congress to take action to halt Israel’s latest attacks on Gaza, which have thus far killed more than 40 Palestinians and wounded 300—including at least 86 children.

“The United States must call for an immediate cease-fire and an end to provocative and illegal settlement activity,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement Tuesday. “And we must also recommit to working with Israelis and Palestinians to finally end this conflict.”

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) echoed that message, tweeting late Tuesday that the Biden administration “must broker a cease-fire.”

“The violence in Israel and Gaza must end,” said Bowman. “The situation is escalating. People are sheltered, afraid to go to schools or houses of worship. The stories are heartbreaking. Congress and President Biden must act immediately. No one wins with war.”

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 buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Israel’s Illusion of Normality Collapses

May 13th, 2021 by Haim Bresheeth-Žabner

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


For decades Israelis have basked in the light of success. After fifty years of brutal, illegal occupation and control of the whole of Palestine, they have managed to habituate the world to the realities of Israeli Apartheid. They even started believing that they have managed to get the Palestinians to accept such success. Israel was gearing up to welcome many tourists in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis in Europe and elsewhere, being one of the only countries which have managed to control the virus successfully. Israel may not have a properly elected government for the last 28 months, its Prime Minister is facing criminal charges in court, and the ICC is preparing its case against Israeli war crimes, but none of this stopped Israel from committing more war crimes daily. 

Israelis lived under – or upon – a volcano, believing themselves to be immune from standard legal and societal norms. Their control of over six million Palestinians seems to be safe from intervention, criticism or challenge. They believed the Palestinians have been completely neutralized by their new reproachment with the Gulf dictatorships.

May 2021 has shattered such bizarre illusions.

Having succeeded in controlling the COVID-19 virus, the government returned with energy to the main task, as seen by most political parties in Israel – control of Palestine. The front is ranging across all sectors of society. The main task is not new – freeing the land of its indigenous people, removing Palestinians from their houses, fields, towns and villages – moving towards an Arabrein Israel in the whole of Palestine, through far-reaching racist legislation such as the new Nation State Law. From a de facto racist state, Israel has become an Apartheid state de jure.

This is not a simple project, but Israel has a long history in perfecting the methods of ethnic cleansing – much longer than the history of the state. For over a hundred years the task of clearing Palestine of its people has had the support of the west – the strongest entities on the planet have protected the Zionist project since 1917 and the Balfour Declaration, and continue to do so – without qualifications, legal or moral boundaries or standards of behavior. With such staunch support for illegality Israel is guaranteed success.

The three decades of British control over Palestine have imported methods of dispossession developed in Northern Ireland, employed in the country by the Black and Tans – the volunteer force supporting the British police and army in Ireland during its struggle for independence. The brutality they affected in Ireland was soon to be used in Palestine as many were sent there by Winston Churchill in 1922, to serve under the famously vicious ex-RIC commander, Henry Hugh Tudor, who became the chief of the Palestine Police Force. The racism practiced against Catholics in Ireland, has become even more virulent against the Palestine Arabs. During the Mandate years British support of the settler-Colonial project of Zionism was crucial in building a base – military, social, financial and industrial – for the future Israel. The brutal methods of the PPF and the British Army which supported it during the suppression of the Palestine Arab Rebellion 1936-39 have become the stock-in-trade of the Zionist militias, forerunners of the IDF, only to be further perfected and amplified after 1948. Israel has become “a little loyal Jewish Ulster,” in the Middle East, in the words of Sir Ronald Storrs, first Military Governor of Jerusalem; This Little Ulster proved to be much nastier and more powerful than Ulster ever was.

The war in 1948 was almost successful in offering Zionism most of Palestine – 78% of the country. Many in Israel considered it unfinished business – the rest of the country had to be taken over, they believed, like Ben-Gurion, Israel founding father and first Premier. In a letter to his son, on October 1937, he explains: “My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.” What could not be achieved in 1948, will have to be done later. And it was.

En route to occupying the whole country in 1967, Israel has changed partners from the decrepit British empire to the French ‘colonial democracy’ ending up in De Gaulle’s Fifth Republic. France has not only armed Israel, but also enabled its nuclear military option, pushing the Palestine conflict into new, uncharted territory. Israel paid back by joining the two colonial empires, Britain and France, in an illegal and outrageous attack on Egypt in 1956. This act of naked, unjustified aggression has clarified the long terms aims of Israel. Israel behaved like a foreign settler colony ever since its establishment, and since 1967 this has been the permanent modus operandi of all Israeli governments.

For over five decades, Israel has denied all rights to the Palestinians under its control, has stolen most of their resources – agricultural land, water and forced taxation which serves only the occupier. Tens of thousands of houses were destroyed, millions of trees were burnt or uprooted, tens of thousands of Palestinians were jailed for trumped-up charges, including thousands of children, and more than 15 thousand innocent Palestinians were killed by the IDF. Ambulances and medical teams were shot at and many were killed in the act of offering medical assistance. Schools and Universities were forced to close for years, and the vulnerable infrastructure of communication, water, health, education, electricity, roads, industry and food production and distribution were destroyed time and again in periodic attacks on Gaza and the West Bank, as well as those of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Over 250,000 Palestinians were expelled in the aftermath of the war in 1967, and a similar number had left their land since as a result of other war crimes which made their lives insufferable. Human Rights Watch has pointed out the facts of Israel’s decades of occupation in a major report in 2019. Even the UN, so careful not to invoke Israel’s ire, has finally given up the pretense, in a report published recently. It is now official – Israel is an Apartheid state committing periodic and continuous war crimes.

None of these crimes could have taken place without the active support of the US, the European Union, the UK, Canada and Australia, who have provided Israel with a diplomatic umbrella at the UN, and made it impossible to pursue the peaceful option used in the case of Apartheid South Africa – Boycott, Divestment and Sanction against Israeli Apartheid, illegal occupation and war crimes over more than seven decades. You may wish to put BDS into a search engine, only to find that the official sites of such organizations are blocked for users. It does not take a genius to work out who is responsible for such a digital hacking of the campaign.

Every time Israel forces the situation into an explosive juncture, the US and its allies are insisting on Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’, as if destroying Gaza or Beirut is a form of defense, or as if the denial of rights, and imposing an illegal total blockage is a way of resolving conflict. Not once did the western nations mention the right of Palestinians to defend themselves – apparently, they have no such right, as far as such ‘democratic’ nations are concerned. They also lack human rights of all kinds – the rights for self-determination, for living in peace, owning property, education, health or employment. Palestinians have no political rights, the right to be free of occupation and oppression – all rights invoked on behalf of other nations the west purports to support, such as the Ukraine.

What we are now witnessing is far more serious than the two intifadas and the attacks on Gaza – it is typified by the coming together of Palestinians on both sides of the erased Green Line – erased by Israel. Israel has started a fire it may not be able to extinguish. Palestinians in Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh, Haifa, Nazareth, Acre and of course in Jerusalem and Gaza, are rising against the racist, brutal and unjust settler-colonial society which has destroyed their life for over a century, ever since the start of the Zionist colonization of Palestine. Israeli society has never been more conceited, racist and nationalist than in the last decade under Netanyahu. The four years of the Trump administration have greatly contributed to the illusion of total impunity, and the government has increased the tempo of land confiscation, illegal destruction of houses, and settlement building, proving that they intend to squeeze out as many Palestinians out of their country, and make the life of the remaining ones so impossible that they will leave to wherever they may be able to. The process is over a century long, and succeeded in granting Israel total control over the whole of Palestine, so why doubt its further success? Israelis, of left, right and center, do not doubt that they can continue to oppress and suppress Palestinians with impunity.

But now the streets are burning. Palestinians – those with the few rights still conferred on them by Israel, or their brothers and sisters in the ‘occupied territories’ (all of Palestine is occupied) who lack any form of rights, are now acting together against the atrocities of Israeli colonial control. What have they got to lose? Only their lives; and their lives are not safe under Israeli rule, for sure. They have had enough, much more than enough, for many generations, and those who advised them to wait, were false messiahs and snake-oil merchants.

Let us consider the dangers of this new, unprecedented situation. The so-called international community, weak and powerless at the best of times, is now less inclined than ever to move towards a just solution in Palestine, by applying sanctions against Israel. The Arab regimes of all colors are in a crisis of identity, embroiled in colonial wars started by the west – in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and most have signed up to the Trump New World Order deal with Israel, taking themselves out of the conflict and away from any support of the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority – a creature of Israel and an arm of its control –  has cancelled the first elections called since 2006, as we knew they would, under Israeli pressure. One of the ‘Arab’ parties in Israel, Ra’am, has been in talks with both sides of the political divide, prepared to work with either in defiance of the Palestinian public sentiment; This at least had collapsed within days of the Jerusalem attacks, and may lead to a more united Palestinian front. Palestinians have been abandoned by the west, by the Arabs, by Israeli liberals, and by liberals the world over. This realization is dangerous – for Palestinians and Israelis alike; dangerous times call for desperate measures.

We know that Israel has been preparing for many years for a window of political opportunity – a historical juncture which will enable it to vacate Palestine of most of its remaining indigenous population. All governments in the west have proved their fickle credentials on Palestinian rights in the last couple of decades. Israel is safe in presuming international lack of political will to intervene in case of further war crimes. The temptation may prove too much for Netanyahu – the choice between jail and becoming the national hero of racist Israelis through further ethnic cleansing is simple to work out. He will certainly be supported in any attack by his many political rivals, who are vying with him in aggressive utterances. The fire is now well lit, and will consume many innocents. Some Israelis are arguing that he only does this to stay in power, as if this explains it away.

What more is needed for an urgent, principled political intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, forcing Israel into a just peace in the Middle East? What more is required to prevent an endless series of communal massacres, war crimes and forced expulsions? Is this crisis beyond the ken and the will of the world community, tired and beaten as it is by the health crisis? Must we stand aside while Israel ignites the Middle East?

One certainly hopes this is not the case.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Demand for shark fins and oil has led fishers in southwestern Madagascar to set gill-nets in deeper waters. They are finding — and possibly harming — previously-unknown populations of these West Indian Ocean coelacanths.

The landing of the first living coelacanth off the coast of South Africa made world headlines in 1938. Marine scientists were agog. A truly remarkable “four-legged, living fossil fish” had seemingly returned from the dead.

In the ensuing decades, more of these rare and unusual fish were caught off the coastlines of South Africa, Tanzania, and the Comoros Islands; a different coelacanth species turned up in Indonesian waters.

Living coelacanths are found in undersea canyons at depths between 100 and 500 metres. They belong to an ancient group of fishes whose origins can be traced back 420 million years. They have eight fins, large eyes and a small mouth, and a unique pattern of white spots allowing each fish to be individually identified. They weigh up to 90 kilogrammes and give birth to live young after a gestation period of 36 months.

The Western Indian Ocean species, Latimeria chalumnae, is classified as Critically Endangered by the IUCN, while a similar species found in the seas around Indonesia (L. menadoensis) is classified as Vulnerable.

