The Concept and the Causes of War

May 2nd, 2023 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

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

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

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

*** 

There are many definitions and/or understandings of war. However, from the very academic point of view, war can be understood as an armed conflict between at least two sides usually but not necessarily states fought usually for some (geo)political goals. The focal conceptual idea of war is the use of force between large-scale political subjects like states, empires, or coalitions. Historically, wars have been fought mainly for the control of certain land for different reasons ranging from a purely political one to a purely economic one or a combination of several of them.

Many types of war and warfare can be seen from the numerous adjectives that can be given before the word “war” like civil war, guerrilla war, total war, limited war, gang war, tribal war, regional war, local war, world war, religious war, race war, cold war, trade war, independence war, propaganda war, cyber war, class war, etc. Some of these names, however, are, in fact, metaphors that are exploiting the image of violent conflict over some political or other goal taken from IR, and transferred to some actors who are not the states.

Nevertheless, from a very legal viewpoint, states can be at war without, in fact, using force against each other (for instance, Montenegro’s declaration of war to Japan in 1904) or vice versa, states can use force against each other on quite a large scale but formally not to be in declared warfare against each other (for instance, the German invasion of Poland in 1939). Nonetheless, the identification of warfare with some political background concerning the reasons and goals, in theory, means that it can be applied to the system of international relations (IR) and domestic civil wars. On both levels – interstate and domestic – wars are in practice very often caused by some disputes over sovereignty and land.

The beginning of the modern form of warfare as presumably, an organized and more or less clear goal-directed violent activity comes from the development of the European state system in the early modern time, i.e. from around 1500 onward. Any war has either formal or quasi-legal character from the point of international law.

The declaration of a state of war does not mean necessarily to be followed by an outbreak of hostilities (for instance, Austria-Hungary started hostilities against Serbia in 1914 one month after the war declaration). After the Cold War, it is more and more used the term “new” wars which are characterized as being linked to intra-state ethnic conflict (for instance, the destruction of ex-Yugoslavia in the 1990s), the usage of advanced military technology, or the involvement of non-state actors of different nature like terrorist groups or guerrilla movements. Hegemonic and guerrilla wars are on diametrically opposite ends of the scale of different wars. The first one is a war for the creation of dominance of huge portions of the world or the entire world order by deeply restructuring the global balance of power. The guerrilla war (in Spanish “little” war) is, in fact, an insurgency or “people’s” war which is fought by irregular troops which are using tactics that are suited to the terrain and emphasize mobility and surprise rather than superior firepower.

It can be said that each war is to a certain extent unique and unrepeatable as each of them are the product of a specific set of historical circumstances followed by particular social, economic, and political backgrounds. Nevertheless, there is a historical very fact that war as a phenomenon appears constantly and, therefore, many theoreticians argue that it should exist deeper explanations of war from the point of view that certainly there are some common elements in all of them that apply to all historical times and political-economic societies.

In the theory of IR, there are many approaches to the reasons for military conflicts, but certainly, there is no single or unified view about the causes of war and warfare.

According to the majority of theoreticians, war is nothing else but only a large-scale expression of the selfish, violent, and power-seeking nature of humans. In other words, war is a product of instincts and appetites that are natural elements of human individuals.

Consequently, war is endless for the reason that human desires and appetites are infinite, while the resources to satisfy them are always finite. As a result, the struggle and competition that gives rise to the will inevitably express itself in violence, bloodshed, and war crimes. Some zoologists claim that social aggression is simply biologically programmed and especially in mails resulting from territorial and sexual instincts that are found in all species including humans. Technically, war can be fought in order to protect the (home)land, acquire wealth and resources, achieve national glory, advance religious, ideological, or political principles, or establish racial or ethnonational hegemony, etc. For instance, one of the causes of war can be autarky (“self-rule”) – the principle of economic self-sufficiency which can result either in colonial expansion or a withdrawal from international trade. Nevertheless, in all of these cases, war provides a necessary and inevitable framework for aggressive behavior that is hard-wired in human nature.

Others, like neo-realists, are claiming that the regular happening of war in history is a result of the anarchic structure of the system of IR. For them, war is an enduring feature of IR and world affairs. The possibility of war stems from the inescapable dynamics of power politics. As states pursue their own national interest they will inevitably come into conflict with one another. Nevertheless, neo-realists claim that violent power politics is something real and natural. Moreover, the state’s egoism and rivalry between and among political actors are inherent tendencies within human nature toward self-seeking, competition, and aggression. From a neo-realistic point of view, the international system is, in fact, anarchic, and, therefore, (nation)states are simply forced to rely on self-help for the sake to achieve national survival and security. The common viewpoint by the neo-realists is that the states can be stable and secured only by the acquisition of military power which means a strong likelihood of war. The crucial factor distinguishing between war and peace is the balance of power. In principle, states will avoid war if they calculate that their chances of victory are slim. Furthermore, decisions about peace and war are made through the more profound analysis of a cost-benefit in which national self-interest may dictate either the use of war or its avoidance. Nevertheless, neo-realists claim that states that wish to preserve peace must, therefore, be prepared for warfare as in this way they hope to deter potential aggressors and prevent any other state or coalition of states from achieving a position of regional predominance or global hegemony (for instance, the British traditional policy toward continental Europe).

The third group argues that war is resulting from the political construction of states and the ideologies which they are expressing in the international arena. For instance, the liberals thought that in the 19th century, aristocratic states have been aggressive contrary to those states with the republican (democratic) political system due to the martial inclinations of their ruling class. For the neo-liberals, peace is natural, but by no means an inevitable, condition for IR. War arises from three sets of circumstances and each of which is avoidable:

  1. State egoism in the context of anarchy may lead to conflict and a possibility of war. The anarchy in IR can and should be replaced by an international rule of law, achieved through the construction of supranational bodies (for instance, the OUN).
  2. War is often linked to economic nationalism and autarky – the quest for economic self-sufficiency (as a result, it is expected to conflict with one another). Peace can be in this case achieved through free trade and other forms of economic interdependence which may make war very economically costly that it becomes unthinkable.
  3. The deposition of a state towards war or peace is crucially determined by its constitutional character. Nondemocratic authoritarian states tend to be militaristic and expansionist, accustomed to the use of force in order to achieve both domestic and foreign goals. Contrary, as they claim, democratic states are more peaceful, at least in their relations with other democratic states. However, the neo-liberals forget the historical link between inner political democracy and external military imperialism (for instance, the case of the UK which was around 1900 the greatest imperialistic state in the world and probably history).

In the 1930s, it was almost a common opinion that Nazi-fascist states of extremely authoritarian political regimes have been aggressive. The Marxist political philosophy is explaining war primarily in economic terms and argues that states with capitalistic social-economic order are driven to aggression (imperialism) for the real reason of their uncompromised economic competition for control over the markets, while, contrary, socialist states have been relating to each other peacefully. For Marxists, WWI was an imperialistic war fought in pursuit of colonial gains in Africa and elsewhere. The origins of modern warfare can be traced back to the capitalistic economic system. War is the pursuit of economic advantage by other means.

By Marxists, socialist movements are presented as anti-war or even of pacifist orientation being shaped by a commitment to internationalism that means cooperation and peace but not confrontation and war. The world’s most powerful capitalistic states use war, directly or indirectly, for the sake to defend or expand their global economies and political interests. Therefore, war is closely associated in modern (capitalistic) times with imperialism and hegemony. As a suggestion, long-time peace can be built only by a radical redistribution of global power. The Marxist conclusion during the Cold War was that global socialism was bringing global peace, prosperity, and cooperation between different nations, groups, states, etc. Furthermore, for them, justice in domestic social relations was bringing peace in the international arena. Finally, for the Marxists, economic class exploitation followed by imperialistic cross-sea colonialism was bringing global conflicts and wars.

However, liberals believe that the constitutional and governmental political structure of the states inclines some of them toward aggression while others toward peaceful cohabitation. They shared an idea that the states with democratic political arrangements do not go to war against one another, as is implied by the so-called Democratic Peace Thesis. By contrast, the liberals argue that authoritarian states are inclined towards militarism and warfare for the reason that such political regimes are heavily dependent on the armed forces to keep inner political and social order in the absence of the democratic process of elected representatives of the people and through the need to subdue subordinate national and ethnic groups. For instance, communist states are aggressive for the reason of their undemocratic totalitarian political and economic organization followed by their universalist ideology.

Contrary, liberal democracies exist peacefully as a result of their economic interdependence with each other, and the constraints of democracy on the use of force by the state’s authorities. From the empirical standpoint, the liberals so far have the better of this argument as there are few cases of democracies that have been going to war with each other. However, historically, the greatest and most violent imperialists and exploiters of colonies were exactly the liberal democracies which as well as produced numerous examples of war crimes, exterminations of ethnic groups, or direct support of dictatorial regimes abroad. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of militarism, either in quasi-democratic (the USA) or authoritarian (North Korea) political systems, is usually leading to a glorification of armed forces, belief in heroism and self-sacrifice, and the recognition of war as not only a legitimate instrument of foreign policy to protect national interest but as well as an expression of national patriotism.

The branch of political science theoreticians – social constructivists, place special emphasis on cultural and ideological factors which are most influential on the process of making war. A view on war, politics, and peace by the feminist movement is very unique and new. Feminists adopted, actually, a gender perspective on war, politics, and peace as they claim that wars historically, in fact, are fought between males. However, they forgot to take into consideration several important cases of female warmongering like the former US Secretaries of State Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton, mystical Amazon female warriors, or the British PM Margaret Thatcher. Nevertheless, the feminists claim that the origins of the war are the warlike nature of males and the institution of patriarchy they created. Contrarily, there are allegedly close associations between women and peace based on the natural peacefulness of women and on the “fact” that women’s experience of the world encourages stress on human connectedness and cooperation. In other words, the image of international politics as conflict-ridden and prone to violence reflects masculinist assumptions about self-interest, competition, and the quest for domination.

Critical theorists like Noam Chomsky have been showing a particular interest in the concept and features of hegemonic war. They argue that the global Great Powers use war either directly or indirectly for two practical reasons: 1) to defend, or 2) to expand their worldwide political or/and economic interests. Consequently, according to them, great wars are associated with the state’s hegemony projects, while global peace is going to be built up only by the restructuring of IR and the international system of Great Powers. A UK academic and IR theorist Mary Kaldor in her book New Wars and Old Wars (2006) claims that there is a direct link between new types of war after 1990 to the crisis in state authority due to the impact of privatization and globalization. There are violent fights for the sake to obtain either access to or control of the state, state authorities, and institutions which are leading to huge violations of human rights in many cases carried out in the name of identity and mainly have been pointed against civilians and their rights. Another feature of the post-Cold War armed conflicts across the world is asymmetrical warfare which is a war fought between two opposite sides but with clearly unequal levels of military, economic, and technological power and potential. In principle, but not necessary, in such kinds of wars, warfare strategies tend to be adapted to the needs of the weak. Many contemporary wars are caused by insurgency – an armed uprising which is involving irregular soldiers with the final political goal to overthrow the established and usually legitimate regime. Furthermore, contemporary so-cold “new” wars have several common features:

1) They tend to be civil wars rather than wars between the states.

2) The issue of identity is generally very prominent and it can be even the chief cause of the conflict.

3) “New” wars are asymmetrical as they are often fought between unequal sides.

4) The distinction between military and civilians is disappearing.

5) “New” wars in many cases are more barbaric compared to “old” wars as clearly was shown in the 1990s with the case of the violent destruction of ex-Yugoslavia especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina and South Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo-Metochia where in 1996−1999 the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army sponsored by the US Clinton-Albright Administration took up an armed uprising against Serbia’s authorities and institutions for the sake to separate the province from the rest of Serbia and proclaim independence that happened in February 2008.

*

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

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

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

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

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

*** 

Warren, MI – School bus driver collapsed while driving (VIDEO ABOVE), 13 year old boy Dillon Reeves from Lois E. Carter Middle School, jumped in and brought the bus to a halt on April 26, 2023 (click here)

Michigan Dillon Reeves stops school bus after driver passes out

The bus driver experienced “some dizziness” while driving and followed protocol by alerting ‘“home base” that she wasn’t feeling well and was going to pull over.

But the driver didn’t make it to where she planned to park, eventually passed out and couldn’t stop the bus, which started to veer into oncoming traffic.

13 year old boy Dillon Reeves, who was seated about five rows back, “jumped up from his seat, threw his backpack down, ran to the front of the bus, grabbed the steering wheel and brought the bus to a stop in the middle of the road”.

The bus driver, a 40-year-old woman, is “stable but with precautions” and was transported to a hospital for examination. She had no physical injuries and suffered a medical emergency owing to a loss of consciousness.

Chula Vista, CA – A school bus crashed around 5pm after the bus driver had a medical emergency, on April 25, 2023 (click here) 

Brazil, Pontal – student took over after school bus driver collapsed and died (March 30, 2023) 

Image

Brazil, Sertaozinho – 17 year old saved his classmates after school bus driver had a heart attack (March. 30, 2023)

A 17-year-old teenager saved his classmates who were on a school bus after the driver suffered a heart attack in the town of Sertaozinho. (click here)

Image of the IC2 road, at the height of the municipality of Cernache, in Coimbra ( Portugal ).

Italy – bus driver collapsed on steering wheel, teachers took control of bus and saved 52 children, on March 6, 2023 (click here) 

France, Sezanne – 52 year old school bus driver had heart attack in front of school and died (March 6, 2023) (click here)

Corps, France – Bus carrying 40 schoolchildren plunges down creek in French Alps, after driver has a medical incident, on March 4, 2023 (click here)

The bus left the road and went down the wooded slope

The mayor said the “most probable scenario” is that the driver had some kind of medical problem while behind the wheel.

According to local media, the children in the vehicle were returning from a summer camp in the Hautes-Alpes.

Italy, Citadel – School bus driver had medical emergency while driving, died and crashed into a bus (Jan. 25, 2023)

Source: (click here)(click here)

USA, NC school bus driver had heart attack (Dec. 9, 2022)

72 year old school bus driver Rita Sturdivant had a heart attack on Dec. 9, 2022 while driving students. (click here)

My Take… 

This is another serious problem no one is talking about.

Just like the recent increase in pilot incapacitation incidents with a serious risk of a large commercial plane crashing (so far all large planes have landed safely), these incidents of school bus drivers collapsing at the wheel bring about a risk to the safety of the children on board.

These bus drivers were almost certainly COVID-19 vaccinated and faced a vaccine mandate at some point. Now they are collapsing from COVID-19 vaccine injuries to the heart.

The health authorities and politicians are ignoring pilots collapsing and having heart attacks in-flight, so they will almost certainly ignore school bus drivers collapsing and crashing buses full of children.

But this is where parents can step in and demand accountability. If enough parents can wake up in time.

*

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

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Died Suddenly: School Bus Drivers Are Collapsing at the Wheel. Nine Recent Incidents
  • Tags: ,

The Corona Agenda’s “Abiding Ironies”: Freedom, Slavery and Singularity

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, May 01, 2023

I was astonished recently to hear, from a highly respected writer, an astute analyst of the Corona agenda, at a gathering of real doctors here in New Zealand who stood up for informed consent and individualized treatment and the like, that we should get used to less liberty.

Australia: Outsourced to the US Military Establishment

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, May 01, 2023

In Australia, the entire military and security establishment is outsourced to Washington’s former mandarins, many of them earning a pile in consultancy fees. This, perhaps, is what Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles means when he talks about the Australian Defence Force moving “beyond interoperability to interchangeability.”