Old fish caught by new fishery

Beginning in the 1980s, a new commercial market in China for shark fins and oil prompted fishers off the southwest coast of Madagascar to set large-mesh gill-nets known as jarifa in deeper waters: a startling number of coelacanths have been landed as by-catch. A new study in the SA Journal of Science reviews the data for specimens and puts forward an important hypothesis.

Lead author Andrew Cooke said that while a handful of captures had been reported at the local level in Madagascar, the international scientific literature did not reflect the number caught there.

“When we looked into this further, we were astounded [by the numbers caught]… even though there has been no proactive process in Madagascar to monitor or conserve coelacanths,” says Cooke, who is based at the Antananarivo-based marine resources consultancy Resolve sarl, adding that that well over 100 coelacanths may have been caught off the island in recent decades.

For example, one local fisherman (a Mr Tinard) told Minosoa Ravololoharinjara, one of Cooke’s co-authors, that he caught “dozens of coelacanths in a single week” during 2010, while fisherman Tine Hoe Julien was reported to have caught seven coelacanths off Nosy Ve, Sarodrano, and Andanora between May 2010 and July 2011.

Following the field survey, which was funded by Resolve, the paper’s other co-author, Michael Bruton, formally reported several additional captures to the list maintained by the Coelacanth Conservation Committee. The updated list now records 34 catches off Madagascar, including several specimens held privately or in museums. A further 40-50 anecdotal reports were left out.

While sharks have been targeted in the Indian Ocean for more than a century, the rapid growth of the Chinese economy during the 1980s had led to an “explosion” of incidental coelacanth captures in Madagascar and other countries in the western part of the Indian Ocean.

A few dozen captures may not immediately seem significant, but the Western Indian Ocean coelacanth’s is listed as critically endangered. Its population size is still unknown and the increasing frequency of catches is alarming — especially as the true catch rate by jarifa nets could be higher than current official records.

“The jarifa gillnets used to catch sharks are a relatively new and more deadly innovation as they are large and can be set in deep water,” say the researchers, noting that large-mesh nets (15cm or 24cm) are often baited with small fish.

“The introduction of market forces from abroad has often resulted in much greater pressure being placed on a natural resource that was once exploited sustainably for local use, and this appears to be the case in Madagascar. There is little doubt that large mesh jarifa gillnets are now the biggest threat to the survival of coelacanths in Madagascar,” they suggest.

Scientists are concerned that jarifa gill-nets, used to catch sharks, have become a significant threat to coelacanths in parts of Madagascar. Image by Minosoa Ravololoharinjara

Scientists are concerned that jarifa gill-nets, used to catch sharks, have become a significant threat to coelacanths in parts of Madagascar. Image by Minosoa Ravololoharinjara

This is because the nets are set in deep water, generally between 100 m and 300 m, within the preferred habitat range of coelacanths, and, unlike trawl nets, can be deployed in the rugged, rocky environments which coelacanths prefer.

As a result, it is difficult for coelacanths to detect the static nets. Because they also hunt at night and have poor eyesight, their main sense organ (electro-reception) may not be triggered by the thin strands of a gillnet.

A significant number of coelacanths have also turned up in jarifa gillnets off Tanga in Tanzania, where 19 were caught in a six-month period between 2004 and 2005, including six captures in a single night.

Revising the big picture

Based on this updated list of captures, and the extent of suitable habitat for these cave-dwelling fish off Madagascar, Cooke and Bruton hypothesize that Madagascar is likely to the “epicentre” of coelacanth distribution in the Western Indian Ocean and progenitor of a younger Comoros coelacanth population.

A map of St Augustin Bay, southwestern Madagascar, showing the locations of the cluster of coelacanths caught between 1987 and 2019 near the Onilahy canyon. Map by A. Cooke et al.

Bruton, a South Africa-based coelacanth expert and former director of the JLB Smith Institute of Ichthyology, also believes coelacanths may occur around the entire coastline of Madagascar and that this massive island “is likely to harbour the largest populations of coelacanths in the Western Ocean”.

Tony Ribbink, former head of the African Coelacanth Ecosystem Programme(ACEP) and current chief executive officer of the Sustainable Seas Trust, says this hypothesis needs more research.

“It would be extremely valuable if they also considered a competing hypothesis that the large number of canyons, many of which are very big, deep and extensive, running along the northern Mozambique coast from where the Sofala Banks end northwards to the southern part of Tanzania (just south of Mtwara) offer the most extensive area of suitable habitat for coelacanths,” he told Mongabay.

“This unexplored continental area may well be the epicentre of coelacanth distribution. This area has not been studied, however and, until it is eliminated as a plausible competing hypothesis, the work of the authors will remain hypothetical.”

It would be positive news for the species if coelacanth range and population prove to be larger than had been thought, but Cooke and Bruton are worried about continued pressure of incidental capture by artisanal fishers.

Cooke and his colleagues say an additional but less significant threat is posed by the high scientific interest in the fish “which inevitably commands a price, even in the absence of a true market”.

For example, the presence of the IHSM marine research institute in the town of Toliara, had increased fishers’ awareness of the coelacanth’s significance and value. A separate report published last year reported payments of 150 000–400 000 ariary (40–110 dollars) for coelacanth specimens caught in the Toliara region.

There are also some indications that illegal trafficking of coelacanths may be taking place in Madagascar, such as the discovery of an undeclared coelacanth being hidden on board the factory ship, El Amine, on 20 September 2008.

A month later, the newspaper Les Nouvelles reported that over 300 kg of coelacanths had been captured by El Amine’s jarifa nets. Local fish biologist, Faratiana Ratsifandrihamanana, also reported that she had seen a cartful of dead coelacanths in the yard of the IHSM in April 2012. The four adults and about 5-7 juveniles had been caught by fishers from St Augustin who said they had been deliberately targeted as they could sell them to vazaha (foreigners) at 100 000 ariary per fish. However, staff at IHSM had refused to buy the fish and they were taken away.

A local fisherman from the St Augustin area, photographed with a massive coelacanth that was transported to a fisheries research centre by rickshaw in May 2010. Image: by Thierry Cordenos.

A local fisherman from the St Augustin area, photographed in May 2010 with a massive coelacanth that he brought to a fisheries research centre by rickshaw. Image by Thierry Cordenos.

Other researchers remain sceptical that jarifa nets are having a significant impact on coelacanths. Paubert Tsimanaoraty Mahatante, a marine researcher with the Madagascan government’s Institute of Fisheries and Marine Science (IHSM) said he does not believe that fishermen are deliberately targeting coelacanths for sale.

“Some fishermen from St Augustin used to bring them directly to the institute and ask for high prices. At the beginning we bought them at a high price but now we have about five or seven specimens and we don’t want to buy any more as that would incentivise fishermen.”

He expressed concern that some hotels in southern Madagascar were buying and displaying preserved coelacanth specimens to attract tourists.

Mahatante said he doubted that the gill nets deployed in southern Madagascar go beyond 100m in depth, but if they were deployed deeper than this “it could be a big problem”.

“Catching a coelacanth is totally uncommon and people are in some ways even afraid to catch something that is so uncommon. So I don’t think that coelacanths are being targeted deliberately.”

Cooke and Bruton remain concerned, nevertheless, stating that the coelacanth by-catch fishery is significant as this vulnerable species is unlikely to survive high exploitation due to its rarity, large size, high trophic level in the food pyramid, low dispersal rates, few offspring and high longevity.

They are calling for intensified research into Madagascar’s coelacanths, along with new conservation measures that are sensitive to the needs of local fishing communities.

Cooke says it would not be practical to ban jarifa nets outright as this would lead to considerable hardship and anger, but hopes the authorities can begin to negotiate management solutions – especially in places such as the Onilahy River mouth, where the largest known concentrations of coelacanth have been reported.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


Cooke, A., Bruton, M., & Ravololoharinjara, M. (2021). Coelacanth discoveries in Madagascar, with recommendations on research and conservation. South African Journal of Science117(3/4). doi:10.17159/sajs.2021/8541

Baker-Médard, M., & Faber, J. (2020). Fins and (Mis)fortunes: Managing shark populations for sustainability and food sovereignty. Marine Policy113, 103805. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103805

Featured image: Coelacanths in a cave off Grand Comore. Image by Hans Fricke.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


On May 5, Reuters reported that 14 EU countries, including Germany and France, proposed the creation of a 5,000-strong European Rapid Reaction Force. According to an unnamed senior EU official, the purpose of this military force is to “help democratic foreign governments needing urgent help.” In other words, the EU wants to demonstrate its status as a “Great Power,” something that can only be achieved through military might, which the European bloc does not have.

The 14 countries are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Germany, Greece, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. These countries, with the exception of Cyprus, Czechia and Slovenia, are often considered the “core” states of the EU’s “Old Europe.” Although there are another 13 countries in the EU, they have not been pitched to comprise part of this European military force. Notable exceptions from the proposed European force were the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as Poland – the most hostile countries in the EU against Russia.

The EU, led mostly by Germany, is undoubtedly an economic power, but lacks a force component to become a full-fledged global power center. Although some argue against the necessity of an EU military force because of the existence of NATO, it is recalled that the Transatlantic Alliance is led by the U.S. and cannot be an instrument for the establishment of an independent Europe. Although Germany tacitly supports the idea of ​​an EU army, it was developed primarily by France, who under President Emmanuel Macron is attempting to forge an independent path for Europe. This does not mean that Europe is divorcing from Washington, but it demonstrates an expressed desire of European independence from U.S. domination that has existed over half of the continent since World War II and most of the continent since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

However, the fact is that this concept is very difficult to implement for several reasons.

It is difficult for the EU to reconcile the interests of many different countries – such as the Baltic States desire for hostilities against Russia.

Also, there is a large bloc of countries – the so-called post-Soviet “New Europe”- that do not want real European military independence and prefer the continent’s military structures to remain within NATO command. The EU’s core states now recognize that “New Europe” is only interested in serving U.S. interests rather than pan-Europeanism. It is for this reason that the Baltic States and Poland will not be among the founders of the European military force despite supposedly being under threat from Russia.

In fact, this talk of a new European force with the exclusion of Poland and the Baltic States, comes as DEFENDER-Europe 21 drills are being performed on Russia’s borders. Although the majority of NATO is participating in some way or another in the exercises (such as allowing the use of ports and other logistics infrastructure like those in Albania, Croatia, Greece and North Macedonia), the majority of participating states have not sent troops or equipment to the Baltics or Poland where the largest and most aggressive exercises are taking place.

According to Lithuanian Minister of National Defense Arvydas Anušauskas:

“The United States of America has not left Europe. All the more so in the last few years, their presence in Lithuania has been strengthened. And we can clearly see that.”

But what is also clearly seen is that Old Europe is mostly disinterested in hostilities against Russia, hence why the majority of NATO’s European members made the minimum contribution to the DEFENDER-Europe 21 exercises, with the U.S., UK, Poland and Baltic States making the greatest contribution.

However, as the Reuters publication and the meeting of EU defense ministers showed, the idea of ​​a European army is not dying and can become a hindrance to the defenders of transatlantic unity.