U.S. Interventionism in Sudan: Clashes Between Two Military Forces

By Steven Sahiounie, May 01, 2023

Clashes have been going on in Sudan for more than ten days between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support forces and corpses fill the streets. All attempts at a truce have so far failed. The clashes involved all types of light, medium and heavy weapons until military aviation was used.

‘One Health’ — The Global Takeover of Everything. The Pandemic Treaty

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 01, 2023

The WHO’s pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments are two of the strategies that are driving us “toward transformation of society that threaten democracy and our existing ways of life.” Both are aimed at achieving the same thing, namely centralizing power over nations with the WHO.

The West’s “Sanctioning” and Isolating Russia Has Failed. Massive Worldwide Majority for Multipolarity

By Peter Koenig, May 01, 2023

Western efforts at “sanctioning” Russia have failed miserably. So have efforts to isolate Russia from the rest of the world, by bribing countries – especially of the Global South. They have had exactly the contrary effect.

War Weapon Ukraine: The Erasure of History. Manlio Dinucci

By Manlio Dinucci, May 01, 2023

Wars flare up from Sudan to Ukraine. As a result, the global military spending is growing. Europe spent 13% more in 2022 than in 2021 on weapons and military operations, recording the sharpest increase in 30 years. Italy’s annual military spending has risen to more than €30 billion, or an average of more than €80 million a day.

Crying Out Against the Drive for World War. Emanuel Pastreich

By Emanuel Pastreich, May 01, 2023

I want to speak to you today about the grave situation we face, a crisis of the soul and of the nation that politicians fear to even mention as they bury us in talk about domestic programs.

Israel: An Occupying Power Cannot be a Beacon of Democracy

By Prof. Alon Ben-Meir, May 01, 2023

Had even some of the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who stood tall to fight for the preservation of their democracy experienced for one day what the Palestinians endure every day under occupation, they would realize how broken Israel’s democracy is and how shameful it is to demand that they are entitled to live in a free society while the Palestinians live in servitude.

Blood Clots, Pulmonary Emboli in Young Women: A Not-so-rare and Often Fatal Complication of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination

By Dr. William Makis, May 01, 2023

Pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs) as an adverse event following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination has been well known since the vaccines were rolled out. Here is a case report of a 59 year old woman with pulmonary embolism 7 days after 1st Pfizer dose, published in June 2021. They always knew.

Rockefeller Foundation’s New Focus on Climate Change Signals the Next Phase of the Great Reset

By Derrick Broze, May 01, 2023

Should the public ignore the history of the Rockefeller Foundation as they shift resources towards promoting Agenda 2030 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals?

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Corona Agenda’s “Abiding Ironies”: Freedom, Slavery and Singularity

Australia: Outsourced to the US Military Establishment

May 1st, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

*** 

It’s a very funny thing. In the US, the provision of services in such industries as security and intelligence is outsourced in a sprawling complex of contractors and subcontractors. In Australia, the entire military and security establishment is outsourced to Washington’s former mandarins, many of them earning a pile in consultancy fees. This, perhaps, is what Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles means when he talks about the Australian Defence Force moving “beyond interoperability to interchangeability.”

The list of recipients is depressingly long, and suggests that Australia has ceased to have any pretensions of sovereignty in defence matters. Take, for instance, the appointment of US Vice Admiral William Hilarides to the post of reviewing the future of the Royal Australian Navy’s surface fleet, for which he is pocketing US$4,000 a day. Since 2016, he has received US$1.3 million in contracts from the Australian government.

Hilarides featured in a story by the Washington Post last year, which revealed that two retired US admirals and three former US Navy civilian leaders were “playing critical but secretive roles as paid advisers to the government of Australia during its negotiations to acquire top-secret nuclear submarine technology from the United States and Britain.”

It gets worse. Six retired US admirals are identified as having offered their services to the Commonwealth since 2015. Hilarides was particularly keen, having retired a mere two months before seeking permission to advise the Australians on how best to extend the life of its Collins Class submarine fleet.

US Navy officials had few problems with the application, approving it within five days and forwarding it to the US State Department, which treated it as a mere formality. Hilarides, in his application, stated that he would be receiving money from a contract between the Australian Commonwealth and the consulting firm Burdenshaw Associates, based in Fairfax City, Virginia.  The same firm has received US$6.8 million from the Australian taxpayer since 2015.

In a statement provided to the paper, the Australian Department of Defence revealed that Hilarides, another admiral Thomas Eccles, and a number of those on the Commonwealth’s Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel, were furnishing Canberra with “expert advice on the performance of the naval shipbuilding exercise. This includes the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines and other issues relevant to naval acquisition and sustainment.”

What is also unsettling is that Stephen Johnson, one of the US admiral advisory set, unbeknownst to the Australian public, also served as a deputy secretary of defence for Canberra for two years. With such a level of involvement, it is only a matter of time before the entire complement of the ADF is signed over to Washington, if it already hasn’t been done so over a game of golf.

In documents supplied to Congress by the Pentagon in March, the outsourcing picture comes increasingly clotted. Retired Admiral John Richardson makes an appearance, having received US$5,000 a day as a contracted part-time consultant with the Australian Defence Department.

Another figure who has made an appearance in this busy outsourcing circuit is former US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. (What is Australia becoming: a retirement village for servants of the US defence-security-intelligence complex?)  The Australian National University has made a habit of hosting Clapper at the ANU National Security College to discuss, among other things, “key global and national security issues including the future of Australia’s alliance with the United States.”

Clapper’s academic waltz through the corridors of power has involved discussions “with policy makers and security practitioners, as well as academics, students and private sector partners in the College’s work on issues such as cyber security and analysing future strategic challenges.”

The Pentagon documents also reveal that Clapper received, in 2018, an undisclosed sum for services performed for the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) in Canberra. Only the previous year, the decision by the Turnbull government to create the ONI as “a single point of intelligence coordination” was praised by Clapper as bringing Australia more into line with the other Five Eyes partners.

We can only hope that Clapper has not imparted too much knowledge upon the unwary. His record as DNI was filled with a number of injudicious howlers. In March 2013, he falsely testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the government does “not wittingly” collect the telephone records of millions of Americans. “There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect – but not wittingly,” he stated in response to a question posed by Senator Ron Wyden.

Within a matter of months, it became clear that such a statement was false, notably in light of the revelations from former defence contractor Edward Snowden. The New York Times was emphatic: Clapper had “lied to Congress”. In his withering critique of Clapper, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul suggested that the intelligence community had engaged in “great abuses”. Perhaps, he proposed, both Snowden and Clapper might serve time “in a prison cell together” to further enlighten the country “over what we should and shouldn’t do.”

In 2019, Clapper did his Pontius Pilate act on CNN, claiming that he did not lie so much as make “a big mistake”. He “just simply didn’t understand” what he was being asked. “I thought of another surveillance program, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, when I was asked about Section 215 of the Patriot Act at the time”.

His credibility suitably shot, Clapper is still given to making rich offerings of tainted advice. He is manic about Moscow’s electoral interference, going so far as to tell NBC’s Chuck Todd in May 2017 that the Russians were “typically … almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever”. With such xenophobic opinions, he must be a fabulous guest in Australia’s isolated capital.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia: Outsourced to the US Military Establishment

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

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

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

*** 

Clashes have been going on in Sudan for more than ten days between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support forces and corpses fill the streets. All attempts at a truce have so far failed. The clashes involved all types of light, medium and heavy weapons until military aviation was used. The major regional and international countries are working to find a way out of this crisis, but all have failed. But Sudan, like all countries, suffers from crises of external interference in general, and American intervention has a big role in crises, especially since Sudan is rich in natural resources such as oil, gold, and others, so we see a major international conflict over Sudan.

The interest of the United States of America

The United States seeks to prevent the strengthening of Russia in Africa, disrupt the Russian logistics base project in the Red Sea and, if possible, weaken the sovereignty of Egypt and Ethiopia, in this context, they are quite satisfied with the Civil War, and the United States will do everything possible for its continuation and spread to the entire region in the future. According to information, representatives of the United States are already negotiating with paramilitary groups in the Amhara region of Ethiopia to participate in the conflict along with Hamidti for 140 million dollars.

UN: 60% of health facilities in Khartoum are closed

For his part, Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the UN secretary-general, said that 60% of health facilities in Khartoum are closed due to the ongoing battles between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support forces.

The UN spokesman added that the closure of hospitals has disrupted the treatment of almost 50 thousand children suffering from acute malnutrition.

At the same time, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Sudan said that the fighting does not allow them to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the new humanitarian needs, adding: “Unfortunately, the fighting continues despite the multiple declarations on the ceasefire.

A few days ago, the UN coordinator said that many humanitarian supplies have been looted in Sudan, noting that access to health services in Sudan is almost impossible due to the fighting.

Saudi-German talks on Sudan.

Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan discussed on Thursday with his German counterpart “Annalena Bearbock” the “accelerated developments of events in Sudan”.

According to the Saudi Press Agency, “was”, the two ministers stressed the importance of stopping the military escalation, providing the necessary protection for Sudanese civilians and residents on its territory, and providing safe humanitarian corridors for those wishing to leave Sudanese territory. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has also sent barges to transport its nationals and nationals of many Arab and foreign countries.

China-Sudan relations decline

China-Sudan relations were very developed, as Sudan was the sixth largest exporter of oil to China, and the volume of trade exchange between the two countries reached 11 billion dollars, but after the secession of South Sudan in 2011, which contains 75% of oil production in Sudan, Sudan’s oil importance declined for Beijing, but trade and economic cooperation remained between the two countries, and there are 130 Chinese companies in Sudan.

After the fall of the regime of President Bashir in 2019, who was described as a friend of the Chinese people, relations deteriorated further, and the new Sudanese leaders could not build trust and cooperation with Beijing, and the issue of Chinese debt to Sudan and the latter’s default was another obstacle to relations between the two countries. The issue of Chinese debt scheduling was the focus of the Chinese President’s meeting with his Sudanese counterpart on the sidelines of the Arab-Chinese Summit held in Riyadh last year.

China’s interest in Sudan comes as part of its interest in the African continent, as the volume of trade exchange between China and the African continent reached 280 billion dollars in 2022, while the trade exchange between the continent and America did not exceed 80 billion dollars during the same year.

The Chinese presence in Sudan is very weak compared to the American and French-Israeli presence, the number of Americans in Sudan is more than sixteen thousand, and in Djibouti two thousand soldiers, and the Russians have fifteen in Africa, these are the reasons why Beijing has a weak presence and worries to interfere in the Sudanese affairs.

The Red Cross in Sudan

The clashes between the two military forces broke out on April 15 in the capital Khartoum and the Merwe military air base in the northern state, before expanding to other areas, reaping as of yesterday evening 512 dead and 4,000 injured.

Thousands of Khartoum residents have been displaced to other states, especially as most hospitals have been disrupted, and many civilians have been cut off from accessing communications or getting electricity, even drinking water and food.

What is happening in Sudan will not end soon, the conflict will be prolonged, as each party receives unlimited support from regional powers who want to plunder Sudan’s wealth, stripping it of everything. The crisis there is not new; it began when the world forced the Sudanese to divide, through the coup against Omar al-Bashir, to the way things are now, so it does not seem that the situation in Sudan will end soon, and the biggest loser is the Sudanese people.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Interventionism in Sudan: Clashes between Two Military Forces
  • Tags:

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

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

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

*** 

I was astonished recently to hear, from a highly respected writer, an astute analyst of the Corona agenda, at a gathering of real doctors here in New Zealand who stood up for informed consent and individualized treatment and the like, that we should get used to less liberty. I remember that moment vividly when the wise, kindly, avuncular figure spoke to us via a projected video, because as I looked around me, startled, nobody else had batted an eye.

What exactly did he mean by this? I’m not sure – but I have a creeping feeling that, three years after the Corona avalanche, people have been ‘gently’ persuaded to accept a new abnormal loss of freedom, even from those ostensibly in our freedom movements.

Is it because we have all been beaten into pulp by relentless warnings of ever-emerging infectious threats, warnings about the inevitably cataclysmic consequences of Climate Change, warnings about the inescapable dangers of overpopulation?

The message is that we – by which I mean rather ordinary people, people who work for a living and struggle to make ends meet – must sacrifice our personal dreams of autonomy for a common good that has been defined by a class of shadowy and not-so-shadowy billionaire Elitists, represented by their servile institutions such as the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the Federation of State Medical Boards, and the like.

They, however, can do whatever they want, I guess. I am certain that they eat well, that they enjoy the finest accommodation, that they travel whenever and wherever they wish, that they can indulge virtually any sensual pleasure as they see fit – and I am equally certain that what they have, what they possess, and what they already enjoy is never quite enough.

The nature of Power, as I have written many times before, is to enhance itself. Having great Power renders one lusting for more, and the very most that can be wished for becomes an imagined exercise of omnipotent control, a kind of orgy of gratification that reaches an apotheosis when Power is infused by sexual thrill, and the world is made in the image of …

Of what?

I ask myself daily, to what to these Power-wielders aspire? The atomic nucleus has been breached, human DNA and RNA are being manipulated, and the once-clear definitions of gender are being turned into a macabre impressionistic blur.

I remember that as a kid I made a contrivance that would allow me to turn the light switch off in my room without leaving my bed, and I still recall the great satisfaction I felt by this deft economy of action. This innocent pleasure nonetheless contains the kernel of what the Masters of the Digital Universe must feel when with the magic of keystrokes or swipes they can drop in on our conversations, censor our expressive output – audio, visual or literary – and employ the sciences of miniaturization and condensation for their dream of control.

Except their dream leads inexorably to a Singularity that extinguishes all that is good about being human: it is nothing more or less than an aspiration of infantile grandiosity, where a mere thought or fantasy is the equivalent of action, and the thinker-fantasist is ecstatically Immortal.

I observe how callous and cavalier the Elites are with ordinary human lives, in keeping with the attitude of warlords and leaders throughout history, but with this very significant exception: their reach is now global, as the Corona exercise has demonstrated, and far more encompassing than that of the greatest of Emperors.

As they winnow the population with their bio-weapons and push a track-and-trace agenda on our movements and even our thoughts, they encourage calls for freedom to ring only in areas that pose no risk to their program. ‘My body, my choice’ did not necessarily mean ‘Noli me tangere’ when it came to the jabs.

These days so many young people question virtually nothing their authorities in government or the moribund MSM dish out, at a time in their lives when the critical energies of curiosity and independence should be burning high. Instead, they funnel their spirited quest for Liberty into the side-channels of Identity, demanding that they be known not by their fruits but by their pronouns – as if ‘who I say I am’ assumes transcendent precedence over ‘what I do’.

It’s a neat and devilish trick of the Overlords, convincing slaves that they are free, and it’s reminiscent of the message from the New Zealand government during the desolate and devastating lockdowns that we were all ‘coming together’, ironically enough, by staying apart.

*

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

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Corona Agenda’s “Abiding Ironies”: Freedom, Slavery and Singularity
  • Tags:

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

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

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

*** 

According to an article in American Banker titled “SEC’s Gensler Directly Links Crypto and Bank Failures,” SEC Chair Gary Gensler has asked for more financial resources to police the crypto market. Gensler testified at an April 18 House Financial Services Committee hearing: 

[Crypto companies] have chosen to be noncompliant and not provide investors with confidence and protections, and it undermines the $100 trillion capital markets …

Silvergate and Signature [banks] were engaged in the crypto business — I mean some would say that they were crypto-​backed … 

Silicon Valley Bank, actually when it failed, saw the country’s — the world’s — second-leading stable coin had $3 billion involved there, depegged, so it’s interesting just how this was all part of this crypto narrative as well.

Cryptocurrency experts Caitlin Long and Nic Carter take the opposite view. They acknowledge the link between crypto and the recent wave of bank failures and the runs and threatened runs they triggered, but Carter and Long make a compelling case that it was the FDIC, the SEC and the Federal Reserve that brought the banks down, by a coordinated, extrajudicial “war on crypto” that blocked that otherwise-legal industry from acquiring the banking services it needs. 

The public banking movement has run up against similar roadblocks. Both cryptocurrencies and publicly-owned banks compete with the Wall Street-dominated private banking cartel, but more on that after a look at the suspicious events behind the recent bank runs.

The War on Crypto

In a February 2023 article on Pirate Wires titled “Operation Choke Point 2.0,” Carter laid out the case that the federal government was quietly attempting to ban crypto. In a 7,000-word March 23 follow-up titled “Did the Government Start a Financial Crisis in an Attempt to Destroy Crypto?”, he writes:

The two most crypto-​focused banks, Silvergate and Signature, were forced into liquidation and receivership, respectively. The established narrative is that they made “bad bets” and lost, or that they couldn’t handle flighty depositors in the form of tech and crypto startups.

But there’s an alternative version of events being pieced together that is far more sinister … 

The preponderance of public evidence suggests that Silvergate and Signature didn’t commit suicide — they were executed.

In January 2023, … [s]ome in the crypto space noticed highly coordinated activity between the White House, financial regulators, and the Fed, aimed at dissuading banks from dealing with crypto clients, making it far more difficult for the industry to operate. This is problematic because it represented an attempted seizure of power far beyond what is normally reserved for the executive branch.

He observes that banking crypto firms wasn’t prohibited. It was just made very expensive and reputationally risky, by burying the bank in paperwork and unpleasant interrogations from regulators. The Fed also made it clear that new crypto-focused bank charters would be denied. Silvergate, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), and Signature were put out of business:

Now, depositors are fleeing to the largest banking institutions, money market funds, or simply holding Treasuries directly. Whether intentional or not, these policies will cause smaller banks to die off, making credit more scarce, reducing competitiveness in the bank sector, and making it easier to set policy by marshaling a few large banks for political ends.

Carter observes that the distress in the banking sector was caused by the Fed’s attempt to reverse the inflationary effects of excess government spending, particularly for COVID-19 relief, by rapidly raising interest rates. As a result, government bond portfolios, “the foundational collateral asset of the financial system,” radically depreciated, causing $620 billion in unrealized losses collectively to U.S. banks. “But,” he writes, “there’s also a political subtext here. Most banks are now sitting on mark-​to-​market losses in their bond portfolios, but they’re not facing runs from their clients. … Silvergate met its end because — well after the crypto credit crisis of ‘22 had concluded — its remaining depositors were cajoled and bullied into withdrawing their funds.”

The most visible smoking gun, says Carter, was the decision to seize Signature Bank:

On Sunday the 12th of March, Signature (SBNY) was abruptly sent into FDIC receivership by the NYDFS [New York State Department of Financial Services]. This was not a two-bit crypto bank. They had $110B in deposits as of YE 2022, of which around 20 percent came from crypto-focused companies. … 

Almost immediately, we knew something was wrong. Signature was not a “crypto bank” like Silvergate, where the majority of deposits were derived from crypto firms. It was a pretty venerable NY bank that primarily serviced real estate. It was not in as bleak a financial position as Silvergate or SVB, or other beleaguered regional banks. They weren’t closed on a Friday afternoon after market close, as is typical in receivership situations, but snuck in on a Sunday night, practically a footnote to the SVB shutdown. The FDIC was reportedly surprised on Sunday when SBNY was delivered into their hands. The NYDFS has maintained a well known long-running animus against crypto. The bank crisis was the perfect cover to take down the last remaining bank, which was unapologetic about servicing crypto firms (and ran important fiat settlement infrastructure).

The only problem: based on what we know, it appears that Signature wasn’t actually insolvent when they were nationalized and $4.3B of shareholder value was vaporized.

Carter writes that the crypto industry found an unlikely ally in Barney Frank, former chair of the House Financial Services Committee, the Frank in Dodd-​Frank, and a Signature board member. He alleged that the bank could have opened on Monday, and that leadership was shocked when they were put into receivership. In an interview with New York Magazine, Frank left “absolutely no doubt that the closure was a political hit job, primarily motivated by a desire to send a message to the crypto industry.” Carter observes:

As more data emerged, even the taciturn WSJ became convinced that Signature was a political execution.

In particular, the disparate treatment given to Signature versus their peers PacWest or First Republic is extremely telling. Both banks were in similar or worse financial positions, yet both were given time to save themselves, whereas Signature was seized on a Sunday night, right after SVB’s collapse. …

Most worryingly, the takedowns of Silvergate and Signature represent a rank lawlessness associated with authoritarian regimes. In a lawful society, solvent banks are not seized by the government simply because their clientele is politically disfavored. Shareholders in Signature had $4.3B in equity ($22B at peak) wiped out with no recourse. … Shareholders who saw their equity wrongly vaporized should sue under New York law.

He says that the upshot will be to drive crypto innovators abroad. In fact that move is happening already

Killing Custodia: A States’ Rights Issue

A second smoking gun was the denial of FDIC insurance to Custodia Bank, which had a 100%-reserve business model that would have cost the FDIC nothing and posed no risk to the public. Custodia’s goal was just to provide a secure onramp from dollars to cryptocurrencies and an offramp back again. In fact, Custodia didn’t need to ensure its deposits, because it would not have been making loans from them. It would have kept them in reserve for the depositors. The bank needed FDIC insurance only because without it, the Fed refused to give Custodia a master account, necessary to participate in the national payment system. 

Caitlin Long, the Wall Street veteran who founded Custodia, argues that this newly-imposed rule constitutes an unconstitutional violation of the long-standing right of states to charter their own banks. In an April 17 article titled “Why Defending the Right of States to Charter Banks Without Federal Permission Is Critical,” she writes: 

Until a decade ago, it was unheard of that a bank would stop serving entire groups of customers or the people in lawful — if controversial — industries. It was also unheard of that banks would be blocked from accessing either of the two federal utilities in the banking industry: (i) deposit insurance and (ii) the U.S. dollar payment system (which the FDIC and Fed operate, respectively). Indeed, legislative history shows that Congress took great pains to keep the operation of these two utilities standalone and fully separated from the power to charter banks. As a check and balance, Congress wanted all chartering work done exclusively by the states or the lone federal agency that can charter banks, the OCC. Access to the two utilities was automatic for eligible banks, albeit with bank-​specific insurance premiums and overdraft restrictions.

The dual banking system – federal and state – goes back to the days of Abraham Lincoln, when the National Bank Act was passed. Before that, state-chartered banks were issuing their own currencies as paper promissory notes with their own names on them, an unstable system. The National Bank Act unified the country under a single paper currency, the U.S. dollar, by imposing a 10% tax on other bank-issued promissory notes. With the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the U.S. dollar became the Federal Reserve Note. The national currency was federally issued but states retained the right to charter banks. As Long observes:

Historically, states have acted as a check against federal overreach in banking. There is a key reason why: the mission statements of state banking agencies usually require them to support both safety and soundness AND economic development, while federal bank regulators do not have economic development within their wheelhouse. This creates a healthy tension and explains why innovation in banking often originates within the states. The Fed and FDIC have no veto power over state chartering decisions. 

… Congress again respected the delicate balance in 1980 when it further clarified the utility nature of the Fed’s role as payment system operator by requiring the Fed to provide services to all eligible banks on a non-​discriminatory basis. … In denying payment system access to Custodia, the Fed cited Custodia’s lack of FDIC insurance and lack of a federal regulator among its reasons for denial and, in doing so, the Fed improperly created for itself the unilateral power to require all state banks to be both insured and federally regulated.

Custodia sued the Fed, and the Attorney General of Wyoming, the state chartering the bank, joined the lawsuit. The Attorney General noted in the filing that the Fed had created a “Kafkaesque situation” where a Wyoming-​chartered bank is denied access to the U.S. dollar payment system “because it is not federally regulated, even while it is also denied federal regulation.”

Five states have enacted bank charters that don’t require deposit insurance or federal regulation –  Connecticut, Maine, Nebraska, Vermont and Wyoming. Such uninsured banks are prohibited from lending; they must hold 100% cash to back customer deposits, plus up to 8% of deposits as an additional capital requirement. Long concludes:

Congress tasked the Fed and FDIC with running utilities; it did not give the Fed and FDIC veto power over U.S. states – and, in turn, power to block the responsible innovations that state banking authorities create as they fulfill their economic development mandates.

Public Banks and the FDIC Conundrum

The public banking movement is particularly geared toward local economic development. The stellar and only model in the U.S. is the Bank of North Dakota, formed in 1919 when local farmers were losing their farms to foreclosure by big out-of-state banks. With assets in 2021 of $10.3 billion and a return on investment of 15%, the BND is owned by the state, which self-insures it. There is no fear of bank runs, because the state’s revenues compose the vast majority of its deposits, and they must be deposited in the BND by law. 

The state’s local banks are also protected by the BND, which is forbidden to compete with them. Instead, it partners with them, helping with liquidity and capitalization. The BND has been called a “mini-Fed” for the state and its banks. That helps explain why North Dakota has more local banks per capita than any other state, at a time when other states have been losing banks to big bank mergers, causing the number of U.S. banks to shrink radically. 

UK Prof. Richard Werner recently published a briefing memo supporting the case for a public bank. It was prepared for the state of Tennessee, which is considering a sovereign state bank on the North Dakota model, but the arguments apply to all states. Benefits discussed include dividends, higher state-level tax revenues, greater job creation, greater local autonomy and resilience to shocks, more options for funding public sector borrowing and state pension funds, and protection of financial transaction freedom and privacy. 

The FDIC has not formally rejected insurance coverage for state-chartered publicly-owned banks, but regulators have intimated that it is not interested in covering them; and as noted by Julie Andersen Hill in an Iowa Law Review article, the Fed is “especially hesitant” to process payments without that coverage. Federal usurpation of state banking regulation not only drives cryptocurrency innovation abroad but kills innovation in local economic funding of the sort pioneered in North Dakota. Andersen Hill writes, “The language and structure of the Federal Reserve Act require that the Federal Reserve provide payment services to all eligible banks.… If the Fed wants to exclude banks, it should ask Congress to change the law.”

*

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

This article was first posted on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.  

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

*** 

Western efforts at “sanctioning” Russia have failed miserably. So have efforts to isolate Russia from the rest of the world, by bribing countries – especially of the Global South. They have had exactly the contrary effect.

The Global South – possibly as a result of this permanent lie-based assaults for years of the west on Russia and China – is seeking associations with eastern oriented blocks, like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), as well as with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a creation initiated by China and Russia.

It is ironic, if not absurd, that the colonialist west, still largely known as racist west, intends to influence their former colonies – and in a modern sense still being colonized by the west – to sanction and separate from those countries that have in the past helped them against western exploitation.

If anything, this shows the degree of arrogance and socio-egocentricity of the west. Total detachment from reality. Most westerners don’t even perceive this horrendous aberration.

As a vivid and current example, citizens of African and Middle-Eastern countries that have been exploited, colonized and destroyed by the west, are now fleeing economic misery and political oppression from their countries which were left with the western heritage: western-bought dictatorial “local” regimes. The worst political and economic victims of these oppressions are attempting to escape to Europe, hoping for a better life; ironically, to the very colonial and racist Europe.

They risk their lives crossing the Med-Sea in rickety boats – often not making it, tens of thousands have already drowned at sea. The few that make it to Southern Italy and Greece are often turned back, where the poor-to-the-bones refugees frequently end up in Libya. There, they are enslaved by the mafias that emerged after the western brutal assassination of Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi.

For those who forgot, the destruction of Libya was planned and initiated by then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, during the Obama Administration, and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The coup was executed by NATO in October 2011.

The main reason – of course hidden and disguised by lies, as is so appropriate for the west – was that Gaddafi planned to liberate Africa form the continued colonial economic fangs of the west, by introducing an African-wide gold-backed currency, the Gold Dinar, fully detached from the French franc, alias Euro, and the US-dollar.

The people of the Global South have memories.

Adding to this, Europe’s unrestricted, unquestioned, uncriticized support for Israel, after basically 75 years of Israelis discrimination, atrocities and outright war crimes and crimes on humanity on Palestine and her people, does not bode well for Europe. The Global South is in full support of Palestine.

See this 2-min video – Madame Ursula von der Leyen, unelected President of European Commission, unconditionally lauding Israel for their 75 years of “achievements” – “making the desert green”.

Europe’s absolute and unrestricted support for Israel, reminds the countries of the Global South of 500 years of European colonial atrocities which only stopped on paper, but continues in full swing through financial and monetary exploitation by the west of basically all of Africa and most of Latin America.

Case in point for monetary exploitation to the worst, is France’s keeping her former West-and Central African colonies as of this day in monetary slavery.

This does not bode well for trust in the west.

Therefore, it doesn’t come as a surprise that 85% of the world’s population are refusing to take part in anti-Russia policies — to the contrary. They prefer maintaining good relations with Moscow, as Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister said during a World Online Conference on Multipolarity on Saturday, 29 April 2023. See this.

Even the Washington Post reports that numerous emerging economies, also caled the Global South, including India, Brazil, South Africa AND Pakistan, have rebuffed American attempts to enlist them in the fight against Russia amid the conflict in Ukraine. The WaPo refers to leaked Pentagon files.

During the online Multipolarity conference, Lavrov said that “Washington’s and its satellites’ efforts to reverse history, to force the international community to live by the invented ‘rules-based order’” are proving to be a fiasco, citing the “total failure” of the West “to isolate Russia.

Lavrov added, the fact that delegates from several dozen nations “from nearly every continent” attended the online forum, shows just how much traction the idea of multipolarity has gained.

It is also a clear indication that Russia is far from isolated – to the contrary. Countries from the Global South, the globe’s vast majority in territorial as well as population size, are flocking to the east, Russia and China.

Another reflection of the “changing colors” is the holding of reserve currencies.

In 1990, the US-dollar’s share of reserve currencies in the coffers of the world exceeded 90%. It dropped to 73% by 2001, to 51% in 2021, and in 2022 it slid below the crucial 50% line to 47%. In the next 10 years, the dollar may account for a mere 30%, or less, of all reserve currencies.

The Chinese Yuan is taking up much of the space left by the faltering dollar. See also this assessment by Pepe Escobar.

This is a main reason for the accelerated effort by western economies to introduce fully programmable Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Not only would it allow controlling every individual, but it would also present an opportunity to wipe out the CBDC-countries’ debt.

Digital is virtual. Physical money disappears. You would be unable to convert CBDC into old-style banknotes. God forbid that CBDC will prevail. We the people must resist it with all organized peaceful power that we can muster, even if it means starting parallel societies and economies.

During the past couple of decades developing countries, alias the Global South – have been gradually but steadily increasing their share in world economics, while that of the G7 has been declining.

New centers of geopolitical influence are emerging throughout the world, in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America – none of which wants to be dictated by the west, by the ever-warrying, destructive and currently dying western Washington-based empire and its European satellites.

The overall trend is clearly visible that the independent west wants to join international associations pulling to the east, such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Russia and Chia are leading these groups.

*

Back to Russia’s non-isolation. Despite western sanctions, Russia has achieved a trade surplus of over US$ 330 billion in 2022, with exports surging by almost 20% in the same year. Russia’s overall trade increase in 2022 over 2021 was 8.1%. Does this show an isolation of Russia from the rest of the world “due to western sanctions”?