Although real European independence from the U.S. will be a long process, the fact that discussions on this are occurring in Brussels during the Biden era shows that the EU’s relationship with Washington is not ideal. It is for this reason that the French are pushing a vision of strategic sovereignty for the bloc and advocates for a Europe that stretches from Lisbon to Vladivostok. The French are also breaking the decades-long belief that European security is inseparable from the U.S. and NATO.

But, despite these changes in vision and ideology in Europe, the Baltic States and Poland have been deemed untrustworthy to join the path of reconfiguring power structures on the continent. Insistent hostility by Poland the Baltic States makes most other EU members hesitant to join the U.S.-led initiatives to contain Russia. And in this way, we see the irony that the core states of the EU, which mostly corresponds with “Old Europe,” having fresh and new ideas in their vision for the future of the continent, whilst “New Europe” wants to maintain the outdated and redundant American unipolar order.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


A woman in Nashville is the second person to describe how she became paralyzed within hours of taking a Pfizer coronavirus vaccine.

“This has been a nightmare,” Brandy McFadden told WSMV-TV’s News 4 Program in Nashville as she fought tears. “I got my shot, just trying to do due diligence. I never expected this to happen, at all.”

The day Brandy McFadden got her second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine on April 16, she “just started not feeling great,” she told the local news station.

By the following afternoon, McFadden said she couldn’t walk and had excruciating neck pain. “It just started progressively getting worse and I just started screaming in pain at the top of my lungs.”

McFadden’s husband took her to the emergency room at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Six days later, the local news stations interviewed her at the hospital where she had undergone a CT scan, MRI, EMG, and blood work, all of which were unrevealing about what was happening to her. “As far as to answers as to why this happened, they don’t know,” McFadden told News4.

She had regained movement in her arms, and could wiggle her toes one week following her shot.

A similar case in Pittsburgh

McFadden was in touch with a woman in Pittsburgh who had a similar experience. Rachel Cecere, 33, told WPXI-TV news that she woke up paralyzed from the neck down 12 hours after her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.  “It was the scariest thing in the world to go to sleep completely fine, to wake up 1:30 in the morning and not be able to move at all,” the woman told Channel 11.

Cecere was moved from her local hospital to the Cleveland Clinic where tests ruled out Guillain Barré Syndrome, a neurological disease linked to the pandemic 1976 swine flu vaccine, which caused about 450 people to be paralyzed.

“There is just nothing they can find wrong with me. No underlying conditions, I have nothing in my history and they are basically telling me, ‘You’re healthy and we can’t figure out why this is going on,’” the woman told her local news channel.

Nearly three weeks after Cecere was hospitalized she told WPXI that she is doing occupational and physical therapy at Jefferson Hospital but still had no feeling in either leg and can only move the left one. She was given a prosthetic brace and knee support to keep her leg straight. The single mother had regained strength in her upper body, she told the news station, but still felt weakness in her left hand and was unable to lift her daughter.

“It’s discouraging not having the feeling or sensation in my legs. It’s just difficult for me to grasp and understand,” Cecere said.

“I was told multiple times that the diagnosis was an acute distress to the nervous system brought on by the COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer,” Cecere told Channel 11, but her discharge papers did not mention her COVID-19 vaccine.

“It doesn’t sound like they are willing to attribute it to the vaccine or any specific medical diagnosis,” local infectious disease doctor Dave Weber told the news channel.

Reports of paralysis 

However, the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has received 1,619 reports of events following COVID-19 vaccination that include paralysis or paralyzing conditions such as Guillain Barré Syndrome, transverse myelitis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and Bell’s Palsy, a condition that causes face muscles to paralyze, marked frequently by a drooping mouth and inability to close one eye. Of those reports, 794 relate to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, including 131 reports of paralysis among patients aged 30-39 years old as of April 30. The CDC stresses that VAERS reports do not establish a causal link between a vaccine and an adverse event.

Just as public health agencies say that vaccines cannot be counted on to provide full protection within two weeks of shots because the immune system has not fully responded, immune system adverse events can take time to build as the body produces antibodies.

Among the dozens of reports among those aged 18 to 29 was a physician report of a 21-year-old in Michigan who received a first dose of Moderna’s vaccine in March and subsequently began experiencing “ascending paralysis” nine days later.

The young man’s condition “rapidly escalated requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation” according to the VAERS report. He was treated for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, the report stated, and had “flaccid paralysis and lost his ability to protect his airway.” The report stated that he would likely need a tracheostomy – a surgical opening in the neck to allow air to enter the lungs via a tube.

Another physician report to VAERS described a 26-year-old who received her first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine in March and three days later began feeling numbness in her toes that spread to her legs. Five days later she noticed numbness in her fingers and her mouth and weakness in her arms. A few days after that, she noticed that her face was dropping on the right side and she went to the emergency departments where a lumbar puncture (spinal tap) test indicated Guillain-Barré Syndrome and she was started on IV immune globulin treatment.

McFadden had already been infected with the coronavirus, something Pennsylvania immunologist Hooman Noorchashm has warned about as a potential for catastrophic immune events following vaccination. He has advised people to defer vaccination if they have previously been infected or tested positive for the coronavirus.

Pfizer’s response

Pfizer has sent LifeSiteNews the following statement in response to questions about the reported incidents of paralysis following its vaccine:

We closely monitor all such events and collect relevant information to share with global regulatory authorities. At this time, our ongoing review has not identified any safety signals with paralysis and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

To date, more than 200 million people around the world have been vaccinated with our vaccine. It is important to note that serious adverse events that are unrelated to the vaccine are unfortunately likely to occur at a similar rate as they would in the general population.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Rachel Cecere, 33, told WPXI-TV news that she woke up paralyzed from the neck down 12 hours after her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. (Source: LifeSiteNews)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


The headline of the Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan on November 30, 2012, page one above the fold with my photo, read “Terrell: American Drone Strikes Must Stop.”

I was served well by this article explaining my opposition to killing by remotely controlled drones, as that morning I “surrendered” myself to the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton, South Dakota, to begin a six-month prison sentence for protesting at a drone base in Missouri earlier that year.

“While many Americans may think drone strikes are a safe way to conduct war and improve the nation’s safety, one man will go to prison in Yankton today because of his belief that they are remotely committing crimes against humanity,” the paper reported.

That first afternoon, when I walked into the prison’s library, one inmate was reading that article aloud to the others, who broke into applause when they recognized me.

It is a rare event for someone to go to prison for a federal misdemeanor like trespass and, in these days of mass incarceration and maximum-minimum sentencing, it is unusual for anyone to be incarcerated for so short a time as six months except in exchange for testifying against other accused defendants.

Having my crime and intention advertised to guards and prisoners alike saved me from the uncomfortable suspicion of being a snitch in prison. It also opened up many great discussions with my fellow inmates over those months.

The sentencing judge in this case had given me six weeks before presenting myself to the prison to put my affairs in order and I used that time traveling through Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, New York and Minnesota, speaking, protesting and organizing with other anti-drone activists.

A reporter from Missouri Public Radio called me during that time and requested an interview. She asked me a question I often hear, if I did not feel that I could do more for the cause by staying out of prison.

I responded by asking her if we would be having this interview if, instead of getting arrested and going to jail for it, I had simply called her station and expressed my concern that the United States was committing war crimes by remote control from Whiteman Air Force Base. This reporter admitted that no, there would not be any interest in talking with me if that were the case.

Terrell (left) protests drones with Colonel Ann Wright (right), at Whiteman Air Force Base in 2012. [Source: flickr.com]

The shift captain who checked me out when my sentence was completed six months later told me that, while he respected the strength of my conviction, he felt I had done my cause a disservice by going to prison.

I had irresponsibly squandered any credibility I might have had, he told me. Who will listen to a convict? Within the following six months, my platform from which to speak out about drone warfare expanded to churches, libraries, schools, universities, Quaker meeting houses and community organizations around the U.S., the United Kingdom and Germany, including Yale Divinity School, Harvard Law School and Queen’s College in Birmingham, UK.

This was not the first time I had gone to jail protesting drones. In April 2009, about the time that President Obama made the Predator Drone the key to his “war on terror,” I took part in the first protest of drone warfare anywhere, at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. Creech was where the drone wars began and where the CIA runs its clandestine program of extrajudicial executions.

Peace Groups Blockade Creech Air Force Base to Protest 'Illegal and Inhumane Remote Killing' by US Drones | Common Dreams News

Protesters temporarily block traffic outside Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. [Source: commondreams.org]

Louie Vitale, a Franciscan priest and activist with the Nevada Desert Experience, first noticed mysterious pilotless/windowless planes circling the desert while he was protesting at the Nevada nuclear test site nearby.

As a U.S. Air Force veteran of the Cold War, Louie first understood and alerted us to their grim significance. From that beginning, I have been arrested at Creech at least nine times, each time spending anywhere from a few hours to four days in the Clark County Jail in Las Vegas, one of the most squalid and cruel lockups in the country.

David Krieger, Rev. Louis Vitale, Danel Ellsberg following 2012 arrest at Vandenberg Air Force Base (Photo Credit: Jim Haber)

Louis Vitale (center), with legendary whistleblower Dan Ellsberg (right), and David Krieger, after arrest in 2012 at Vandenberg Air Force Base. [Source: oaklandvoices.us]

In February 2012, I was sentenced to ten days in the Jamestown Penitentiary for my part as one of the “Hancock 38.” The previous April we were arrested at the Syracuse, NY, civilian airport from where the New York Air National Guard flies weaponized drone missions.

Twice I joined the regular actions of the “Occupy Beale” group in California, resisting the Global Hawk surveillance drones flown from Beale Air Force Base. Each of those times, federal prosecutors dropped the charges.

I have also been arrested twice at Wisconsin’s Volk Field, where the National Guard trains soldiers to pilot the Shadow, a surveillance drone that is used for “target acquisition” for armed drones and attack helicopters and, in 2017, I was lodged quite comfortably in the Juneau County Jail for five days after refusing to pay a fine on a trespass charge.

Acts of civil resistance such as these are responses to grave crimes of the state and not crimes in themselves, even when arrest and prosecution seem the immediate outcomes. Such actions are often required, but are not the whole of a campaign for change, either. In resistance to killer drones, such tactics as petitions, billboards, teach-ins, marches, pickets have also been effectively used and more will be needed as we go forward.

Martin Luther King, Jr., explained the necessity of direct action in his 1963 Letter from the Birmingham Jail: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.

It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.”

I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth.”

Nonviolent direct action is not the whole of a campaign for social betterment, but it is a necessary and indispensable component of any successful one.

These actions in Nevada, California, Missouri, New York and Wisconsin and their ensuing courtroom dramas have raised the “constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth” in their communities at least to the extent that drone violence cannot be so easily ignored. We are responsible to build on these beginnings.

At the Syracuse trial of the “Hancock 38,” former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark was permitted to testify on our behalf on the subject of international law.

Judge Gideon, after listening to Mr. Clark speak of the Nuremberg Principles and other laws as they apply to drone warfare at length, leaned over the bench and asked him, “This is all interesting, but what is the enforcement mechanism? Who is responsible for enforcing international law?” “They are,” responded Mr. Clark, pointing to the 31 defendants, “and so,” he said to Judge Gideon, “are you!”