Quite to the contrary – Russia’s economy is flourishing thanks to the sanctions which are very concretely destroying the West, foremost Europe. See also this.

While addressing the online Multipolarity Conference, Lavrov explained, a multipolar world order would be based on returning to respect for the UN charter, and for a “balance of interests” as opposed to a western imposed “balance of fear.

President Putin was clear that Moscow will not abide by the “so-called rules” invented and forced by the west.

The western invented “rules-based order” resembles ever more the new “One World Order”, initiated by the dictates of an elite-led tyranny that 100% of the rest of the world rejects. Multipolarity is growing and will gradually replace the dying, warrying-no-end western empire.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The West’s “Sanctioning” and Isolating Russia Has Failed. Massive Worldwide Majority for Multipolarity
  • Tags:

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

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

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

*** 

The Fox Network’s firing of Tucker Carlson last week at first seems surprising. He was the station’s biggest attraction. He was close to President Trump and was able to interview him on his program. Getting ridding of him is a surefire way to lose ratings and money, and television networks don’t like to do that. In addition, his fans are angry, which will make even more trouble for Fox. Why then was he removed? The answer is simple.

He raised issues you aren’t allowed to mention. He went after the CIA, saying he had information from an inside source the agency was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

He was a vaccine skeptic and spoke about the interests of Big Pharma in killing us.

The deep state couldn’t allow this. Therefore he had to go, and, we predict, he will be lucky if he isn’t arrested on some fraudulent charge.

Here is one of the things that Tucker Carlson said on April 19 that the toxic left would like to throw down the Orwellian memory hole:

“The channels took hundreds of millions of dollars from Big Pharma companies and then they shelled for their sketchy products on the air and as they did that, they maligned anyone who was skeptical of those products. At the very least, this was a moral crime. It was disgusting, but it was universal. It happened across the American news media. They all did it.

So, at this point, the question isn’t who in public life is corrupt? Too many to count. The question is who is telling the truth? There are not many of those. One of them is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Robert Kennedy knew early that the COVID vaccines were both ineffective and potentially dangerous and he said so in public to the extent he was allowed. Science has since proven Robert f. Kennedy Jr. right. Unequivocally right.

But Kennedy was not rewarded for this. He was vilified. He was censored because he dared to criticize their advertisers, the news media called Bobby Kennedy a Nazi, and then they attacked his family, but he kept doing it. He was not intimidated and we were glad he wasn’t. This is one of those moments when it’s nice to have a truth teller around. It’s helpful because suddenly the stakes are very high.” See this.

The heroic Michael Rectenwald exposes the corrupt Big Pharma interests behind Tucker’s ouster:

“Tucker’s show was no doubt a leading money-maker for the network, or a major means for paying the damages. Why would Fox get rid of an income generator like Tucker Carlson just as the bill came due? The answer is that Fox is not as concerned about making money as it is about being a faithful servant of the regime.

Tucker crossed significant establishment redlines and has finally suffered the consequences. He consistently argued that that the ruling elite hates the majority and consistently attacks it, that national sovereignty is being eroded, and that the electorate is being replaced. The redlines included his criticism of Volodymyr Zelensky and the U.S. involvement in the Ukrainian war, his criticism of the covid responses that destroyed the economy, his questioning of the vaccines, and his targeting by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for various ‘offenses.’

In February, BlackRock Inc. increased its position in Fox Corporation (FOXA). BlackRock now owns 15.1 percent of the company. BlackRock’s enhanced position in Fox Corporation explains, in part, the Tucker dismissal, and it was a dismissal, not Tucker’s choice.

Why would BlackRock, headed by CEO Larry Fink, pressure Fox News to axe Tucker?

For one, Tucker was known for his scathing criticism of Ukraine’s corruption, which put him at odds with the investment giant. In January, Carlson reacted derisively to a video of Ukrainian President Zelensky thanking BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, and Goldman Sachs for ‘rebuilding’ the country. Tucker referred to Zelensky, not as a hero, as the establishment would have it, but as a dictator. Carlson has also been critical of BlackRock’s push for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing, claiming, rightly, that ESG is a means of circumventing legislation and thus subverting democratic processes. ESG thwarts the will of the people and installs a ‘climate change’ dictatorship in its place.

BlackRock also has enormous holdings in pharmaceuticals companies, as one of the three largest shareholders of Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck. And Tucker recently interviewed Robert Kennedy, Jr. A presidential candidate, Kennedy has lambasted the Covid-19 vaccines as ‘deadly and worthless.’

Perhaps most significant was the ADL’s calls for Tucker’s removal. Tucker consistently claimed that the Democratic Party is attempting to replace the American electorate with illegal immigrants and the ADL called for Tucker to be de-platformed for holding to ‘the Great Replacement Theory,’ as well as other views that the ADL forbids. The ADL had consistently pushed for Tucker’s dismissal. On The Megyn Kelly Show, after Kelly noted that the ADL was once again pushing for Tucker’s firing, Tucker said, ‘f—- them.’ And Tucker struck back at the ADL on his own show.

Following Tucker’s dismissal, the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt celebrated Tucker’s firing on Twitter, where he also accused Tucker of spewing ‘antisemitic, racist, xenophobic and anti-LGBTQ hate to millions.’ He also acknowledged that the ADL had ‘long called for his firing’:

‘It’s about time. For far too long, Tucker Carlson has used his primetime show to spew antisemitic, racist, xenophobic and anti-LGBTQ hate to millions. @ADL has long called for his firing for this and many other offenses, including spreading the Great Replacement Theory’.

The Dominion defamation suit was not the impetus for the removal of Tucker Carlson from the Fox News line-up. Nor did Tucker walk out of Fox on his own accord. Tucker was axed by the regime’s henchmen, who work together to silence dissent, pummel the population with endless propaganda, and gaslight their victims with lies that represent the precise inverse of the truth. As a propaganda apparatus of the ruling class, Fox News is not primarily interested in profit. Its raison d’être is to serve as controlled opposition. And Tucker was out of the establishment’s control.

‘The media,’ Tucker recently said, ‘are part of the control apparatus…not only are they part of the problem, but I spent most of my life being part of the problem, defending the Iraq War, like I actually did that.’ That is, Tucker came to recognize that the media are ideological state apparatuses whose functions are to indoctrinate, mislead, and support the reigning regime and their narratives, whether past, present, or future. Tucker attempted to subvert those media functions and became a danger to the regime. It is no wonder that he no longer works for Fox News. The question is how he lasted so long.

As Rectenwald points out, Tucker has challenged the plot of brain-dead Biden and his gang on neocon controllers to start a nuclear war with Russia over the Ukraine: He said last October: “The question of who blew up Russia’s energy pipelines to Europe, which is not just a question in the news, it’s a historical question, we’ve addressed it a couple of times already, is not really much of a question anymore. So, on television, they’re assuring you that obviously the Russians did it. Vladimir Putin sabotaged his own pipelines.

With his nation at war, Putin intentionally destroyed Russia’s most vital national asset. Now why, you ask yourself, would Putin do that? Well, because…actually no one’s explained why Putin would do something like that. Bad people do bad things. That seems to be the idea.

The Biden administration is responsible, either directly or through proxies, for the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines and the environmental catastrophe and the economic collapse that will certainly follow. That is true. It’s done.

So the question is, where does that leave us? And that’s the problem. This act leaves us, the United States, with no option but total war with Russia. There is no off-ramp now. There is no way out. We are all in, no matter what that means, no matter where it goes.

Are you shocked by this? Was there a vote on this? Did someone ask your opinion? No, but it’s been happening for months in slow motion. It’s been hidden from public view by the near-total blackout imposed by America media outlets so you probably didn’t know any of the details. For example, in March, the Turkish government tried to broker a peace in Ukraine and they came very, very close. Wasn’t reported widely.

Ukraine was prepared to guarantee neutrality, meaning it would not join NATO. That’s what the Russians wanted above all and in return for that, the Russian government would withdraw its forces from Ukraine and that might have been a neat solution, certainly for the rest of us. The global economy wouldn’t need to be destroyed. Nobody would die in a nuclear war. Negotiations to that point advanced to the stage that Vladimir Putin pledged to meet with Zelenskyy to sign a peace treaty and Zelenskyy was ready for it, too and we’re quoting, “I’m ready for a dialog,” he announced, but sadly, Zelenskyy could not act alone. Despite what you may hear on NBC News, Zelenskyy is not the independent leader of a democratic nation. No, not even close. That is a fiction.

Zelenskyy is a client of the Biden administration, which runs his country, and ideologues within the Biden administration did not want a negotiated peace in Ukraine. They wanted all along and it’s very clear now a regime change war against Russia. Period.

Tucker Carlson also told the truth about the CIA and the Kennedy assassination: In a remarkable television broadcast on December 15, 2022, Tucker Carlson made an explosive charge. He pointed out that, contrary to law, the White House was refusing to release thousands of pages of documents about the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Carlson said that these documents proved CIA involvement in the assassination and that someone within the government who had looked at these documents made a direct statement to this effect.

1992, Congress passed the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act. That act mandated full disclosure of all documents by 2017, 54 years after JFK was killed. The last administration promised to comply fully with that law. But under intense pressure from CIA Director Mike Pompeo, withheld, in the end, thousands of pages of CIA documents.

Today, this afternoon, the Biden administration did exactly the same thing. That would be thousands of pages of documents after nearly 60 years, after the death of every single person involved. But we still can’t see them. Clearly, it’s not to protect any person. They’re all dead. It’s to protect an institution. But why?

Well, today we decided to find out. We spoke to someone who had access to these still hidden CIA documents, a person who was deeply familiar with what they contained. We asked this person directly, ‘Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy, an American President?’ And here’s the reply we received verbatim. Quote, ‘The answer is yes. I believe they were involved. It’s a whole different country from what we thought it was. It’s all fake.’

It’s hard to imagine a more jarring response than that. Again, this is not a ‘conspiracy theorist’ that we spoke to. Not even close. This is someone with direct knowledge of the information that once again is being withheld from the American public. And the answer we received was unequivocal. Yes, the CIA was involved in the assassination of the president. Now, some people will not be surprised to hear that they suspected it all along. But no matter how you feel about it or what you thought about the Kennedy assassination, pause to consider what this means.

It means that within the US government, there are forces wholly beyond democratic control. These forces are more powerful than the elected officials that supposedly oversee them. These forces can affect election outcomes. They can even hide their complicity in the murder of an American president. In other words, they can do pretty much anything they want. They constitute a government within a government mocking, by their very existence, the idea of democracy. As cynical as we have become after 30 years of watching government officials ignore the voters who employ them, we were shocked to learn this. It’s not acceptable.”

After this broadcast, Robert Kennedy, Jr, JFK’s nephew, tweeted: “The most courageous newscast in 60 years. The CIA’s murder of my uncle was a successful coup d’état from which our democracy has never recovered.”

Carlson made another powerful enemy who helped get him fired: George Soros. According to Helena Glass: “Carlson isn’t the only one fired, producer Justin Wells was given the boot based on a lawsuit filed by Abby Grossberg against the two claiming a hostile environment and anti-Semitism. Grossberg’s attorney has stated that the fact that Fox fired the two is tantamount to a testament of ‘guilt’.

Media Matters, the Soros led organization, has joined the bandwagon to declare that Tucker, Bartiromo, and Wells (Tucker’s producer) repeatedly used sexist slurs to refer to women and anti-Semitic discrimination.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, also a sidekick of Soros, has called out Carlson as a ‘fascist’.   Soros and Carlson have had a hate filled relationship that has spiked some most recently.  Could Grossberg have been approached by a Soros Handler to help initiate her Lawsuit and subsequent reiterations of her claim?   The boot may have been ultimately orchestrated by Soros.  Tucker was Targeted!”

Getting rid of Tucker Carlson should be a wake-up call for us. Let’s do everything we can to get rid of Big Pharma, the CIA, and brain-dead Biden and his gang of neocon controllers.

*

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

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and Against the Left. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

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

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

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

*** 

Wars flare up from Sudan to Ukraine. As a result, the global military spending is growing. Europe spent 13% more in 2022 than in 2021 on weapons and military operations, recording the sharpest increase in 30 years. Italy’s annual military spending has risen to more than €30 billion, or an average of more than €80 million a day.

At the same time, the real causes of wars continue to be hidden and mystified. President Biden declared that “the tragic violence in Sudan is inconceivable and must stop“.

He thereby erased a fact, when he was Vice President of the Obama Administration, he was a major architect of the US strategy that fuelled the war in Sudan to split the country in two. Thus, the artificial state of South Sudan, possessing 75% of Sudanese oil reserves, was born in 2011. This fact resulted in the further extension of internal conflicts and external interference for the control of the Sudanese region, which is important because it is rich in oil, natural gas, gold, and other raw materials, and because it has a key geostrategic position on the African continent.

In Ukraine, the United States, NATO, and the European Union continue to fuel the war against Russia, supplying the Kyiv regime with increasing quantities of weapons and all kinds of military assistance. At the same time, they make the Kyiv regime erase anything Russian from Ukraine and its history.

After Kyiv decreed to burn 100 million Russian books based on literary classics – a practice analogous to that of Hitler’s Nazism – Zelensky signed a law banning Russian place names and other symbols of the fundamental Russian component of Ukrainian history. Their use is considered by law a “criminal act” and entails serious penalties.

Zelensky also signed a law according to which, in order to obtain Ukrainian citizenship, an exam is required not only on the language but also on the “history of Ukraine“. This is rewritten by “historians” who exalt characters such as Stepan Bandera, a collaborator of Hitler’s Nazism.

[It is worth noting that Zelensky is of Russian-Jewish descent. His mother tongue is Russian. Until recently he was not fluent in Ukrainian]

In the same framework, the Ukrainian Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the symbols of the SS Galicia Division – made up of Ukrainian Nazis who committed heinous crimes – are not Nazi and can therefore be used as political symbols even in demonstrations. The Italian government undertakes to “rebuild” this Ukraine by investing billions of euros stolen from Italian citizens.

*

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

This article was originally published on byoblu in Italian.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo arrives in Khartoum, Sudan, on August 25, 2020. [U.S. Embassy Khartoum photo by Alsanosi Ali/ Public Domain]

Recent Severe Microwave Syndrome, Triggered by 5G?

May 1st, 2023 by Dr. David Charbonneau

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

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

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

*** 

After a 5G base station was installed within 60 meters of her second-floor apartment, a middle-aged, otherwise healthy, Swedish woman developed debilitating symptoms corresponding with radiofrequency (RF)/microwave syndrome, researchers at the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation (ECRF) in Sweden reported this month. This was the third such case the researchers had documented.

According to their case study, published in Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports, fifth generation (5G) wireless technology is being rolled out worldwide “despite no previous research on possible negative effects on human health and the environment.”

As a result, exposure to pulse-modulated microwave radiation has “increased dramatically on a world-wide basis.” Microwave radiation are frequencies in the range of 300 MHz to 300 GHz within the radiofrequency (RF) spectrum. In city environments, frequencies used for 5G are currently in the 3.5 GHz band.

Studies on possible health effects from exposure to 5G frequencies were all but non-existent until recently. In a study published in October 2022, animals were exposed to the 5G frequency of 3.5 GHz for 2 hours a day, 5 days a week for one month. The exposure caused oxidative stress and an increase of degenerated neurons in the hippocampus region of the brain, in addition to decreased irisin levels, a hormone positively correlated with weight loss and healthy cognitive function.