A person speaking into a microphone Description automatically generated with medium confidence

The Late Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark addresses a gathering of about 50 defendants and supporters in front of the DeWitt Court House where the 38 Hancock drone protesters were on trial. [Source: mediasyracuse.com]

As a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, a 25-year campaign that ended in December 2020, I was privileged to have the community support, the time and the means to join with these local cells of drone resistance around the U.S. and abroad.

A picture containing person, outdoor, people, posing Description automatically generated

Activists Brian Terrell and Ghulam Hussein Ahmadi at the Border Free Center in Kabul, Afghanistan. [Graffiti by Kabul Knight; photo by Hakim]

Voices had also raised drone awareness by organizing several “peace walks” to drone bases, hundreds of miles on foot—from Chicago to a Michigan National Guard base in Kalamazoo; from Madison, Wisconsin, to Volk Field; from Rock Island, Illinois, to the Iowa Air National Guard drone command center in Des Moines—each time meeting with community groups and talking to hundreds of people along the way.

We itinerant Voices activists had a role in informing local anti-drone groups, in part because many of us have traveled to places under attack by armed drones, including Gaza, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan. I have visited Afghanistan, the nation most subjected to U.S. drone attacks and with the most drone casualties, five times between 2010 and 2018 and, with my colleagues, we have met with and often been befriended by Afghans who have lost limbs and loved ones in drone strikes.

We know many others who, fearing drone violence, have fled their village homes with their families to live in squalid and overcrowded refugee camps.

Activists from Voices in the United Kingdom have been resisting the use of armed drones by the Royal Air Force, including nonviolent resistance at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire and at factories there producing drones for Israel’s military.

CODEPINK Women for Peace anti-drone activists likewise have traveled to and established friendships in Pakistan, Palestine and other places targeted by weaponized drones.

A group of people holding signs Description automatically generated with medium confidence

CodePink founder Medea Benjamin protests drone war. [Source: codepink.org]

Banning weaponized drones is not an abstract “cause” but a real human obligation. Addressing resistance to the Vietnam War in 1966, Thomas Merton wrote, “It is the reality of personal relationships that saves everything.”

Not every anti-drone activist needs to visit war zones, just as not all of us need to go to prison, but some of us need to do both of these and it is the reality of those personal relationships that keeps our resistance from the abstractions that would otherwise suffocate it.

To learn more about the international campaign to ban killer drones, see bankillerdrones.org.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Brian Terrell is a peace activist. He can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image: Brian Terrell (right), with Father Louie Vitale, at a 2009 anti-drone war protest at Creech Air Force Base, outside of Las Vegas, NV. [Source: Jeff Leys]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ban Killer Drones: International Campaign of Civil Disobedience Necessary
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Since the summer of 2020 there have been consistent calls for the resignation of Detroit police chief James Craig.

Craig announced on May 10 that he was retiring from the Detroit Police Department (DPD) and would possibly seek the office of governor as a Republican candidate during 2022.

In the aftermath of the brutal police execution of George Floyd in Minneapolis, demonstrations erupted across the United States and the world.

Detroit was no exception to this phenomenon when thousands gathered outside the police headquarters downtown on a daily basis to denounce the murder of Floyd and other atrocities committed against African Americans and other oppressed peoples. After rallies featuring militant speeches, people would march through the downtown area and other neighborhoods in the majority African American municipality.

Although the movement in Detroit was highly politicized and disciplined, local law-enforcement officials at the aegis of the federal government under the leadership of former President Donald Trump, launched repeated attacks on antiracist demonstrators. In a matter of days, Detroit Will Breathe (DWB) was formed bringing together a wide spectrum of seasoned and new activists committed to fighting racism and police brutality.

Detroit police during late May and June of 2020 utilized an unwarranted curfew along with crowd control weapons such as mace, pepper spray, rubber bullets, clubs, concussion grenades and mass arrests in a failed attempt to halt the daily protests. DWB organizers and other were subjected to arbitrary arrests, beatings and the gross vilification of the movement by the administration of corporate Mayor Mike Duggan and police chief Craig.

Within a matter of weeks, a coalition of more than 40 organizations purchased a full-page ad in the Sunday Free Press denouncing the targeted brutality against DWB and other activists. Although the corporate media attempted to convince the public that the Duggan administration was supported by the people of Detroit, the demonstrations continued and were warmly welcomed by communities throughout the city where they marched on a daily basis.

DWB took a strong position against the deployment of federal forces into the city under the guise of “Operation Legend”, a law-enforcement project ostensibly designed to reduce crime and provide assistance to the police department. A U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan openly stated on a local news program that the federal government was paying the salaries of more than 30 local police officers as part of the project.

Chief Craig became a darling of FOX News while former President Trump described him as “terrific.” Meanwhile, as part of Trump’s plans to crush the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) and its counterparts around the U.S., former Attorney General William G. Barr visited Detroit during August and was given a helicopter tour by Craig.

Several days later, police viciously attacked hundreds of DWB demonstrators and spectators on Woodward avenue in the heart of downtown. People were beaten severely and arrested on spurious charges. Videotaped accounts of this incident on August 22-23, was widely circulated on social media and through various corporate entities.

A group of progressive civil rights lawyers formed a committee along with DWB activists taking their claims of brutality into federal court. Within a matter of day, the federal court had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the DPD. In addition, the suit demanded compensation for the damages incurred through illegal arrests, beatings and falsification of evidence.

A History of Racist Policing

The finding of a recent study conducted by the University of Michigan further reiterated what has been common knowledge for many years that the DPD was firmly rooted in racism and unjustifiable use of lethal force. The research report was based upon archived police and court records along with media accounts of killings by law-enforcement between 1957-1973. (See this)

During this time period, Detroit was in demographic transition where hundreds of thousands of whites were relocating to suburban areas as well as leaving the city and state altogether. The policy of successive mayoral administrations in the post-World War II period were openly designed to contain the African American population in Detroit in a manner in which their political representation and economic growth would be ruthlessly suppressed.

After the 1943 racial unrest and the conclusion of the War, a Detroit urban renewal plan took effect extending from the late 1940s to the 1960s. Entire neighborhoods and small commercial districts were destroyed forcing hundreds of thousands to relocate while abolishing jobs and social institutions which would never be fully recovered.

Nonetheless, the consistent racist municipal governance strategies prompted outrage which exploded during the early morning hours of July 23, 1967. The following week represented the largest and most violent urban rebellion in the history of the U.S. which was led by African Americans. By 1973, the city would elect its first African American Mayor Coleman Young, a veteran labor organizer and communist who instituted affirmative action within the civil service and the police while attempting to recorrect decades of discrimination and exploitation.

The police in Detroit were a key element in enforcing the racist divisions related to unequal job opportunities, city services and access to public offices. Black people were routinely stopped, frisked, beaten, jailed, framed and murdered by the police. By 1972-73, the city was on the verge of another rebellion, perhaps even more violent, when the Young administration took power after the November 1973 municipal elections.

An article published by the Boston Review discusses the U-M Study entitled “Detroit Under Fire: Police Violence, Crime Politics, and the Struggle for Racial Justice in the Civil Rights Era.” The research report includes the mapping of police violence in Detroit during the time period in question.

The Boston Review analysis by Matthew D. Lassiter says:

“Anyone seeking to give a complete accounting of the history of Detroit police violence faces significant hurdles. We know that DPD officers killed at least 219 civilians between 1957 and 1973, but this is definitely an undercount. The real number is unknown and ultimately unknowable. There is not even an official public tally of killings by on-duty officers, and the identities of their victims can only be uncovered through fortunate discoveries in non-police archives, including newspapers…. Revisiting the civil rights era in the urban North is a good place to start because activists went to extraordinary lengths to document police violence and to demand community control over the systems designed to disguise and justify it.”

Defunding and the Abolition of Policing: A Foundational Component of African American Liberation

Although Craig’s resignation is a manifestation of the movement which has gained momentum over the last year, it will by no means end police misconduct and brutality in Detroit. Craig’s announcement of his allegiance to the Republican Party does not surprise activists. His close affinity with the Trump administration and the corporate rulers of Detroit such as Dan Gilbert’s Quicken Loans and Illitch Holdings, is also shared by Duggan, who self-identifies as a Democrat.

Both Duggan and Craig are functionaries of the racist capitalist system which is committed to the continuing national oppression and super exploitation of African Americans and other people of color communities. Duggan’s installation as mayor during the illegal emergency management and bankruptcy of Detroit in 2013-2014 was an integral part of the ruling class aims of maintaining the control of the banks and multinational corporations over the city.

With the municipal elections of 2021 taking place in August and November, Duggan is seeking to put distance between himself and Craig. However, his class bias in favor of the ruling interests can never be doubted.

Just days prior to the departure of Craig, the Moratorium NOW! Coalition (MNC) issued a statement demanding his resignation. This effort came in the aftermath of Craig’s attacks on U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of the 13th District, demanding her resignation for stating that policing, as has been historically known in the U.S., should be abolished.

The MNC statement said:

“Craig betrays our trust; and his actions, his comments, and in particular his police department’s policies and practices, harm the residents of Detroit. As an employee of the City of Detroit, Craig is using public resources to attack our elected official. This is unethical. Where is the Mayor of Detroit?  Why is Mayor Duggan allowing his appointee to go rogue? Is Craig speaking for the Mayor? We join the many community groups who last year called for Chief Craig’s resignation. We, the residents of Detroit, call for Chief Craig’s resignation today! Chief Craig has taken positions against the people of Detroit. Report after report cites Detroit Police Department’s harmful treatment of Black Lives Matter protesters. The City even took protesters to court in a failed attempt to intimidate the movement. The City and Chief Craig did not prevail in court.”

Progressive forces in Detroit have welcomed Craig’s resignation. However, the struggle to end racist policing will continue in the city and around the U.S.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

Featured image: Detroit May Day 2021 march with Moratorium NOW! Coalition, Detroit Will Breathe, among others (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

First published on July 14, 2012.

What Prof. James Petras described nine years ago as a “highly intrusive and deeply entrenched police state” is unfolding (at a global level) under the corona crisis with the lockdown policies, the digital vaccine passport coupled with the militarization of law enforcement and the repeal of civil liberties. 



The United States has experienced the biggest political upheaval in its recent history: the transformation of a burgeoning welfare state into a rapidly expanding, highly intrusive and deeply entrenched police state, linked to the most developed technological innovations.

The ‘Great Transformation’ occurred exclusively from above, organized by the upper echelons of the civil and military bureaucracy under the direction of the Executive and his National Security Council. The ‘Great Transformation’ was not a single event but a process of the accumulation of powers, via executive fiats, supported and approved by compliant Congressional leaders. At no time in the recent and distant past has this nation witnessed the growth of such repressive powers and the proliferation of so many policing agencies engaged in so many areas of life over such a prolonged period of time (a time of virtually no internal mass dissent). Never has the executive branch of government secured so many powers to detain, interrogate, kidnap and assassinate its own citizens without judicial restraint.