In the case study, the woman quickly developed a large array of debilitating symptoms after the installation. These symptoms included headache, dizziness and balance problems, cognitive dysfunction—including memory, confusion and loss of focus—as well as extreme fatigue, anxiety, cough, nose bleeding, and disorders of urinary function and the skin, including spontaneous bruising and skin eruptions.

The 5G antenna was installed on the roof of a three-floor adjacent building and projected towards her apartment on the second floor. There was previously a 4G base station antenna at the same spot, but it was only after it was replaced by the 5G antenna that the woman quickly developed severe symptoms of microwave syndrome. The 4G antenna was removed shortly after the 5G deployment.

The woman reported that when she relocated to another apartment not near a 5G base station, all her symptoms quickly resolved, only to return within 24 hours of her return to her own apartment.

The woman’s dog also showed signs of ill health after the 5G installation. Reportedly, the dog contracted diarrhea soon after the 5G was installed. This disappeared during the retreat to the other apartment with no 5G but returned when they moved back to her own apartment.

Also, the dog was reluctant to re-enter the apartment after being taken out for a walk.

The researchers point out that “5G emits high repetitive pulses of microwave radiation” with radiation spikes that are exponentially greater than those of previous generations, including 4G.

The researchers measured microwatts per square meter within one foot of the woman’s living room window over the course of one minute, and found significant spikes.

High radiation was also found in the bathroom, highest in the bathtub closest to the window. Considerably lower RF radiation was measured in the bedroom which was not directly in the line of transmission from the base station.

Despite maxing out the commercial meter (Safe and Sound, Pro II) used by the researchers, the level of exposure was non-thermal and well below the guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP).

A History of Exposure Disorders

RF sickness or illness resulting from microwave exposure, was first reported in the 1960s and 1970s in East European countries. People most commonly suffered symptoms relating to neural, cardiovascular, and endocrine systems disruption.

International investigations of exposed workers, including American military personnel, showed that microwave exposure at non-thermal levels caused symptoms such as fatigue, dizziness, headache, sleep disorders, anxiety, and problems with attention and memory.

A review of multiple human and animal studies also concluded that “a surprisingly wide variety of neurological and physiological reactions are to be expected” because of exposure to non-thermal levels of RF/microwave radiation.

The condition has been variously termed radiofrequency sickness syndrome or microwave syndrome. The non-thermal effects—effects unrelated to a build-up of heat—depend primarily on the modulation and/or pulsation of the signal as well as on the peak and average intensity.

The Problem with Current RF Safety Standards

There are significant problems with how health effects from RF radiation are weighed, according to James Lin, a professor emeritus in the department of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois Chicago.

In an article published in Environmental Research in April, 2023, Lin details how safety limits for exposure to RF radiation applied by most countries around the world are still based on acute heat or thermal effects that appear within a short time from exposure, thus failing to assess other effects of long-term exposure.

The guidelines for reference values based on heating are set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a self-appointed private organization based in Germany. ICNIRP has positioned itself with industry support to be the dominant international authority in the evaluation of scientific evidence of negative health effects from RF radiation.

“Their guidelines are based on evaluations that have rejected all scientific evidence on non-thermal effects, despite growing evidence of a range of harmful effects well below the ICNIRP levels. That unscientific evaluation is in the interest of industry thereby facilitating the deployment of 5G and the wireless society,” the researchers at ECRF wrote.

In his recent Environmental Research article, Lin, a former long-time member of ICNIRP concluded, “There are substantial abnormalities in these putative health safety protection guidelines and standards. Some of the safety limits are irrelevant, debatable, and absent of scientific justification from the standpoint of safety and public health protection.”

In 2019, 258 EMF scientists from 58 countries appealed to the United Nations to impose a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G until health effects could be properly assessed.

In the appeal, the scientists said:

“Wireless communication technologies are rapidly becoming an integral part of every economic sector. But there is a rapidly growing body of scientific evidence of harm to people, plants, animals, and microbes caused by exposure to these technologies.

It is our opinion that adverse health consequences of chronic and involuntary exposure of people to non-ionizing electromagnetic field sources are being ignored by national and international health organizations despite our repeated inquiries as well as inquiries made by many other concerned scientists, medical doctors and advocates.

This constitutes a clear violation of human rights, as defined by the United Nations.”

*

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

David Charbonneau, Ph.D., is a freelance journalist who has also taught literature and writing at the college level for 25 years. In addition to The Epoch Times, his work has appeared in The Defender, Medium, and other online and print platforms. A staunch advocate for medical freedom, he lives and works in Pasadena, California.

Featured image is from Alexander56891/Shutterstock

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

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

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

*** 

I want to speak to you today about the grave situation we face, a crisis of the soul and of the nation that politicians fear to even mention as they bury us in talk about domestic programs.

When NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg traveled to Kiev, Ukraine, and declared to the world that “Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO” and then he announced the next day that “all NATO allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a member of NATO” he was essentially stating that the institutional groundwork for a world war has been all laid down for us and that a dictatorial institution, shrouded in secrecy, called NATO, will seize control of the entire operation and enforce “full interoperability” within the militaries of the countries that have had the misfortune to become members of NATO.

“Full interoperability” means, for those unfamiliar with such technical military terms, that decisions within the military will be made in secret by a cabal of select military officers reporting directly to the billionaires.  

Under the rule of Stoltenberg, an unelected general, the way forward to world war can no longer be impeded by mere citizens who arrogantly pretend they have ideas that they are entitled to express, that they have a right to hold opinions other than those fed to them by the New York Times or Fox News.

This push to destroy the chain of command in the militaries and in the governments of NATO members, the nations of Europe, Turkey, and the United States, has been extended to Asia as well. The bureaucrats and politicians of Japan, of the Republic of Korea, and of Australia and New Zealand have been told, in unambiguous terms, that they also must turn over the chain of command for their countries to NATO, using the newly invented AP4 (Asia-Pacific Partners) system, and that their nations will be lassoed into a drive for war with China–against the will, and the interests, of their citizens, against the interests of every child on earth.

This silent coup d’état has been advanced through the promotion of intelligence sharing, interoperability, and military exercises.

Each of these words has a special meaning that you are entitled to understand.

“Intelligence sharing” means that the information required for a nation to make decisions on critical security issues is being farmed out to multinational corporations like Google, Facebook, Amazon and others, and that the nation state no longer controls its military, no longer can decide its response in a crisis.

“Interoperability” means that only certain weapon systems can be used, those built by Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics, and that those weapons cannot be serviced, or modified, by third parties.

“Military exercises” (which are increasing in frequency) means that the militaries of each country in NATO (and allies in Asia) must work within an opaque and oppressive chain of command wherein officers practice being told how to wage war by forces that are invisible to them.

That means that neither the politicians, nor even the high-ranking generals, will have any say in this planned rush towards death.  

And what has been the response of my colleagues who would run for president, or for congressman, to this push for world war? What words of protest have we heard from our elected officials in Washington DC as they are rushed around in limousines to and from all-too-important meetings?

Well, although there have been a few controversial comments about vaccine safety, about the destruction of the middle class, a morbid silence hangs over Washington DC like a shroud; the silence of the lambs.

I remember when  Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia spoke out against the plans for a disastrous and unprovoked invasion of Iraq—which was nothing in comparison with a war between NATO and Russia, or between NATO and Russia and China.

Senator Byrd said then, and I say now,

“Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.” 

I ask you politicians running for office why you have not condemned this rush to world war?

You have no legitimacy, and no right, to bamboozle the American people with your trinkets and your dribble.

But it is not enough to denounce our leaders as cowards and clowns, as prostitutes and lackeys. We must first recognize the truth, and at this moment, facing a world war that may well kill us all, we cannot wait for truth.

The truth will set us free, or as James Baldwin wrote,

“Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Or, as Frederick Douglass put it,

“Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get.”

Let us stop accepting half-truths. Let us stop assuming that we must accept certain lies in order to be allowed to speak about some truths.  

Let me, for a change, speak the truth to you, honored citizens.

The reason why no politician can stand up against the rush for war being promoted by multinational investment banks, private equity, and a host of parasitic entities is NOT simply that the politicians are corrupt and cowardly, selfish and narcissistic—although they are all of those things too. No, the truth is that the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other parts of the federal government that have been largely privatized and rendered up as cat’s paws for the rich and powerful to use have issued classified directives that prohibit the discussion of critical issues like the drive for world war, the 9.11 incident, COVID19 and other operations—with serious consequences for anyone who violates those directives.

Such classified directives are accompanied by secret laws (whose existence is not secret). The Congress passes secret laws that prohibit certain actions by public figures.

Secret law is as binding as federal law—but disclosing its use is illegal and punishable by heavy fines.

The use of these unconstitutional secret directives and laws renders impossible the discussion of the most serious issues facing our country, even as our politicians boast of our democracy. All politicians recognize, and accept, this criminal and deadly deal with the devil, an arrangement resulting from years of corporate and bureaucratic power playing footsie.

It is not the first time in history that the control of government and of the military has been taken over by a hidden elite that are ready to kill millions in order to protect their wealth and power.

In the intolerable days of early summer, 1914, citizens across Europe watched in horror as the institutions of government embraced a suicidal march towards war without any space for discussion or for diplomacy. The leaders of France, Germany, England, Russia and Austro-Hungary appeared to be possessed by evil spirits forcing them to take steps that would leave millions of people dead, killing an entire generation of young men—young boys—for sport.

Later, however, it was revealed that these nations had signed numerous secret treaties between them that forced the hands of politicians and bureaucrats—and made it impossible for government to reflect the will of the people. The narrow interests of a handful of the rich, the Rothchilds, the Morgans, the Warburgs, and the Rockerfellers, were promoted at the expense of the rest of the world through such secret governance.

Such an unholy politics of secret governance is precisely what we face today. If any of us survive, no doubt those classified directives, and secret treaties between nations that are used to enforce the COVID19 operation, or to force the drive for war with Russia and China, will be released decades in the future.

What kind of a president do I want to be?

What kind of a president do I want to be? I want to be a president who serves the role of president, making decisions in accord with the law, and following the constitution in a manner that reflects the interests of the American people. I want to do so in a transparent and scientific manner, and I want to treat the people as rational thinking citizens, not consumers, who are entirely capable of understanding my speeches and of coming to their own conclusions without being manipulated by advertising and nefarious public relations campaigns.  

I do not want to make money from secret bribes, or to give the veneer of legitimacy to criminal operations meant to destroy our world.

When the so-called progressive politician Bernie Sanders endorsed Joe Biden’s bankrupt campaign for president immediately, we knew that the system was broken beyond repair. Joe Biden at 80, and Donald Trump at 76 make the confused and aged leaders who oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev at 75 and Yuri Andropov at 68, seem young by comparison.

I ask that you pull pack for a moment from the steam of lies and manipulative images, that the powerful are drowning us in, and that you think seriously about how we can take back control of our minds, of our families, of our economy, and of our government, and that you do so before the rich and powerful have dragged us into wars that we cannot escape from.

Their goal, without any doubt, is to create a crisis wherein we will have no choice but to enter the dark prison cell that they have lovingly prepared for us in advance.

*

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

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

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 The Anti-Media

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

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

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

*** 

Should the public ignore the history of the Rockefeller Foundation as they shift resources towards promoting Agenda 2030 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals?

In late July 2022, Rockefeller Foundation (RF) president, Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, released a public letter detailing the organization’s plan to increase their resources and attention to addressing climate change. Shah noted that the RF had a hand in shaping “the American and global responses to the pandemic’s crises“ as they funded projects like the CommonPass, helping promote the concept of vaccine passports.

Established in 1913, the foundation used the Rockefeller family wealth to ostensibly promote “public health” by funding mass vaccination campaigns and the founding of public health authorities around the world. To continue their mission today, Shah says the RF must directly confront climate change“.

“Climate change poses a singular threat to humanity,” Shah wrote. “We have decided The Rockefeller Foundation will take specific actions to transform how humanity farms and eats, powers its communities and homes, prevents and protects against disease, and lives and works. That is how we will make opportunity universal and sustainable.”

Shah says the foundation has taken steps in this direction already, including helping women get “green jobs”, investing in “regenerative agriculture”, and committing to divest its $6 billion endowment from fossil fuels. Shah said the foundation has “divested most of our endowment from the sector”.

The foundation also partnered with the Ikea Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund to accelerate the transition to so-called “renewable energy”. The groups claim to have raised more than $10 billion in additional funds.

The announcement of a reallocation of resources did not include much in the way of details or solid plans. However, Shah did write that the foundation’s goal is to “develop an integrated vision and plan for the years 2025 to 2030” that will be shared with RF Trustees within a year. No updates have been shared since the letter was published.

In the letter Shah acknowledged that John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil and the Rockefeller Foundation, acquired his wealth through the oil industry, which the RF now claims to oppose.

“There is some irony here. Our namesake, John D. Rockefeller, founded Standard Oil and made his fortune by fueling a growing United States with carbon,” Shah wrote. However, he says the RF is focused on what he calls “scientific philanthropy”, or, using the latest science and technology to “improve the well-being of each and every person, opening up opportunity for all”.

“Obviously, an institution like the Rockefeller Foundation has an even higher level of responsibility because we’re an even bigger beneficiary of that process,” he told the Associated Press at the time. The Rockefeller Foundation funds part of The Associated Press’ coverage of climate change.

Before we dive further into that history of the Rockefeller Foundation, and why we should remain skeptical of their claims of saving humanity through philanthropy, let’s take a closer look at the Rockefeller Foundation President, Dr. Rajiv Shah.

An Agent of Globalization

Rajiv J. “Raj” Shah is a former American government official, physician, and health economist who has served in a number of U.S. government positions, as well as working within the philanthropic sector. Shah served as the 16th Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from 2010–2015. He was appointed USAID Administrator by President Obama, unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and sworn into office by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on January 7, 2010.

USAID is ostensibly an “independent agency of the United States federal government” that handles “civilian foreign aid”. USAID is one of the largest official aid agencies in the world and accounts for more than half of all U.S. foreign assistance. However, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have been accused of being a tool for conducting activities favorable to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under the guise of providing foreign aid. The NED was created as a non-profit corporation via funding from the USAID. Both organizations have been involved in funding “activist” movements in countries which do not align with U.S. policy.

Critics have long compared USAID and NED funding Nicaraguan groups in the 1980s and 90s to the efforts of the CIA to overthrow governments throughout Latin America in the 1950s and 60s.

Shah also served at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where he is credited with creating the International Financing Facility for Immunization which helped reshape the global vaccine industry and raised more than $5 billion for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI).

I have reported extensively on the role the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI play in managing international health measures, particularly in advancing the ever-growing list of required vaccinations for developing nations.

Shah is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, sits on the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council, and is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

The CFR is a long-time player in geopolitics whose members include former U.S. Presidents and federal officials. Researcher G. Edward Griffin has been one of the few working the last few decades to expose the influence of the CFR on U.S. foreign policy. During one of his many presentations Griffin outlines the true role of the CFR beyond the surface level explanation that they are merely a think tank:

“It was spawned by a secret society which still exists today, that it is a front for a round table group originally embodied in JP Morgan and company but now the Rockefeller consortium and that its primary goal is no longer the expansion of the British Empire but global collectivism with control in private hands administered in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world,” 

For the last 100 years, the CFR membership roster has featured a rotating cast of members of the Rockefeller family, including John “Jay” Rockefeller IV, Nicholas Rockefeller, Steven C. Rockefeller, Susan Cohn Rockefeller, Valerie Rockefeller, David Rockefeller Jr., and David Rockefeller Sr., who co-founded the Trilateral Commission.