Police state dominance is evident in the enormous growth of the domestic security and military budget, the vast recruitment of security and military personnel, the accumulation of authoritarian powers curtailing individual and collective freedoms and the permeation of national cultural and civic life with the almost religious glorification of the agents and agencies of militarism and the police state as evidenced at mass sporting and entertainment events.

The drying up of resources for public welfare and services is a direct result of the dynamic growth of the police state apparatus and military empire. This could only take place through a sustained direct attack against the welfare state – in particular against public funding for programs and agencies promoting the health, education, pensions, income and housing for the middle and working class.

The Ascendancy of the Police State

Central to the rise of the police state and the consequent decline of the welfare state have been the series of imperial wars, especially in the Middle East , launched by every President from Bush (father), Clinton, Bush (son) and Obama. These wars, aimed exclusively against Muslim countries, were accompanied by a wave of repressive ‘anti-terrorist’ laws and implemented through the rapid build-up of the massive police state apparatus, known as ‘Homeland Security’.

The leading advocates and propagandists of overseas militarism against countries with large Muslim populations and the imposition of a domestic police-state have been dedicated Zionists promoting wars designed to enhance Israel ’s overwhelming power in the Middle East . These American Zionists (including dual US-Israeli citizens) secured strategic positions within the US police state apparatus in order to terrify and repress activists, especially American Muslims and immigrants critical of the state of Israel .

The events of 9/11//01 served as the detonator for the biggest global military launch since WWII, and the most pervasive expansion of police state powers in the history of the United States . The bloody terror of 9/11/2001 was manipulated to institute a pre-planned agenda – transforming the US into a police state while launching a decade- long series of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and, now, Syria as well as covert proxy wars against Iran and Lebanon. The military budget exploded and government deficits ballooned while social programs and welfare were denigrated and dismantled as the ‘Global War on Terror’ swung into full gear. Programs, designed to maintain or raise living standards for millions and increase access to services for the poor and working class, fell victim to ‘9/11’.

As the wars in the Middle East took center-stage, the US economy tanked. On the domestic front vital public investment in education, infrastructure, industry and civilian innovations were slashed. Hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars flowed into the war zones, paying mercenaries (private contractors), buying off corrupt puppet regimes and providing a golden opportunity for military procurement officers and their private contractor-cronies to run up (and pocket) huge billion dollar cost overruns.

As a result, US military policy vis a vis the Middle East, military policy, which at one time had been designed to promote American imperial economic interests, now took on a life of its own: wars and sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya had undermined profitable oil contracts negotiated by US multi-nationals while enhancing militarism. Indeed, the Zionist-Israeli power configuration in the United States has become far more influential in directing US Middle East military policy than any combination of Big Oil – and all to the benefit of Israeli regional power.

Imperial Wars and the Demise of the Welfare State

From the end of World War II to the end of the 1970’s, the US managed to successfully combine overseas imperial wars with an expanding welfare state at home. In fact, the last major pieces of welfare legislation took place during the bloody, costly US-Indo-Chinese war, under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. The economic basis of welfare-militarism was the powerful industrial-technological foundations of the US war-machine and its dominance over world markets. Subsequently, the declining competitive position of the US in the world-economy and the massive relocation of US-MNC (and their jobs) overseas strained the ‘marriage’ of domestic welfare and militarism to the breaking point. Fiscal and trade deficits loomed even as the demands for welfare and unemployment payments grew in part because of the shift from stable well-paid manufacturing jobs to low paid-service work. While the global US economic position declined, its global military expansion accelerated as a result of the demise of the Communist regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe and the incorporation of the new regimes of the former Eastern bloc into the US-dominated NATO military alliance.

The demise of the Communist states led to the end of competing global welfare systems and allowed capitalists and the imperial state to slash welfare to fund their massive global military expansion. There was virtually no opposition from labor: the gradual conversion of Western trade unions into highly authoritarian organizations run by self-perpetuating millionaire ‘leaders’ and the reduction of trade union membership from 30% of the work force in 1950 to less than 11% by 2012 (with over 91% of private sector workers without any representation) meant that American workers have been powerless to organize strikes to protect their jobs, let alone apply political pressure in defense of public programs and welfare.

Militarism was on the ascendency when President Jimmy Carter launched his multi-billion dollar ‘secret war’ against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan and President Ronald Reagan initiated a series of ‘proxy wars’ throughout Central America and Southern Africa and sent the US Marines into the tiny island of Grenada. Reagan oversaw the escalation of military spending boasting that he would ‘bankrupt’ the Soviet Union with a new ‘arms race’. President George Bush, Sr. invaded Panama and then Iraq , the first of many US invasions in the Middle East . President Bill Clinton accelerated the military thrust, along the way slashing public welfare in favor of ‘private workfare’, bombing and destroying Yugoslavia, bombing and starving Iraq while establishing colonial enclaves in Northern Iraq and expanding the US military presence in Somalia and the Persian Gulf.

The constraints on US militarism imposed by the massive popular anti-Vietnam War movement and the US military defeat by the Vietnamese Communists, were gradually eroded, as successful short term wars (like Grenada and Panama ) undermined the Vietnam Syndrome –public opposition to militarism. This prepared the American public for incremental militarism while chipping away at the welfare system.

If Reagan and Bush built the foundation for the new militarism, Bill Clinton provided three decisive elements: together with Vice-President Al Gore, Clinton legitimized the war on welfarism, stigmatizing public assistance and mobilized support from religious and political leaders in the black community and the AFL-CIO. Secondly, Clinton was key to the ‘financialization’ of the US economy, by de-regulating the financial system (repealing the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933) and appointing Wall Street financiers at the helm of national economic policy. Thirdly, Clinton appointed leading Zionists to the key foreign policy positions related to the Middle East, allowing them to insert Israel ’s military view of reality into strategic decision-making in Washington . Clinton put in place the first series of repressive police state ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation and expanded the national prison system. In sum, Bill Clinton’s Middle East war policies, his ‘financialization’ of the US economy, his ‘war on terror’, his Zionist orientation towards the Arab world and, above all, his own ideological anti-welfarism led directly to Bush Junior’s full scale conversion of the welfare state into the police state .

Exploiting the trauma of 9/11, the Bush and later the Obama regimes nearly tripled the military budget and launched serial wars against Arab states. The military budget rose from $359 billion in 2000, to $544 billion in 2004 and escalated to $903 billion in 2012. Military expenditures financed major foreign military occupations and colonial administrations in Iraq and Afghanistan , border wars in Pakistan and US Special Forces covert operations (including kidnappings and assassinations) in Yemen , Somalia , Iran and seventy-five other countries world-wide.

Meanwhile financial speculation ran rampant, budget deficits ballooned, living standards plunged, international trade deficits reached record levels and public debt doubled in fewer than eight years. Multiple imperial wars dragged on without end; the costs of these wars multiplied while the financial bubble burst. The contradiction between domestic welfare and militarism exploded. Finally, the massive roll back of basic social programs for all American topped the Presidential and legislative agenda.

Previous ‘untouchable programs’ like Social Security, Medicare, the US Post Office, public sector employment, services to the poor, elderly and handicapped and food stamps were all put on the butcher’s block. At the same time the federal government increased its funding of private military and police contractors (mercenaries) overseas and extended the scope and depth of US Special Forces clandestine operations. Bush-Obama vastly increased spending for the military and espionage agents in support of wildly unpopular, brutal collaborator regimes in Pakistan and Yemen . They funded and armed foreign mercenaries in Libya , Syria , Iran , and Somalia . By the first decade of the new century it had become clear that imperial militarism and domestic welfarism were in a zero sum game: as imperial wars multiplied, domestic programs were slashed.

The severity and depth of the cuts to popular domestic welfare programs were only in part the result of imperial wars; equally important was the huge increase in the funding for personnel and surveillance technology for the burgeoning police state at home.

The Origins of the Conversion of the Welfare State to the Police State

The precipitous decline of the welfare state and the dismantling of social services, public education and access to affordable health care for the working and middle classes cannot be explained by the demise of organized labor, nor is it due to the ‘right-turn’ of the Democratic Party. Two other deep structural changes loom large as fundamental to the proces: the transformation of the US economy from a competitive manufacturing economy into a ‘FIRE’ (finance, insurance and real estate) economy; and secondly, the rise of a vast police legal-political-administrative state apparatus engaged in permanent ‘internal warfare’ at home, designed to sustain and complement permanent imperial warfare abroad.

Agencies and personnel of the police state expanded dramatically during the first decade of the new century. The police state penetrated telecommunications systems, patrolled and controlled transport outlets; dominated judicial procedures and oversaw the major ‘news outlets’, academic and professional associations. The expanded police state covertly and overtly entered the private lives of tens of millions of Americans.

The loss to taxpayers in terms of citizen rights and the welfare state has been staggering.

As the biggest and most intrusive component of the police state apparatus, christened ‘Homeland Security’, grew exponentially, the budget and agencies providing welfare and public services, health, education and unemployment shrank. Tens of thousands of domestic spies have been hired and costly intrusive spyware has been purchased with tax-payer money, while hundreds of thousands of teachers and public health and social welfare professionals have lost their jobs.

The Department of Homeland Security (as of the end of 2011) is composed of approximately 388,000 employees, including both federal and contracted agents. Between 2011-2013 the DHS budget of $173 billion has faced no serious cuts. Homeland Security’s rapid expansion occurred at the expense of Health and Human Services, education and the Social Security Administration, which currently face large scale ‘retrenchment’.

Among the top officials, appointed by the Bush, Jr. Administration to key positions in the police state apparatus, there are two who have been the most influential in setting policy: Michael Chertoff and Michael Mukasey.

Michael Chertoff headed the Criminal Division of the Justice Department (from 2001 – 2003). During that time he was responsible for the arbitrary arrest of thousands of US citizens and immigrants of Muslim and South Asian heritage, who were held incommunicado without charge and subject to physical and psychological abuse – without a single resident alien or Muslim US citizen linked to 9/11. In contrast, Chertoff quickly intervened to free scores of Israeli spy suspects and 5 Israeli Mossad agents who had been witnessed filming and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center and were under active investigation by the FBI. More than any other official, Michael Chertoff has been the chief architect of the ‘Global War on Terror’ – co-author of the notorious ‘Patriot Act’ which trashed habeas corpus and other essential components of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. As Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005-2009, Chertoff promoted ‘military tribunals’ and organized the vast internal spy network, which now preys on private US citizens.

Michael Mukasey, the Bush-appointed US Attorney General, was an enthusiastic defender of the Patriot Act, supporting military tribunals, torture and overseas assassinations of individual suspected of what he called ‘Islamic terrorism’ without trial.

Both Chertoff and Mukasey are zealous Zionists with longstanding ties to Israel . Michael Chertoff was believed to hold dual US-Israeli citizenship as he launched the Administration domestic war on US citizens.

A cursory review of the origins and direction of the police-state apparatus and the top echelons of the global war on ‘Islamic terrorism’ – code languages for military imperialism – reveals a disproportionate number of Israel-Firsters, who placed greater importance on persecuting potential US critics of the Middle East wars for Israel than in upholding Constitutional guarantees and the Bill of Rights.

Back in ‘civilian’ life, Michael Chertoff profited greatly from the bogus ‘War on Terror’ promoting radioactive and degrading body scanning technology in airports throughout the US and Europe.He established his own security consulting firm Chertoff Groups (2009) to represent the manufacturers of surveillance body scanners. Americans can thank Michael Chertoff every time they pass through the humiliation of an airport body scan.

The fusion of the police state apparatus with the industrial-security complex and its prominent overseas links with its corporate security counterparts in the state of Israel , underscores the imperial state’s ties to the Israeli military establishment.

As the police state has grown it has created a powerful lobby of high tech surveillance industry backers and beneficiaries who push federal and state ‘security’ spending at the expense welfare programs.

The police state’s squeeze on social programs, education and welfare has a powerful ally on Wall Street, which emerged as the dominant sector of US capital in terms of access to and influence over US Treasury and its budgetary allocations.

Unlike the manufacturing sector, financial capital does not need a population of educated, healthy and productive workers. Its own ‘labor force’ is composed of a small educated elite of speculators, analysts, traders and brokers at the top and middle levels and a small army of ‘contract’ office sweepers, secretaries and menial workers at the bottom. They have their own ‘invisible’ army of domestic servants, cooks, caterers, gardeners and nannies devoid of any ‘Social Security’, health coverage and pension plans. And the financial sector has its own private networks of doctors and clinics, schools, communications systems and messengers, estates and clubs, and security agencies and body guards; it needs not an educated, skilled public sector; and it certainly does not want national wealth to support high quality public health and educational systems. It has no interest in supporting this mass of public institutions which it views as an obstacle to ‘freeing up’ vast amounts of public wealth for speculation. In other words, the dominant sector of capital has no objection to ‘Homeland Security’; indeed it shares many sentiments with the proponents of the police state and supports the shrinking the welfare state. It is concerned about lowering taxes on finance capital and increasing Federal bail-out funds for Wall Street while controlling the impoverished citizenry.


The conversion of a welfare state to a police state is the result of militarized imperialism abroad and the ascendancy of finance capital at home, as well as the proliferation of security state agencies and related private industries and the strategic role of rightwing Zionists in top positions of the police state apparatus.

This convergence of international and domestic structural changes took hold during the 1980’s and 1990’s and then accelerated during the first decade of the 21st century. The downgrading of the vast public services of the welfare state was covered up by a massive government propaganda campaign to promote the ‘global war on terror’ together with a fabricated widespread domestic ‘terrorist threat’ involving the most hapless of suspects (including oddball Haitian millenarianists entrapped by FBI agents). The supporters and beneficiaries of the welfare state found themselves on the margins of any national debate. The mass media/regime propaganda campaign demanded and successfully secured massive increases in centralized powers of domestic policing, surveillance, provocations, disappearances and arrests. Throughout the past decade what the welfare state lost in support and funding, the police state gained. The rise of financial capital and the deregulation of the financial system crowded out any public subsidies to promote and sustain the competitiveness of the US manufacturing sector. This has led to a major break in the links between industry, labor and the welfare state. Huge tax write-offs to big business, combined with the growth in expenditures for a non-productive police state bureaucracy and the series of costly overseas wars, has caused unsustainable budget and trade deficits, which then became the pretext to further savage the welfare state.

Significant political, cultural and ideological shifts have aided the rise of the police state over the public welfare state. The success of prominent American Zionists in securing power within key media propaganda mills and obtaining appointments to critical position in the top echelons of the police state apparatus, judiciary and in the imperial state bureaucracy (Treasury and State Department) has put Israel’s colonial interests and its own police-state apparatus at the center of US politics. The US police state has adopted Israeli-styled repression targeting US citizens and residents.

US society is now split into two sectors: the ‘winners’ linked to the expanding and lucrative financial – security complex embedded in the police state while the ‘losers’, tied to the manufacturing – welfare sector, are relegated to an increasingly marginalized ‘civil society’. The police state purges dissidents who question the ‘Israel-First doctrine’ of the US security-military apparatus. The financial sector, embedded in its own luxurious ‘cocoon’ of private services, demands the total gutting of public services directed toward the poor, working and middle classes. The public treasury has been taken over in order to finance bank bailouts, imperial wars and police state agencies while paying the bondholders of US debt.

Social Security is on target to be privatized. Pensions are to be reduced, delayed and self-financed. Food stamps, access to affordable health care and unemployment support will be slashed. The police state cannot pay for glitzy new repressive technologies, greater policing, more intrusive surveillance, arrests and prisons while financing the existing welfare state with its vast educational, health and human services and pension benefits.

In sum, there is no future for social welfare in the United States within its powerful financial-imperial-police state system. Both major political parties nurture this system, support serial wars, appeal to the financial elites and debate over the size, scope and timing for further cuts in social welfare.

The American social welfare system was a product of an earlier phase of US capitalism where US global industrial supremacy allowed for both military spending and welfare support and where US military spending was constrained by the demands of the domestic socio-economic sectors of manufacturing capital and ‘labor’. In an earlier phase Zionist influence was based on wealthy individuals and their congressional ‘lobby’ — they did not occupy key Federal policymaking positions setting the agendas for war in the Middle East and domestic police state.

Times have changed for the worse: a police state, linked to militarism and perpetual imperial wars in the Middle East has gained ascendancy and now impacts our everyday life. Underlying both the growth of the police state and the erosion of the welfare state is the rise of an inter-locking ‘financial-security power elite’, held together by a common ideology, unprecedented private wealth and the relentless drive to monopolize the public treasury to the detriment of the vast majority of Americans. A confrontation and full exposure of all the self-serving propaganda, which undergirds the power elite is an essential first step. The enormous budgets for imperial wars are the greatest threat to US welfare. The police state erodes real public services and undermines social movements. Finance capital pillages the public treasury demanding bailouts and subsidies for the banks. Israeli Firsters, in key decision-making positions, serve the interests of a foreign police state against the interests of the American people. The state of Israel is the mirror opposite of what we Americans want for ourselves and our children: a free and independent secular republic without colonial settlements, clerical racism, and destructive self-serving militarism.

Today the fight to restore the advances in citizens’ welfare established through public programs of the recent past requires that we transform an entire structure of power: true welfare reform requires a revolutionary strategy and, above all, a grass-roots mass movement breaking with the entrenched ‘two party’ regime tied to the financial- imperial- internal security system.

Inflation Myths and the US Economic Rebound 2021

May 13th, 2021 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Today, May 12, 2021 the US Labor Department released its report on businesses now raising prices, as the US economy reopens in the wake of Covid vaccinations and moderating Covid infections. The CPI, or Consumer Price Index, rose 0.8% in April, after a 0.6% in March, and 4.2% for the twelve months ending last month, April 2021, which was the largest increase since 2008.

Republicans, conservatives, and business interests are using the fact of recent rising prices to attack legislative proposals to increase government spending. They argue the recently passed $1.8 trillion ‘American Rescue Plan’ (Covid Relief Plan) by the Biden administration was too generous. And proposals to spend on Infrastructure ($2.2T) and American Families ($1.5T) will only stoke consumer spending and boost inflation further.

They and their mainstream media friends are arguing that fiscal stimulus putting money in the hands of households is driving up prices. In other words, consumer DEMAND is now causing prices to rise sharply, they argue.

But is it? Or is the problem of rising inflation a business SUPPLY problem?

Inflation Not Due to Fiscal Spending & Household Demand

There is little evidence that fiscal stimulus spending is responsible for recent price hikes. The fiscal stimulus spending for 2021 is far less than reported, so its effect on household Demand spending—and therefore Inflation—is thus far minimal. The recently passed American Rescue Plan is not actually $1.9T, as media reports.  The Congressional Budget Office, the research arm of Congress, reports that only $1 trillion in spending is even authorized for 2021. And of that, at least $200 billion or more won’t be spent in fact: it will be hoarded and unspent by households and local governments or used to pay down debt and won’t get into the US economy in 2021. The majority of the remaining $800 billion hasn’t even hit the US economy yet and won’t until late 2021. And what about the Infrastructure and Family Assistance subsequent proposals?

They’re just on paper. And won’t get passed until sometime in 2022, if then, and certainly reduced in authorized spending by large amounts. In short, the Republican-Business hype about $6 trillion going to households and consumers is just another ‘big lie’. It’s no more than $800 billion—that is, just about the amount of similar fiscal spending in 2020 that dissipated in just two to three months. Put another way, the fiscal ‘stimulus’ is not really a stimulus—just a ‘mitigation’ spending measure designed to put a floor under the economy while waiting (and hoping) for the reopening of the economy to generate a sustained recovery.

A fiscal spending of at most $800 billion this year—which has hardly even hit the US economy yet—is not sufficient to generate excess demand by households to cause inflation. So much, therefore, for the argument that government fiscal spending is causing excess household DEMAND spending that is resulting in current inflation!

Inflation Due to Business Supply Problems

A closer look at the CPI shows that the problem of recent rising prices is a SUPPLY problem in business, not a DEMAND problem due to households’ excess income.

Much of the recent CPI increase, when broken down, is due to sharp increases in auto prices, especially used cars. That is a supply problem: auto companies are experiencing a crisis in obtaining semiconductor chips for production. New car production has fallen. That’s created a shortage that allows the companies to jack up prices on their new cars. In turn, it has resulted in used car prices rising even further and faster than new cars. New car prices have surged 9.6% and used cars even more, by 16.7%, according to the Wall St. Journal.  Auto prices have surged 21% of the past year. April’s car and truck double digit price hikes—the highest since 1953—thus account for more than a third of the overall 4.2% April CPI increase!

The 2020 economic contraction resulted in businesses reducing their inventories of unsold goods deeply. They now have shortages. Recent US GDP numbers show inventories collapsed last year and continued to contract in the first quarter of 2021 as well. This has created a condition that now allows businesses to sharply raise prices due to the shortages of supply. This is a condition and problem across many industries and companies today.

Businesses in 2020 were not able to raise prices due to the massive unemployment and inability of consumers to spend as the economy was largely shut down.  Service industries like airlines, travel, lodging, entertainment, restaurants & bars, and retail were especially hard hit. In response, many of the companies in these industries cut prices in order to try to capture what little household demand there was.  Now, as the US economy reopens, they are trying to recoup those losses by sharply raising prices, trying to test what the market will bear in terms of inflation.

Looking at the recent CPI numbers once again, apart from auto prices new and used, the sharpest increases in the CPI index are occurring in airline prices, other travel related prices, hotels and lodging, and similar services—all rising recently at more than 10%!  At the same time, auto insurance companies and utility companies are raising prices by double digits as they price gouge consumer in the recovery. Consumers aren’t buying more utilities. That demand remains stable. Nevertheless, the big utility companies are using the opportunity to boost prices. The auto insurance companies experienced a big windfall in profits in 2020, as households drove less and their insurance premiums remained at pre-pandemic levels. But now they too are raising prices by double digits to ‘game’ the system. Then there’s the oil companies sharply boosting prices at the pump to recoup their losses in 2020.