The Trilateral Commission is likely less known to today’s readers who are more familiar with groups like the World Economic Forum and the Bilderberg group, but they are equally important in understanding the players on the chessboard.

Patrick Wood, longtime researcher of Technocracy and founder of Technocracy.news, recently reported that the Trilateral Commission’s 50th anniversary marked the culmination of its self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order”. On March 12, the Trilateral Commission held its plenary meeting in New Delhi, India to discuss issues relating to globalization. Wood reported that one of the Commission members stated,

This year, 2023, is Year One of this new global order.”

As Wood notes, the Trilateral Commission was co-founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor and ally to many presidents in his lifetime. Brzezinski was also the author of Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, which sought to revive the Technocratic movement of the 1930’s.

Finally, Shah’s membership with The Atlantic Council should also raise alarm bells. The Atlantic Council has become more familiar to Americans in light of recent revelations from the Twitter Files. However, The Atlantic Council has been making moves behind the scenes in recent years. In May 2018, the organization partnered with Facebook to fight “fake news”. Only 6 months later the infamous Purge of 2018 removed more than 500 accounts of independent media and researchers from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Dr. Shah also spoke at the World Economic Forum’s 2022 gathering in Davos, Switzerland and is listed as an “Agenda Contributor” to the WEF. During an interview with CNBC in Davos he was asked what he makes of the fact that nations around the world are “sitting on” vaccines because “there are no takers”. Shah responded by saying:

“A big part of why the vaccines are not being demanded right now is there’s tremendous misinformation about the vaccines, their effectiveness, their safety, and so a lot of people who need them don’t want them because they’ve been told something that’s false, and we need to invest in that problem in order to turn it around and change the course of the pandemic.”

Shah said the Rockefeller Foundation is investing in vaccine access in countries around the world with the goal of reaching 90% of the “high risk groups” within a country. Shah also said he believes “there needs to be some sort of international agreement about how the world responds to pandemics” which must include “a much better real-time surveillance system”.

Shah’s presence at the Davos gathering should not come as a surprise since the Rockefeller Foundation is partnered with the WEF in pushing the Great Reset agenda. During the COVID-19 panic the Rockefeller Foundation funded the CommonPass as a method for verifying ones vaccination status. The so-called “vaccine passports” were always a gateway to the digital identity future that is promoted by the WEF and the Technocrats.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s Faux Environmental Movement

Whether the Rockefeller Foundation uses its resources to shift us towards a Technocratic State under the guise of a pandemic or climate change, it matters not. The end result is the same – loss of individual liberties and choice in a constantly surveilled world complete with social credit scores which track your carbon use and dole out rewards or punishments based on your behaviors. All for the good of the planet, we are told.

This is why it’s important to question the fundamental claims being made by the Rockefeller Foundation and their current president. In fact, the Rockefeller Foundation has a history of using environmental issues as a smokescreen for spreading poison and harming the population.

The current mainstream food paradigm – with its toxic, violent, and monopolized business model – was born out of “The Green Revolution” of the 1950’s and 60’s. As part of this apparent revolution, Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho invited the Rockefeller Foundation into the country to help study and modernize Mexico’s farming. In 1943, Norman Borlaug, a plant geneticist, and his team of researchers traveled to Mexico and jumpstarted the so-called Green Revolution. Borlaug was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, with both organizations having an interest in establishing international farming standards which benefitted their bank accounts.

While the Green Revolution is often touted as a success due to increases in crop yields and an apparent drop in infant mortality, there is also a growing body of evidence indicating that the abundant use of pesticides has caused a rise in adverse health effects, including cancer. Most infamously, the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate – a product of Agri-giant Monsanto, now owned by Bayer – has been linked to a number of cases of cancer and resulted in multiple billion dollar settlements against the company. 

The same corporations and financiers behind Big Oil and Big Pharma were the same driving forces behind the Green Revolution. The Rockefeller Standard Oil network and their partners in the fertilizer industry, specifically DuPont, Dow Chemical, and Hercules Powder, benefitted handsomely from the apparent revolution in farming. However, when a struggling “third world” nation could not afford the new technologies needed to participate in the programs, the Rockefeller controlled Chase Manhattan Bank partnered with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to offer loans, which in turn granted the banks ownership over resources and financial assets should the nations fail to settle the debt.

Another outcome of the Green Revolution is the so-called Gene Revolution, which popularized the use of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, or genetically engineered foods. Once again, the cast of characters involved in the Gene Revolution are identical to the Green Revolution – the Big Pharma cartel and Big Oil. The Rockefeller and Nazi connected IG Farben have subsidiaries Bayer CropScience and BASF PlantScience working with Dow AgroScience, DuPont Biotechnology, and the infamous Monsanto. All of these corporations benefit from the funding of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and similar organizations.

This is the legacy of the Rockefeller Foundation – dangerous pesticides, GMO food, mono cropping, and disrupting of small farms.

The Rockefeller Foundation also claimed the COVID-19 panic presented the moment to “transform the U.S. food system.” The Rockefeller document, titled Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System, outlines how the Rockefeller Foundation can once again use its money and influence to shape the direction of a major industry, this time, the food supply itself.

Ironically, the Reset the Table document also notes that the Rockefeller Foundation “played a role in seeding and scaling” The Green Revolution, while also noting that the Rockefeller Green Revolution left a legacy of “overemphasis of staple grains at the expense of more nutrient-rich foods”, and a “reliance on chemical fertilizers that deplete the soil, and overuse of water.​​​​​​​” With no hint of shame, the Rockefeller’s and their ilk are presenting themselves as the solution to problems they previously contributed to or outright created.​​​​​​​

Using the same flowery language and trendy buzzwords which allowed them to infiltrate and capture the education system, the Oil industry, and the medical field, they have managed to gain control over the large institutions which farm the world’s animals and crops in violent, destructive, and costly ways. This dangerous monopolistic cartel has captured many national and international regulatory bodies designed to protect the public and the food supply.

Are we really supposed to trust that the Rockefeller Foundation is now a force for good?

Does the Fight Against Climate Change Mask a Eugenics Agenda?

One final thought relates to the fact that the Rockefeller Foundation also has an extensive history of funding the Eugenics movement. There is ample evidence and documentation of the Rockefeller family promoting “population control” under the guise of abortion, sterilization, and other methods.

Due to this history of funding these movements there remains a great deal of skepticism regarding the true motivations of the foundation.

In September 2021, the Rockefeller Foundation released a statement stating they were “currently reckoning with our own history in relation to eugenics”. The foundation said this would involve “uncovering the facts” and dealing with “uncomfortable truths”. Dr. Shah claimed an “investigation is underway” to learn the full extent of the foundations support of eugenics.

“The Foundation is confronting the hateful legacies of the past—in laws, structures, and systems—that have suppressed opportunity for so many and are helping our grantees and the people they serve to overcome them,” Shah wrote.

In an upcoming investigation I will uncover connections between the Eugenics philosophy which previously guided the Rockefeller Foundation and other philanthropists, and the movement to fight climate change.

*

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

Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.

Featured image is from TLAV

Neocons Starting to Panic About Ukraine

May 1st, 2023 by Karsten Riise

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

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

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

*** 

The ambitions of the US foreign policy élite to beat both Russia and China is already creating an internal war among the US Neocons.

The Ukraine war is sucking the US dry of weapons, and the US is getting little to nowhere in its frail attempts to restock supplies sent to Ukraine. See this.

This already pushes some Neocons to panic for a ceasefire to close down the Ukraine engagement – just in order to save remaining arms supplies for conflict with China?

Meanwhile, the Pentagon and the defense industry are looking at the next major national security challenge: deterring, and if necessary, fighting, China in the Indo-Pacific region. See this.

That panic in parts of the Neocon community is already surfacing in the Council of Foreign Relations of the USA. On 13 April 2023, none less than Richard Haass, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations together with Charles Kupchan were overtly anxious to argue for a Ukrainian ceasefire. Suddenly comparing what they want with what they can, this faction among the Neocons is suddenly scared and looks for the exit. See this

On 24 April 2023, other Neocons pushed back against Haass’ and Kupchan’s heretic idea of a ceasefire with Russia. A hard-core faction of the Neocons obviously keeps ignoring facts and insists on nothing less than a complete defeat of Russia – even as the West is running out of weapons to fight with. See this.

The futility of trying to dominate the globe is creating an infight – wrecking the nerves of the Neocons.

*

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

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Adobe Stock

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

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

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

*** 

The message sent by the Chinese Defence Minister’s three-day visit to Russia is clear. His reception – a high-profile event – was intentionally invested with high visibility. And at its symbolic centre was a meeting with President Putin on (Orthodox) Easter Day which was consequential, both for being far beyond the norms of protocol, and for occurring on Easter Day, when Putin would not customarily work.

Its key message may be surmised from remarks earlier framed by Hu Xijin, the former editor-in-chief of China’s Global Times:

“The U.S. repeatedly claims that China is preparing to provide “lethal military aid” to Russia in the ongoing Ukraine conflict”. But that war has “has been going on for more than a year: And according to the West’s previous calculation, Russia should have already collapsed by now … And, whilst NATO is supposed to be much stronger than Russia, the situation on the ground doesn’t appear as such – which is why it causes [such] anxiety in the West …”.

Hu Xijin continues:

“If Russia alone is already so difficult to deal with, what if China really starts to provide military aid to Russia, using its massive industrial capabilities for the Russian military? [If] Russia alone … is more than a match for the Collective West. If they [the West] really forces China and Russia to join hands militarily – the question that haunts them is that the West will no longer be able to do as it pleases. Russia and China together, would have the power to check the U.S.”.

This essentially was what the Defence Minister’s visit was all about: Events have moved on since Hu wrote that piece in the Global Times a few weeks ago and, if anything, recent developments have lent added dimension to his clarion warning that a Sino-Russian joining of hands – militarily – would mark a paradigm change.

The recent event of the U.S. Intelligence leaks (as well as earlier reports from Seymour Hersh) seem to point to deep internal schism in the U.S. ‘Permanent State’:

One element is convinced that the Ukrainian Spring Offensive is a disaster in the making – with major consequences for U.S. prestige. The Neo-con contingent, on the other hand, bitterly refutes this analysis, and instead demands escalation via immediate preparation (arming Taiwan) against a U.S. war to be waged against both China and Russia soon. The neo-cons claim a Russian panic and collapse could happen within 24 hours of an Ukrainian attack.

To put it plainly, the sudden ignition of neo-con war fever against China has just done what Hu earlier foresaw: It has forced Russia and China to join hands militarily, not necessarily in Ukraine, but rather to plan and prepare for war with the West.

In the wake of the Intelligence leaks, the focus on Ukraine in the U.S. has waned, and been replaced in the U.S. with a rising fever for war with China.

The Chinese Defence Minister’s extended Moscow visit was the tangible evidence that now, China and Russia are convinced that the prospect of war is real, and they are preparing for it. Putin underlined the ‘jointery’ by, inter alia, prioritising the strengthening of the Russian Pacific fleet, and upgrading generally Russian Naval capacities.

This is just crazy: Hu was ‘spot on’. If NATO does not have the military industrial capacity to defeat Russia on its own, how can the U.S. and Europe expect to prevail against China and Russia combined? The notion seems delusional.

Historian Paul Veyne, a towering figure in the history of the ancient Roman world, once posed the question: Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? All societies, he wrote, contrive to some notional distinction between ‘truth’ and ‘falsity’, but in the end, according to him, this too, is just another ‘fishbowl’, the one we happen to inhabit, and it is in no way superior, as a matter of epistemology, to the fishbowl in which ancient Greeks lived and made sense of their world, in no small part through myths and stories about the gods.

In respect to the myth of the Roman Empire which nourishes U.S. foreign policy, Veyne’s position is profoundly contrarian. For his basic claim is that Roman imperialism had little to do with statecraft, nor economic predation or the assertion of control and the demand of obedience, but rather that was motivated by a collective wish to create a world in which Romans might be left alone, not simply secure, but undisturbed. That is all.

Paradoxically, this account would place the American traditionalist ‘Right’ – which leans to a Burkean-Buchanan perspective –closer to that of Veyne’s Roman ‘reality’ that to that of the neo-cons: i.e. what most Americans wish is for America to be left alone, and to be secure.

Yes, the gods and myths were tangible to the Ancients. They lived through them. The point here is Veyne’s warning against our ‘lazy treating’ of ancient Romans as versions of ourselves, caught up in different contexts, to be sure, but essentially interchangeable with us.

Did the Greeks believe in their Myths? Veyne’s short answer is ‘no’. The public spectacle of authority was an end in itself. It was artifice without an audience – as an expression of authority beyond question. There was no ‘public sphere’, indeed no ‘public’ as such. The state was instrumentalist. Its role was to mediate and keep the Empire aligned and attuned with these invisible and powerful forces.

The gods and myths were understood by the Ancients in a way that is almost wholly alien to us today: They were energetic invisible forces that carried distinct qualities that both shaped the world and carried meaning. Today, we have lost the ability to read the world symbolically – symbols have become rigid ‘things’.

The implication of Veyne’s analysis is that Rome is false as a comparison to support the ‘myth’ of the inevitability of U.S. primacy: The ‘mythical’ neo-con approach of course is instrumentalised to convince us all that U.S. primacy is ordained (by the gods?), and that Russia is low hanging fruit – a fragile rotten structure that easily can be toppled.

Do then the neo-cons believe their own myths? Well, ‘yes’ and ‘no’. ‘Yes’, in that the neo-cons are a group of people who come to share a common view (i.e. Russia as fragile and fissiparous), often proposed by a few ideologues deemed to be credentiallised. It is a view however, not based in reality. These adherents may be convinced intellectually that their view is right, but their belief cannot be tested in a way which could confirm it beyond doubt. It is simply based on a picture of the world as they imagine it to be, or more to the point, as they would like it to be.

Yes, the neo-cons believe their myths because they seem to work. Just look around. As the means of communication have become decentralized, digitized and algorithmic, contemporary culture has forced individuals into herds. There is no standing apart from this discourse; there is no thinking outside of the Tik-Toc feed; it gives rise to the formation of a pseudo-reality, severed from the World, and generated for wider ideological ends.

Put plainly, there never was a ‘public sphere’ in Rome in the modern sense, and in today’s sense, no alive western ‘Public Sphere’ either. It has been anaesthetised via the social media platforms. The public spectacle of neo-con credentiallised ideological authority (say, a Lindsay Graham advocating for war on China) becomes an end in itself. An expression of authority beyond question.

The neo-con myth of Russia on the cusp of implosion makes no sense. But it is a picture of the world as the neo-cons imagine it to be, or more to the point, would like it to be. The shortcomings of the Ukrainian forces as detailed in (their own American) Intel leaks: They pretend not to notice – convinced, as Foreign Policy explains, that once the expected Ukrainian offensive launches, if “the Russian soldiers panic, causing paralysis among the Russian leadership … then the counter-offensive will be successful”.

The more such delusional analysis is pursued, the more functional psychopathy will be exhibited, and the less normal it becomes. In short, it descends into collective delusion – if it hasn’t already.

The U.S. may have entered a fever for war (for now! (Let us see how it lasts as events in Ukraine play out)), but what of Europe? Why would Europe seek war with China?

Thomas Fazi writes that:

“Emmanuel Macron’s call for Europe to reduce its dependency on the United States and develop its own “strategic autonomy” caused a transatlantic tantrum. The Atlanticist establishment, in the U.S. as much as in Europe, responded in a typically unrestrained fashion — and, in doing so, missed something crucial:

“Macron’s words revealed less about the state of Euro-American relations than they did about intra-European relations.