Not to be left out, in addition to these supply driven causes, new housing prices are surging as well as shortages in lumber and other materials, and due to the low availability of housing stock. In other words, a SUPPLY problem, causing inflation!

Global Markets As Cause of Inflation

Wholesale prices for commodities like aluminum, copper, and crude oil are all rising sharply as well, as investor speculators buy up futures contracts to resell later at a big profit. These now rising wholesale prices will soon penetrate consumer prices, causing retail price inflation. But that means the problem once again is not the household consumer and demand; it is the professional financial speculator causing most of the current rising world commodity price inflation.

And then there’s the problem of the falling US dollar, which drives up imported goods prices (in the CPI), which has nothing to do with household demand either.  The Federal Reserve US central bank has a policy of keeping interest rates at near zero.  It has pumped more than $4 trillion into banks the past 18 months; and continues to provide $120 billion every month to ensure rates stay low. This policy and subsidization of low interest rates has resulted in less foreign investor demand for US dollars to buy US Treasury bonds that pay little interest. That reduced demand for dollars drives down the value of the US dollar. And that lower valued dollar in turn, raises the cost and price of imported goods coming to the US. Import prices of goods in the CPI therefore rise in turn and contribute to the general increase in the CPI. In short, the falling dollar is a cause of inflation that has nothing at all to do with excess household demand for goods due to fiscal spending.

Problems with the CPI as Indicator of Inflation

How reliable is the CPI, in general, and especially as a measure of economy-wide inflation?

The answer is not very.  There are major problems with the CPI as an accurate indicator of the price level—i.e. of inflation. Here’s just some of them:

First, the CPI is not even an indicator of the general price level and inflation, as economists well know. It is an indicator of the cost of living for urban households only.  Cost of living and inflation/price level are not the same thing,  contrary to the general public’s understanding of the two concepts.

The CPI measures only around 450 different ‘goods and services’ in the economy—i.e. the most purchased by urban households. There are millions of different goods and services in the US economy with prices, none of which are included in the CPI but are part of the general price level.

Second, unknown by the general public, the US government keeps secret how it calculates most of the CPI. Why so? It says it does that in order not to reveal how businesses raise prices because it would reduce competition among businesses. But that’s nonsense. Most businesses, especially the larger corporations, know full well how their competitors raise prices.

The US government reveals more detail about how it calculates employment and unemployment, but keeps secret most of its methods secret how it manipulates CPI raw data. It does that, in my opinion, in order to ‘low-ball’ inflation. It has an incentive to under-estimate the CPI. The higher the inflation, the more the government must spend in cost of living for social security, food stamps, school lunches, government pensions, and so forth. So it prefers to low ball inflation and does so in a number of way. Unlike employment stats, it also avoids segmenting inflation by race, age, gender, and income levels. That would show how CPI inflation more seriously impacts minority and low income households.

Third, the CPI measures the increase in inflation compared to a similar month or quarter in the previous year. So if prices were falling last spring 2020 due to the severe economic contraction, prices this spring 2021 appear especially high.  Businesses are recouping price cuts (deflation) last year, so price increases appear even higher this year. In other words, it matters what ‘base year’ is used to estimate the CPI (or any inflation index for that matter). The CPI can be either higher or lower depending on what base year is used. And if the base year was deflationary, with falling prices as was 2020, then the subsequent year, 2021, inflation and CPI appear exceptionally higher than otherwise.

Apart from the CPI not being an actual measure of the general price level and its methods for estimating inflation kept a secret, there are further problems with the CPI itself. Here’s just a few:

1. The CPI’s basket of 450 or so goods and services have weights assigned for the various goods and services. In other words, the cost of lodging weighs more in the final CPI calculation than does, for example, the cost of smart phones. But the weights are changed only every 4 or 5 years. The cost of food, autos or housing may surge significantly in any given year (now occurring) but their weights are not changed to reflect the increase. The CPI is thus under-estimated for that year. Moreover, the weights are not segmented by household income levels. So for the median or even more for the working poor households, the cost of rents result in an even greater inflation effect than for, say, wealthier households. The poor are impacted by inflation more as a result. Their CPI cost of living is thus much higher than the general CPI number

2. The CPI makes adjustments for rising quality of goods. For example, even though the cost of a new iphone may be higher this year for the buyer, because the new iphone has more features and functions, the government calculates a zero rise in price or even a price deduction for smartphones in its overall CPI calculation. The buyer-consumer may experience an actual price hike, but it doesn’t show up in the CPI as such.

3. There’s also what’s called the ‘substitution bias’ problem in the CPI.  This happens when prices rise for a product in the CPI basket and the consumer responds by not buying that higher priced good and buys instead a lower cost substitute. There’s an actual increase in the price level for that original good that isn’t captured in the CPI because it isn’t purchased.

4. New goods and services that are created in the economy and their inflation are not captured because they may be not yet included in the 450 basket of goods and services of the CPI. Their prices and inflation are for certain part of the general price level rise, but aren’t reflected in the CPI. And remember, there are millions of goods and services not included in the CPI.

Add to these issues and problems, there is no adjustment for the value of the dollar falling, or for the fact the CPI measures only urban cost of living, or there is no segmentation that would show lower income households’ CPI are higher, the CPI excludes altogether certain important items that account for inflation: there’s no mortgage rates estimated in the CPI or rising income taxes. And many economists argue the CPI still significantly underestimates price increases for online shopping.


All the hype from Republicans and mainstream media that the recent, and pending, fiscal stimulus spending is driving up inflation has no basis in fact. It is an argument designed to be used to block and roll back the spending that would benefit households and consumption. That argument assumes the emerging inflation is a household DEMAND driven problem. On the contrary, rising prices are far more a business SUPPLY problem. Businesses are using the supply shortages as an excuse to boost prices, and to test how much the markets will allow, to generate and recoup 2020 losses and price cuts during the pandemic.  A detailed look at recent CPI numbers shows the biggest increases in prices are due to shortages in supply and those business sectors trying to recoup losses. Other businesses without losses in 2020 are going along and doing the same, using the rising prices as a cover to raise their prices as well.

The Biden fiscal spending is a small fraction of what the opponents claim. Only $800 billion will be spent in 2021 (and likely less as more workers leave unemployment benefits for jobs). It’s not $6 trillion as the business media in particular likes to tout. $5 trillion of that claim is just talk of legislation that won’t hit the economy until 2022 or after, or not at all, and the remainder of the Biden American Rescue Plan of $1.8T is spread out over 10 years!

Finally, the CPI is not an indicator of inflation and has a number of serious limits when it comes even to estimating the cost of living for US households. In general, moreover, it grossly under-estimates even the cost of living and is not a reflection of rising general prices and inflation.

Inflation will rise in 2021, for certain. But it will be more due to business practices and SUPPLY problems as well as other global conditions—and all that has little to do with consumer demand and government fiscal spending programs or legislation.

Nonetheless the US economic ideology machine, and its mainstream media conduit, will continue to pump out the fiction and myth that it’s government spending and excess US middle class and working class household demand that is the problem behind inflation.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Rasmus blogs at http://jackrasmus.com.

He hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio network. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus. His various books and articles are available for download at his website, http://kyklosproductions.com including his most recent book, The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump, Clarity Press, 2020.

Featured image is from Pixabay

Purchase six e-books from Global Research Publisher’s PDF collection at a discounted price. Download your order as a zipped folder straight to your computer and avoid shipping and handling costs.

Special Offer: Global Research PDF Collection – 6 PDF Books for 1 Price

Product Type: PDF

List Price: $53.85

Special Price: $39.00




The Global Research PDF Collection includes:

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9

Year: 2015

Product Type: PDF File

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0973714708

Year: 2003

Product Type: PDF File

In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition – which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction — the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Tim Anderson

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-7-7

Year: 2016

Product Type: PDF File

The Dirty War on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. In seeking ‘regime change’ the big powers sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies of ‘Islamists’, demonising the Syrian Government and constantly accusing it of atrocities. In this way Syrian President Bashar al Assad, a mild-mannered eye doctor, became the new evil in the world.

As western peoples we have been particularly deceived by this dirty war, reverting to our worst traditions of intervention, racial prejudice and poor reflection on our own histories. This book tries to tell its story while rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, ethical principle and the search for independent evidence.



Click to order

America’s “War on Terrorism” (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 0-9737147-1-9

Year: 2005

Product Type: PDF File

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.


The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Authors: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, Editors

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9

Year: 2010

Product Type: PDF File

In all major regions of the world, the economic recession is deep-seated, resulting in mass unemployment, the collapse of state social programs
and the impoverishment of millions of people. The meltdown of financial markets was the result of institutionalized fraud and financial manipulation. The economic crisis is accompanied by a worldwide process of militarization, a “war without borders” led by the U.S. and its NATO allies.

This book takes the reader through the corridors of the Federal Reserve, into the plush corporate boardrooms on Wall Street where far-reaching financial transactions are routinely undertaken.

Each of the authors in this timely collection digs beneath the gilded surface to reveal a complex web of deceit and media distortion which serves to
conceal the workings of the global economic system and its devastating impacts on people’s lives.

Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (PDF) (Click title to order individual PDF)

Author:Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9

Year: 2011

Product Type: PDF File

The world is at a critical crossroads. The Fukushima disaster in Japan has brought to the forefront the dangers of worldwide nuclear radiation.

Coinciding with the onset of the nuclear crisis in Japan, a new regional war theater has opened up in North Africa, under the disguise of a UN sponsored “humanitarian operation” with the mandate to “protect civilian lives”.

These two seemingly unrelated events are of crucial importance in understanding both the nuclear issue as well as the ongoing US-NATO sponsored war, which has now extended its grip into Libya.

This E-Book strives to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

 Special Offer: Global Research PDF Collection – 6 PDF Books for 1 Price

Product Type: PDF

List Price: $53.85

Special Price: $39.00


All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


We repost this article first published in 2014 to commemorate the 73rd anniversary of the Nakba.


For 66 years Israel’s founding generation has lived with a guilty secret, one it successfully concealed from the generations that followed. Forests were planted to hide war crimes. School textbooks mythologised the events surrounding Israel’s creation. The army was blindly venerated as the most moral in the world.

Once, “Nakba” – Arabic for “Catastrophe”, referring to the dispossession of the Palestinian homeland in 1948 – would have failed to register with any but a small number of Israeli Jews. Today, only those who never watch television or read a newspaper can plead ignorance.

As marches and festivals are held today by Palestinians across the region to mark Nakba Day – commemorating the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and the erasure of more than 500 villages – Israelis will be watching.

In fact, the Israeli media have been filled with references to the Nakba for the past 10 days, since Israel celebrated its Independence Day last week. The two anniversaries do not quite coincide because Israel marks its founding according to the Hebrew calendar.

While Israeli Jews were trying to enjoy guilt-free street parties last week, news reports focused on the activities of their compatriots – the Palestinians who remained inside the new state of Israel and now comprise a fifth of the population. Estimates are that one in four of these 1.5 million Palestinian citizens is from a family internally displaced by the 1948 war.

More than 20,000 staged a “March of Return” to one destroyed village, Lubya, buried under a forest near Tiberias and close to a major Israeli highway. Long tailbacks forced thousands of Israeli Jews to get a close-up view as they crawled past the biggest nakba procession in Israel’s history.

For others, images of the marchers waving Palestinian flags and massively outnumbering Israeli police and a counter-demonstration by Jewish nationalists were seen on TV news, websites and social media.

The assault on Israel’s much cherished national mythology is undoubted. And it reflects the rise of a new generation of Palestinians no longer willing to defer to their more cautious, and traumatised, elders, those who directly experienced the events of 1948.

These youth see themselves as representing not only their immediate relatives but Palestinians in exile who have no chance to march back to their village. Many of Lubya’s refugees ended up in Yarmouk camp in Damascus, where they are suffering new horrors, caught in the midst of Syria’s civil war.

Palestinians in Israel are also being galvanised into action by initiatives like prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to legislate Israel as a Jewish state. They see this as the latest phase of an ongoing nakba – an attempt to erase their nativeness, just as the villages were once disappeared.

Palestinians are making a noise about the Nakba on every possible front – and not just on Nakba Day. Last week media around the world reported on one such venture: a phone app called iNakba that maps the hundreds of destroyed villages across Israel. Briefly it became one of the most popular iPhone downloads, connecting refugees through new technology. iNakba visibly restores a Palestine that Israel hoped literally to have wiped off the map.

The app is the initiative of Zochrot, an Israeli organisation that is jointly run by Jews and Palestinians. They have been finding ever more creative and provocative ways to grab headlines.

They arrange regular visits to destroyed villages that a growing number of curious Israeli Jews are participating in, often in the face of vehement opposition from the communities built on the rubble of Palestinian homes.

Zochrot has created a Hebrew information pack on the Nakba for teachers, though education officials ban it. Last year it staged the first Nakba film festival in Tel Aviv. It is also creating an archive of filmed interviews with Israeli veteran fighters prepared to admit their part in expulsions.

Zochrot also held last year the first-ever conference in Israel discussing not just the principle but how to put into practice a right of return for the millions of Palestinian refugees across the region.

Palestinian youth are taking up the idea enthusiastically. Architects are designing plans for new communities that would house the refugees on or near their old lands.

Refugee families are trying to reclaim mosques and churches, usually the only buildings still standing. Israeli media reported last month that internal refugees had been attacked as they held a baptism in their former church at al-Bassa, now swamped by the Jewish town of Shlomi.

Workshops have been arranged among refugee groups to imagine what a right of return might look like. Youth from two Christian villages, Iqrit and Biram, have already set up camps at their old churches, daring Israel to hound them out like their grandparents. Another group, I Won’t Remain a Refugee, is looking to export this example to other villages.

The size of the march to Lubya and the proliferation of these initiatives are a gauge of how Palestinians are no longer prepared to defer to the Palestinian leadership on the refugee issue or wait for an interminable peace process to make meaningful progress.

“The people are sending a message to the leadership in Ramallah that it cannot forget or sideline the right of return,” says Abir Kopty, an activist with the Lubya march. “Otherwise we will take the issue into our own hands.”

Meanwhile, progress of a kind is being made with Israeli Jews. Some have come to recognise, however reluctantly, that a tragedy befell the Palestinians with Israel’s creation. But, as another march organiser notes, the struggle is far from over. “That is a first step. But now they must take responsibility for our suffering and make amends.”


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


This article was first published in 2020, on the 72nd anniversary of the Nakba.

Anniversaries commemorate past events. And you could be forgiven for thinking that an event which happened 72 years ago is indeed in the past.

This is true of most anniversaries, except when it comes to the Nakba, the “disaster, catastrophe or cataclysm” that marks the partition of Mandatory Palestine in 1948 and the creation of Israel.

The Nakba is not a past event. The dispossession of lands, homes and the creation of refugees have continued almost without pause since. It is not something that happened to your great grandparents.

It happens or could happen to you any time in your life.

A recurring disaster

To Palestinians, the Nakba is a recurring disaster. At least 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes in 1948. A further 280,000 to 325,000 fled their homes in territories captured by Israel in 1967.

Since then, Israel has devised subtler means of trying to force the Palestinians from their homes. One such tool was residency revocations. Between the start of Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and the end of 2016, Israel revoked the status of at least 14,595 Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem.

A further 140,000 residents of East Jerusalem have been “silently transferred” from the city, when the construction of the separation wall started in 2002, blocking access to the rest of the city. Almost 300,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem hold permanent residence issued by the Israeli interior ministry.


Two areas were cut off from the city although they lie within its municipal boundaries: Kafr ‘Aqab to the north and Shu’fat Refugee Camp to the northeast.

The residents of neighbourhoods in these areas pay municipal and other taxes, but neither the Jerusalem municipality nor government agencies enter this territory or consider it their responsibility.

Consequently, these parts of East Jerusalem have become a no man’s land: the city fails to provide basic municipal services such as waste removal, road maintenance and education, and there is a shortage of classrooms and daycare facilities.

The water and sewage systems fail to meet the population’s needs, yet the authorities do nothing to repair them. To get to the rest of the city, residents have to run the daily gauntlet of the checkpoints.

Another tool of expropriation is the application of the Absentee Property Law, which, when passed in 1950, was intended as the basis for the transfer of Palestinian property to the State of Israel.

Its use was generally avoided in East Jerusalem until the construction of the wall. Six years later, it was used to expropriate “absentee land” from the Palestinian residents of Beit Sahour for the construction of 1,000 housing units in Har Homa, in South Jerusalem. But generally its purpose is to provide a mechanism for “creeping expropriation”.

A Nakba in real time 

The centrepiece of Israeli Prime Minister Binjamin Netanyahu’s election campaign and the central legislative purpose of the current Israeli unity government would constitute another chapter of dispossession for Palestinians in 2020. Those are the plans to annex one third – or at worst two thirds – of the West Bank.

Three scenarios are currently under consideration: the maximalist plan to annex the Jordan Valley and all of what the Oslo Accords referred to as Area C. This is about 61 percent of the territory of the West Bank which is administered directly by Israel and is home to 300,000 Palestinians.

The second scenario is to annex the Jordan Valley alone. According to Israeli and Palestinian surveys conducted in 2017 and 2018, there were 8,100 settlers and 53,000 Palestinians living on this land. Israel split this land into two entities: the Jordan Valley and the Megillot-Dead Sea regional council.

The third scenario is to annex the settlements around Jerusalem, the so-called E1 area, which includes Gush Etsion and Maale Adumin. In both cases Palestinians who live in the villages around these settlements are threatened with expulsion or transfer. There are 2,600 Palestinians who live in the village of Walaja and parts of Beit Jala who would be affected by the annexation of Gush Etsion, as well as 2,000-3,000 Bedouins living in 11 communities around Maale Adumin, such as Khan al-Ahmar.

What would happen to Palestinians who live on land that Israel has annexed?

In theory they could be offered residency, as was the case when East Jerusalem was annexed. In practice, residency will only be offered to a very select few. Israel will not want to solve one problem by creating another.

Most of the Palestinian population of the areas annexed would be transferred to the nearest big city, as happened with the Bedouins in the Negev and East Jerusalemites who find themselves in areas cut off from the rest of the city.

The generals’ warning

These plans have generated expressions of horror amongst Israel’s security establishment, which has grown used to being listened to, but which now wields less influence over policymaking than it once did.

This is not because the former generals hold any moral objection to expropriation of Palestinian land or because they think Palestinians have a legal right to it. No, their objections are based on how annexation could imperil Israel’s security.

A fascinating resume of their thinking is provided by an open-source document published anonymously by the Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) in Herzliya. They state that annexation would destabilise the eastern border of Israel, which is “characterised by great stability, a quiet and a very low level of terror,” and that it would cause a “deep jolt” to Israel’s relationship with Jordan.

“To the Hashemite regime, annexation is synonymous with the idea of the alternative Palestinian homeland, namely, the destruction of the Hashemite kingdom in favor of a Palestinian state.

“For Jordan, such a move is a material breach of the peace agreement between the two countries. Under these circumstances, Jordan could violate the peace agreement. Alongside this, there may be a strategic threat to its internal stability, due to possible unrest among the Palestinians in combination with the severe economic hardship Jordan is facing,” the IPS document says.

That would only be the start of Jordan’s problems with annexation. Even a minimalist option of annexing E1 – the area around Jerusalem – would sever East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, endangering Jordan’s custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem.

Annexation would also lead to the “gradual disintegration” of the Palestinian Authority, the IPS claims.

Again, there is no love lost here. What concerns the Israeli analysts is the burden that would be placed on the army. “The effectiveness of security cooperation with Israel will deteriorate and weaken, and who will replace it? IDF! Forcing many forces to deal with riots and order violations and the maintenance of the Palestinian system.”


The security establishment goes on to say that annexation could trigger another intifada, strengthening the idea of a one-state solution “which is already acquiring a growing grip in the Palestinian arena”.

The Saudi factor

In the wider Arab world, the paper notes that Israel would forfeit many of the allies it believes it has made in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman and intensify the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign internationally.

Saudi Arabia’s role in dousing the flames of Arab reaction to Netanyahu’s annexation plan was specifically mentioned in Israeli security circles recently. The Saudi support for any form of annexation was deemed crucial.

True to form, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s regime has been trying to soften Saudi hostility to Israel in the media and particularly television drama. A drama called Exit 7 produced by Saudi Arabia’s MBC TV recently contained a scene of two actors arguing about normalisation with Israel.

“Saudi Arabia did not gain anything when it supported Palestinians, and must now establish relations with Israel… The real enemy is the one who curses you, denies your sacrifices and support, and curses you day and night more than the Israelis,” one character says.

The scene produced a backlash on social media and eventually a fulsome statement of support for the Palestinian cause by the Emirati foreign minister.

Translation: This oppression taking place in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] muzzling any opinion against normalisation with the Zionist enemy can only reap a bitter harvest. They cannot tolerate debate (even if it is online), by God, this is more dangerous than coronavirus.

The attempt demonstrated the limits of Saudi state mind control, which will be weakened still further by the drop in the price of oil and the advent of austerity across the Arab world.

The future Saudi king will no longer be able to buy his way out of trouble.

The Committee

It is worth repeating again that the motive for enumerating the destabilising effects of annexation is not some inherent disquiet at the loss of property or rights. The security establishment’s central concern stems from the possibility that Israel’s existing borders could be imperilled by overreach.

For similar reasons, a number of Israeli journalists have forecast that annexation will never happen.

They could be right. Pragmatism could win the day. Or they could be underestimating the part that nationalist religious fundamentalism plays in the calculations of Netanyahu, David Friedman, the US ambassador, and the US billionaire Sheldon Adelson, the three engineers of the current policy.

While the US role as “an honest broker” in the conflict has long been exposed as a sham, this is the first time I can remember that a US ambassador and a major US financier make more zealous settlers than a Likud prime minister himself.

Friedman is chairman of the joint US-Israel committee on settlement annexation, which will determine the borders of post-annexation Israel. This committee is meaningless in international terms, as it has no representation of any other party to the conflict, let alone the Palestinians whose leaders have boycotted the process.