“Very simply, the “Europe” Macron speaks of no longer exists, if it ever did. On paper, almost the entire continent is united under one supranational flag — that of the European Union. But that is more fractured than ever. On top of the economic and cultural divides that have always plagued the bloc, the war in Ukraine has caused a massive fault line to re-emerge along the borders of the Iron Curtain. The East-West divide is back with a vengeance”.

“The end of the Cold War and, then, the CEE countries’ accession to the EU just over a decade later were both heralded as the post-Communist countries’ much-awaited “return to Europe”. It was widely believed that the EU’s universalist project would smooth out any major social and cultural differences between Western and Central-Eastern Europe …Such a hubristic (and arguably imperialistic) project was bound to fail; indeed, tensions and contradictions quickly became apparent between the two Europes”.

Belief in an integral European culture has been more a mark of a central European sensibility than of the western edge of Europe. It was not only Russia that was at issue for the East. They resented being cut off from a world of which they had been an essential part. Yet when communism receded, the European culture – as imagined by the dissidents – vanished in a Europe beset by division and a culture war imposed from the centre that purposefully has attempted to strangle any attempt to revive national cultures. For Milan Kundera and other writers like him, there is no living culture in Europe, and its posterity inhabits a void created by the disappearance of any supreme values.

Paradoxically, the war in Ukraine has strengthened Russian national culture, but has exposed the façade in the EU. There seems to be more cultural energy present in the U.S. today, than there is in Europe, which has long since severed from living myth.

*

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

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Europe Has Lost Its Guiding Myth. The Neocons “Rising Fever for War with China”
  • Tags:

Israel: An Occupying Power Cannot be a Beacon of Democracy

May 1st, 2023 by Prof. Alon Ben-Meir

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

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

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

*** 

I couldn’t applaud and admire enough the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who protested for 17 consecutive weeks against the Netanyahu government’s scheme to subvert Israel’s judiciary under the pretense of necessary ‘reforms.’ In reality, Netanyahu and his Justice Minister Levin were bent on subordinating Israel’s Supreme Court to the whims of a simple majority in the Knesset, and the appointment of judges to a committee with an increased number of representatives handpicked by his government. Should such legislations come to pass, it will be tantamount to giving the government unlimited power without any checks and balances, destroying the very foundation of democracy on which the country was founded and in which Israelis take special pride.

The irony here though is that whereas the majority of Israelis believe that their country is a democracy and fervently poured into the streets to preserve it, and often refer to it as the only democracy in the Middle East, what escapes them is that no country can claim to be a democracy and be an occupying power at the same time. Indeed, applying two different sets of laws and rules, one that governs Israeli citizens (including Israeli settlers in the West Bank) that accords them protection and social, economic, and political freedoms, versus the military rules that govern the Palestinians under occupation, depriving them of their basic human rights, is totally inconsistent with democracy by any definition.

The question is, why have the Israelis grown so comfortably numb to the ruthless occupation and have not once protested against its continuation, as if it were a normal state of being that has no effect or repercussions on either the occupier or the occupied?

Public acrimony: To begin with, successive Israeli governments, especially since the second Intifada in 2000, during which conservative governments were largely in power, have systematically engaged in acrimonious public narratives against the Palestinians, portraying them as being an irredeemable foe. Depicting the Palestinians as such was deliberate, albeit every Israeli government knew only too well that the Palestinians will never be in a position to pose a credible existential threat against their country.

Nevertheless, they continue to promote their denunciation of the Palestinians for public consumption, knowing that they have been nurturing hatred and cultivating hostility against the Palestinians, which now defines the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. Acrimonious public narratives that set one people against another obviously fosters conflict rather than cooperation, which is essential to a functioning democracy.

Lack of awareness: Most Israelis have very little firsthand knowledge about the ruthlessness of the occupation and the pain and suffering the Palestinians are enduring day-in and day-out. If the Israelis could witness the night raids that terrify young and old, arbitrary incarcerations, demolition of houses, forced evictions, confiscation of private land, uprooting of trees, humiliating checkpoints, vandalism by settlers, and trigger-happy soldiers who shoot to kill, they would certainly have a better grasp as to why the occupation is not and cannot be sustainable, but is contrary to every human value they hold so high.

Had even some of the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who stood tall to fight for the preservation of their democracy experienced for one day what the Palestinians endure every day under occupation, they would realize how broken Israel’s democracy is and how shameful it is to demand that they are entitled to live in a free society while the Palestinians live in servitude.

Living with the status quo: After 56 years of occupation, a mounting number of Israelis have given up on finding a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians and have come to accept the status quo as a permanent state of affairs with which they comfortably live. Successive right-wing governments led by Netanyahu openly state that there will be no Palestinian state under their watch, preferring to maintain the status quo regardless of the frequent flareups of violence, which Israel learned how to control at an acceptable cost.

The notion that the status quo can be sustained indefinitely is completely misguided, as there is absolutely no sign and no reason to believe that the Palestinians will ever give up their right to establish a state of their own. In recent years the oppressive occupation has become increasingly unbearable, resentment against and hatred of the Israelis is piercing, violence targeting Israelis is escalating, and hopelessness and despair is all-consuming, leaving the Palestinians with little left to lose. The Israelis helped to create this explosive environment. Now it is only a matter of time when the next explosion will happen. This is not how democracy works and the Israelis must sooner than later face this bitter reality.

The Palestinians’ ambition to destroy Israel: Successive Israeli governments have been brainwashing the public by promoting the notion that even if the Palestinians establish their own state, it will only be the first stage in their ultimate objective to eliminate Israel altogether. But then, not a single Israeli leader who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state has ever provided any evidence to make their case, other than using the empty rhetoric of some Palestinian militants who state that this is in fact their national goal. One might ask though by what means, military or otherwise, will the Palestinians ever be in a position to realize such an illusion against the formidable Israeli military machine that can crush any violent provocation deemed threatening to Israel’s existence?

By promoting such an absurd narrative, however, the Israeli government can ‘justify’ not only the occupation but its drive to annex more territories, expand existing and legalize illegal settlements, uproot Palestinians, and clear huge areas of its Palestinian inhabitants for military training. These activities are done systematically all in the name of national security, and unfortunately a growing number of Israelis are buying into this sinister scheme.

Normalizing the occupation: To understand the gravity of how the occupation became for most Israelis a normal state of affairs, one single statistic tells the story: 80 percent of all Israelis were born after the occupation began in 1967. For every single Israeli citizen under the age of 56, be that a soldier, a student, a scholar, a military commander, a medical doctor, a builder, a carpenter, a curator, a businessman, an engineer, or a government official, the occupation is normal. Those who want to end it have largely grown to be numb; many are even afraid to talk about it publicly, let alone openly advocate for the absolute necessity of creating an independent Palestinian state to end the conflict.

The killing of Palestinians almost daily has become routine and many Israelis only temporarily awaken when a militant Palestinian kills an Israeli Jew. Calls for revenge and retribution echo, especially by extremist right-wing Israelis, security forces immediately line up for the search of the perpetrators, often a gun battle ensues, Palestinian militants are frequently killed, and sadly innocent Palestinian civilians are often caught in the crossfire and end up paying with their lives. And of course, leave it to the settlers to do their own cruel deeds by taking revenge against any Palestinian—guilty or innocent is of no concern to them. The settlers’ pogrom against the Palestinian village of Huwara offers a chilling example of their brutality. A day or two later everything is forgotten by Israeli Jews, but the vicious cycle continues. This is Israeli-style democracy.

It is critically important to emphasize that “the normalization of occupation has made the young Israelis increasingly numb to the Palestinians’ plight, and as a result of their schooling and training they have become impervious to the people who live in servitude with little or no hope for a better and promising future. But when this indifference to the pain and suffering of the Palestinians becomes a normal state of mind for Israeli youth, it robs them of their own humanity and dignity. They do not realize how they were psychologically inculcated to become so callous and apathetic towards their young Palestinian counterparts who live in fear and uncertainty while hatred, revenge, and retribution become their only way to maintain their resistance.”

None of the above suggests that the Palestinians are innocent by any standard. They have made many mistakes. They have frequently resorted to violence and have missed many opportunities in the past to make peace as they went for all and ended up with nothing. That said, it is now up to Israel, as the dominant power, to change the dynamic of the conflict by declaring its willingness to seek peace based on a two-state solution and demonstrate to the whole world its intent while putting the Palestinians to the test. Otherwise, Israel’s social fabric will continue to disintegrate, its regional violent conflicts will intensify, and its international standing will wane. Israel will end up being nothing but a pariah state, shattering the Jewish dream of having an independent, free, strong, and just state with which every Jew takes pride, admired by its friends and envied by its enemies.

The beacon of Israel’s democracy began to fade with the start of the occupation. It is time for the hundreds of thousands of Israeli demonstrators, who have poured into the streets to protect their democracy, to face the truth: the occupation is depriving three million Palestinians in the West Bank of everything the protesters want for themselves.

Even if the protesters prevail over Netanyahu’s menacing judicial scheme, they will not save Israel’s democracy unless they relentlessly pour back into the streets and this time demand an end to the occupation and make Israel once again a beacon of democracy in the Middle East and beyond.

*

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

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Screenshot of video showing protesters and security forces wrestling a Palestinian flag out of another protester’s hands during an nti-Netanyahu protest in Israel. (Image: Twitter/@fadiamun)

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

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

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

*** 

The mRNA vaccines were released globally in early 2021 with the slogan ‘safe and effective.’ Unusually for a new class of medicine, they were soon recommended by public health authorities for pregnant women. 

By late 2021, working-age women, including those who were pregnant, were being thrown out of employment for not agreeing to be injected. Those who took the mRNA vaccines did so based on trust in the health authorities – the assumption being that they would not have been approved if the evidence was not absolutely clear. The role of regulatory agencies was to protect the public and, therefore, if they were approved, the “vaccines” were safe.

Recently, a lengthy vaccine evaluation report sponsored by Pfizer and submitted to the Australian regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) dated January 2021 was released under a Freedom of Information request. 

The report contains significant new information that had been suppressed by the TGA and by Pfizer itself. Much of this relates directly to the issue of safety in pregnancy, and impacts on the fertility of women of child-bearing age. The whole report is important, but four key data points stand out;

  • The rapid decline in antibody and T cells in monkeys following second dose, 
  • Biodistribution studies (previously released in 2021 through an FOI request in Japan)
  • Data on the impact of fertility outcomes for rats.
  • Data on fetal abnormalities in rats.

We focus on the last three items as, for the first point, it is enough to quote the report itself “Antibodies and T cells in monkeys declined quickly over 5 weeks after the second dose of BNT162b2 (V9), raising concerns over long term immunity…”.

This point indicates that the regulators should have anticipated the rapid decline in efficacy and must have known at the outset that the initial two-dose “course” was unlikely to confer lasting immunity and would, therefore, require multiple repeat doses. This expectation of failure was recently highlighted by Dr Anthony Fauci, former director at the US NIH. 

The three remaining items should be a major cause for alarm with the pharmaceutical regulatory system. The first, as revealed in 2021, involved biodistribution studies of the lipid nanoparticle carrier in rats, using a luciferase enzyme to substitute for the mRNA vaccine. 

The study demonstrated that the vaccine will travel throughout the body after injection, and is found not only at the injection site, but in all organs tested, with high concentration in the ovaries, liver, adrenal glands, and spleen. Authorities who assured vaccinated people in early 2021 that the vaccine stays in the arm were, as we have known for two years, lying.

Lipid concentration per gram, recalculated as percentage of injection site.

In terms of the impact on fertility and fetal abnormalities, the report includes a study of 44 rats and describes two main metrics, the pre-implantation loss rate and the number of abnormalities per fetus (also expressed per litter). In both cases the metrics were significantly higher for vaccinated rats than for unvaccinated rats.

Roughly speaking, the pre-implantation loss ratio compares the estimated number of fertilised ova and the ova implanted in the uterus. The table below is taken from the report itself and clearly shows the loss rate for vaccinated (BNT162b2) is more than double the unvaccinated control group.

In a case control study, a doubling of pregnancy loss in the intervention group would represent a serious safety signal. Rather than take this seriously, the authors of the report then compared the outcomes to historical data on other rat populations; 27 studies of 568 rats, and ignored the outcome because other populations had recorded higher overall losses; this range is shown in the right hand column as 2.6 percent to 13.8 percent. This analysis is alarming as remaining below the highest previously recorded pregnancy loss levels in populations elsewhere is not a safe outcome when the intervention is also associated with double the harm of the control group.

A similar pattern is observed for fetal malformations with higher abnormality rate in each of the 12 categories studied. Of the 11 categories where Pfizer confirmed the data is correct, there are only 2 total abnormalities in the control group, versus 28 with the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2). In the category which Pfizer labeled as unreliable (supernumerary lumbar ribs), there were 3 abnormalities in the control group and 12 in the vaccinated group.

As with the increased pregnancy losses, Pfizer simply ignored the trend and compared the results with historical data from other rat populations. This is very significant as it is seen across every malformation category. The case control nature of the study design is again ignored, in order to apparently hide the negative outcomes demonstrated.

These data indicate that there is NO basis for saying the vaccine is safe in pregnancy. Concentration of LNPs in ovaries, a doubled pregnancy loss rate, and raised fetal abnormality rate across all measured categories indicates that designating a safe-in-pregnancy label (B1 category in Australia) was contrary to available evidence. The data implies that not only was the Government’s “safe and effective” sloganeering not accurate, it was totally misleading with respect to the safety data available.

Known unknowns and missing data: 

Despite the negative nature of these outcomes, the classification of this medicine as a vaccine appears to have precluded further animal trials. Historically, new medicines, especially in classes never used in humans before, would require a very rigorous assessment. Vaccines, however, have a lower burden of proof requirement than ordinary medicines. By classifying mRNA injections as “vaccines,” this ensured regulatory approval with significantly less stringent safety requirements, as the TGA itself notes. 

In fact, mRNA gene therapies function more like medicines than vaccines in that they modify the internal functioning of cells, rather than stimulating an immune response to presence of an antigen. Labelling these gene therapy products as vaccines means that, as far as we are aware, even today no genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies have been carried out.

This report, which was only released after a FOI request, is extremely disturbing as it shows that authorities knew of major risks with mRNA Covid-19 vaccination while simultaneously assuring populations that it was safe. The fact that mainstream media has (as far as we are aware) completely ignored the newly released data should reinforce the need for caution when listening to the advice of public health messaging regarding Covid-19 vaccination.

Firstly, it is clear that regulators, drug companies and the government would have known that vaccine-induced immunity tails off very rapidly with this being observed in real world data with efficacy against infection falling to zero. Accordingly, the single point in time figures of 95 percent and 62 percent efficacy against cases quoted for Pfizer and ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) respectively meant almost nothing since a rapid decline was to be expected. 

Similarly, the concept of a two-dose “course” was inaccurate as endless boosters would likely have been required given the rapid decline in antibodies and T-cells observed in the monkeys.

Most importantly, the data does not in any way support the “safe” conclusion with respect to pregnancy; a conclusion of dangerous would be more accurate. The assurances of safety were, therefore, completely misleading given the data disclosures in the recent freedom of information release. 

Regulatory authorities knew that animal studies showed major red flags regarding both pregnancy loss and fetal abnormalities, consistent with the systemic distribution of the mRNA they had been hiding from the public. 

Even in March 2023, it is impossible to give these assurances, given the fact that important studies have not, to the best of our knowledge, been done. 

Pfizer elected not to follow up the vast majority of pregnancies in the original human trials, despite high miscarriage rates in the minority they did follow. Given all of the problems with efficacy and safety, the administration of these products to women of childbearing age, and administration to healthy pregnant women is high-risk and not justified. 

*

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

Assisting in co-authorship for this essay is Alex Kriel, a physicist and was one of the first people to highlight the flawed nature of the Imperial COVID model, and he is a founder of the Thinking Coalition which comprises a group of citizens who are concerned about Government overreach.

David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

Featured image is from LifeSiteNews


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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).

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published on April 30, 2018

To the memory of  the late Kevin Zeese. His legacy will live.

Seventy years of attacks on the right to unionize have left the union movement representing only 10 percent of workers. The investor class has concentrated its power and uses its power in an abusive way, not only against unions but also to create economic insecurity for workers.

At the same time, workers, both union and nonunion, are mobilizing more aggressively and protesting a wide range of economic, racial and environmental issues.

On this May Day, we reflect on the history of worker power and present lessons from our past to build power for the future.

May Day Workers of the World Unite, Melbourne, Australia, in 2012. By Johan Fantenberg, Flickr.

History 

In most of the world, May Day is a day for workers to unite, but May Day is not recognized in the United States even though it originated here. On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers in 13,000 businesses across the US walked off their jobs for the first May Day in history. It began in 1884, when the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions proclaimed at their convention that workers themselves would institute the 8-hour day on May 1, 1886. In 1885 they called for protests and strikes to create the 8-hour work day. May Day was part of a revolt against abusive working conditions that caused deaths of workers, poverty wages, poor working conditions and long hours.

May Day gained permanence because of the Haymarket rally which followed. On May 3,  Chicago police and workers clashed at the McCormick Reaper Works during a strike where locked-out steelworkers were beaten as they picketed and two unarmed workers were killed. The next day a rally was held at Haymarket Square to protest the killing and wounding of workers by police. The rally was peaceful, attended by families with children and the mayor himself. As the crowd dispersed, police attacked. A bomb was thrown—no one to this day knows who threw it—and police fired indiscriminately into the crowd, killing several civilians and wounding forty. One officer was killed by the bomb and several more died from their own gunfire. A corrupt trial followed in August concluding with a biased jury convicting eight men, though only three of them were present at Haymarket and those three were in full view of all when the bombing occurred. Seven received a death sentence, the eighth was sentenced to 15 years, and in the end, four were hanged, one committed suicide and the remaining three were pardoned six years later. The trial shocked workers of the world and led to annual protests on May Day.

The unity of workers on May Day was feared by big business and government. That unity is shown by one of the founders of May Day, Lucy Parsons, who was of Mexican American, African American, and Native American Descent. Parsons, who was born into slavery, never ceased her work for racial, gender, and labor justice. Her partner was Albert Parsons, one of those convicted for Haymarket and hanged.

Solidarity across races and issues frightens the power structure. In 1894 President Grover Cleveland severed May Day from its roots by establishing Labor Day on the first Monday in September, after pressure to create a holiday for workers following the Pullman strike. Labor Day was recognized by unions before May Day. The US tried to further wipe May Day from the public’s memory by President Dwight Eisenhower proclaiming “Law and Order Day” on May 1, 1958.

Long Shoreman march in San Francisco on May Day 2008 in the first-ever strike action by U.S. workers against U.S. imperialist war. Source: The Internationalist

Escalation of Worker Protests Continues to Grow

Today, workers are in revolt, unions are under attack and the connections between workers’ rights and other issues are evident once again. Nicole Colson reports that activists on a range of issues, including racial and economic justice, immigrant rights, women’s rights, a new economy of worker-owners, transitioning to a clean energy economy with environmental and climate justice, and a world without war, are linking their struggles on May Day.

There has been a rising tide of worker militancy for years. The ongoing Fight for $15 protests, helped raise the wages of 20 million workers and promoted their fight for a union. There are 64 million people working for less than $15 an hour. Last year there was also a massive 36-state strike involving 21,000 mobility workers.

Worker strikes continued into 2018 with teacher strikes over salaries, healthcare, pensions and school funding. Teachers rejected a union order to return to work. Even though it included a 5 percent raise, it was not until the cost of healthcare was dealt with that the teachers declared success. Teachers showed they could fight and win and taught others some lessons on striking against a hostile government. The West Virginia strike inspired others, and is followed by strikes in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Colorado, and Arizona. These strikes may expand to other states, evidence of unrest has been seen in statesincluding New Jersey and Pennsylvania as well as Puerto Rico because courage is contagious.

Graduate students have gone on strike, as have transit and UPS workers and low-wage workers. The causes include stagnant wages, spiraling healthcare costs, and inadequate pensions. They are engaged in a fight for basic necessities. In 2016, there wasn’t a single county or state in which someone earning the federal minimum wage could afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment at market rate.

Workers are also highlighting that women’s rights are worker’s rights. Even before the #MeToo movement took off, workers protested sexual harassment in the workplace. Worker’s in thirty states walked off the job at McDonald’s to protest, holding signs that said “McDonald’s Hands off my Buns” and “Put Some Respect in My Check.”

Last year on May Day, a mass mobilization of more than 100,000 immigrant workers walked off their jobs. This followed a February mobilization, a Day Without Immigrants. The Cosecha Movement has a long-term plan to build toward larger strikes and boycotts. There will be many worker revolts leading up to that day.

The Poor People’s Campaign has taken on the issues of the movement for economic, racial, environmental justice and peace. Among their demands are federal and state living wage laws, a guaranteed annual income for all people, full employment, and the right to unionize. It will launch 40 days of actions beginning on Mother’s Day. Workers announced a massive wave of civil disobedience actions this spring on the 50th anniversary of the sanitation strike in Memphis, at a protest where they teamed up with the Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for Black Lives.  Thousands of workers walk off their jobs in cities across the country.

Unrealized Worker Power Potential Can Be Achieved

The contradictions in the US economy have become severe. The wealth divide is extreme, three people have the wealth of half the population and one in five people have zero wealth or are in debt. The U.S. is ranked 35th out of 37 developed nations in poverty and inequality.  According to a UN report, 19 million people live in deep poverty including one-quarter of all youth. Thirty years of economic growth have been stagnant for most people in the US. A racial prism shows the last 50 years have made racial inequality even wider, with current policies worsening the situation.

May 5 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of economic philosopher, Karl Marx, the failure of US capitalism has become evident. Over the last fifty years, in order for the few to exploit the many, labor laws have been put in place the weaken workers’ rights and unions. Andrew Stewart summarizes some of the key points:

“First, the National Labor Relations Act, signed by FDR, that legalized unionization. Or more precisely, it domesticated unions. When combined with the Taft-Hartley Act, the Railway Labor Act, and Norris-La Guardia Act, the union movements of America were forced into a set of confines that reduced its arsenal of tactics so significantly that they became a shell of their pre-NLRA days. And this, of course, leaves to the side the impact of the McCarthy witch hunts on the ranks of good organizers.”

In addition, 28 states have passed so-called “right to work” laws that undermine the ability of workers to organize. And, the Supreme Court in the Janus case, which is likely to be ruled on this June, is likely to undermine public unions. On top of domestic laws, capitalist globalization led by US transnational corporations has undermined workers, caused de-industrialization and destroyed the environment. Trade must be remade to serve the people and planet, not profits of the few.

While this attack is happening, so is an increase in mobilizations, protests, and strikes. The total number of union members grew by 262,000 in 2017 and three-fourths of those were among workers aged 35 and under and 23% of new jobs for workers under 35 are unionized. With only 10 percent of workers in a union, there is massive room for growth at this time of economic insecurity.

Chris Hedges describes the new gig economy as the new serfdom. Uber drivers make $13.77 an hour, and in Detroit that drops to $8.77. He reports on drivers committing suicide. One man, who drove a cab over 100 hours a week to compete in the new gig driving economy, wrote,

“I will not be a slave working for chump change. I would rather be dead.”

Drivers compete for tiny hourly wages while the former CEO of Uber, one of the founders, Travis Kalanick, has a net worth of $4.8 billion. The US has returned to pre-20th Century non-union working conditions. Hedges writes that workers now must “regain the militancy and rebuild the popular organizations that seized power from the capitalists.”

Solidarity across racial and economic divides is growing as all workers suffer from abuses of the all-powerful capitalist class. As those in power abuse their privilege, people are becoming more militant. We are seeing the blueprint for a new worker movement in the teacher strikes and Fight for $15. A movement of movements including labor, environmentalist, anti-corporate advocates, food reformers, healthcare advocates and more stopped the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This shows the potential of unified power.

In recent strikes, workers have rejected proposals urged by their union and have pushed for more. Told to go back to work, they continued to strike. The future is not unions who serve to calm labor disputes, but unions who escalate a conflict.

The future is more than re-legalizing unions and raising wages and benefits, it is building wealth in the population and creating structural changes to the economy. This requires a new economy where workers are owners, in worker cooperatives, so their labor builds power and wealth. Economic justice also requires a rewoven safety net that ensures the essentials of healthcare and housing, as well as non-corporatized public education, free college education, a federal job guarantee and a basic income for all.

The escalation of militancy should not demand the solutions of the past but demand the new economy of the future. By building community wealth through democratized institutions, we will reduce the wealth divide and the influence of economic inequality over our lives.

*

Correction: In describing Chris Hedges column on the gig economy we mis-identified a suicide victim as an Uber driver when he was a cab driver competing with Uber drivers.

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese are co-directors of Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Preparing for War: The Growing Global Military Budget

May 1st, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

*** 

US$2.24 trillion is a mighty amount. It’s also a sickening figure when considering the object of this exercise. The flickering tease of war, the promise of bloodshed and an increasingly large butcher’s bill, are inevitable suggestions from such a figure. The scenes are also clear: well-paid suits dazed by theories of the next war; policy wonks jabbering over mock war games. A huge amount of money is being pushed into the venture, and the sceptics are being held at bay.

Much of this news comes from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s latest findings that countries are spending 2.2% of the world’s gross domestic product on armaments. Of that amount, the United States, China and Russia accounted for 56% of the total. Global military spending, the SIPRI report also notes, grew by 19% over 2013-2022, rising every year since 2015.

The amount is slightly more than the previous year, when SIPRI announced that total military expenditure had risen by 0.7% in real terms in 2021 “to reach $2113 billion.” The largest contributors to the binge on that occasion were the United States, China, India, the United Kingdom and Russia. In sum, the five countries accounted for 62% of expenditure.

This reads differently from the more optimistic International Monetary Institute’s assessment from 2021: “Worldwide military spending, when estimated on the basis of unweighted country averages, has declined by nearly half, from 3.6 percent GDP during the Cold War period (1970-90) to 1.9 percent of GDP in the years following the global financial crisis.” When it comes to variations on the figures in this field, best stick with SIPRA.

2022 proved to be a boon for militarists the world over, though there were particular regions that saw more growth than others. In Europe, levels of spending had reached levels unseen since the Cold War, up from 13% from the previous twelve months. The reason commonly given: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In East Asia, the justification is the increasingly hostile US-Chinese rivalry, though those in Washington’s corner are ever pointing the finger to the Yellow Horde’s ambitions in Beijing.

The picture in Europe is an ugly one, with concerns being expressed in certain strategic circles that not enough is being done to move away from dependency on the US imperium. The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) has even posited that Europe is the victim of US “vassalisation”, notably in light of the Ukraine War. Visions of strategic autonomy are more distant than ever.

Such sentiments, however, do little to discourage the militarists: whether Europe chooses to throw in its lot with Washington or not, the arms dealers and manufacturers will do a merry jig. To prove that point, the ECFR advocates the deployment of “western European forces to the east in greater numbers, offering to replace US forces in some cases.” The only difference here is the burden shared, rather than the amount spent.

In terms of individual countries, Finland’s military expenditure rose by 36% in 2022 to reach $4.8 billion, the largest in the country’s year-on-year increase since 1962. Polish military expenditure grew by 11%, reaching $16.6 billion over the course in 2022. The passage of the Homeland Defence Act, designed to reorganise the military and raise defence spending, promises to eventually push the levels to 4% of GDP. Warsaw has made no secret of the fact that it wishes to have the continent’s largest army, a daft and distinctly draining exercise.

The figures are also significant given the increasingly proxy nature of the Ukraine War’s balance sheet. Ukraine, for its part, rose from its position at 36 on the league of arms spenders to 11 in 2022, with a figure of $44 billion. But SIPRI has a modest confession to make: it is unable to furnish us “an accurate assessment of the total amount of financial military aid to Ukraine”. This is largely because the donor countries have, for the most part, not released disaggregated data. A rough estimate of $30 billion is provided, which “includes financial contributions, training and operational costs, replacement costs of the military equipment stocks donated to Ukraine and payments to procure additional military equipment for the Ukrainian armed forces.”

Some of this must be factored into the increased budgets of the UK (top European spender at 3.1%), with Germany and France coming in at 2.5% and 2.4% respectively. Of the three, the UK has given the most military aid to Ukraine, and is second only behind the United States, which allocated $19.9 billion.

As for the US itself, the Biden administration has already mooted the idea that it will increase the number of troops deployed to Europe by 20,000 personnel to 100,000. The measure is part of the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), an effort to, according to the US Department of Defense, “enhance the US deterrence posture, increase the readiness and responsiveness of US forces in Europe, support the collective defense and security of NATO allies, and bolster the security and capacity of US allies and partners.”

While China, with a bill of $292 billion, is leant upon as an excuse for increased military expenditure by other powers, the United States remains the undisputed premier spender, making up a staggering 39% of the global total at $877 billion. Hardly the sort of figure to be sported by a peacemaker.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

West Sends Depleted Uranium Weapons to Ukraine: MEP to Warmongers – “You Make Me Sick!”

By Colin Todhunter, April 29, 2023

Those who have been following events in Ukraine will know of the bloodshed and destruction taking place in that country, especially if they go beyond mainstream media reports.

Blood Clots, Pulmonary Emboli in Young Women: A Not-so-rare and Often Fatal Complication of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination

By Dr. William Makis, May 01, 2023

Pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs) as an adverse event following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination has been well known since the vaccines were rolled out. Here is a case report of a 59 year old woman with pulmonary embolism 7 days after 1st Pfizer dose, published in June 2021. They always knew.

Who Gains from a Forever War in Ukraine?

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, May 01, 2023

The newly elected president of the Czech Republic Petr Pavel is an unusual European politician. He is the second president in his country with a military background but the first without political experience. 

UK Steams Towards Trade War with Turkey Over Ironing Boards

By Simon Hooper, May 01, 2023

In a report published this week, the UK’s Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) said Turkish manufacturers had benefited from state subsidies, and UK ironing board prices had been kept unfairly low because of a surge in imports from Turkey.

Not a Green Bone in Their White Bodies

By Stan Cox, April 29, 2023

It’s not often that conservative lobbyists beat the drum for increased environmental oversight and regulation. But that’s what happened this month when the far-right Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), through its legal arm, filed a brief in federal court demanding that the Department of Homeland Security conduct an extensive environmental impact study examining, of all things, immigration policy.

Bodybuilders Collapsing and Dying Suddenly. More Suspicious High Level Athlete Deaths

By Dr. William Makis, April 29, 2023

Some people might be tempted to dismiss deaths of bodybuilders. Not me. There are many deaths here that are highly suspicious, cardiac arrests, deaths in their sleep, and what I found particularly interesting, deaths with seemingly no explanation.

Bush Family’s Links to Nazi Germany: “A Famous American Family” Made Their Fortune from the Nazis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 29, 2023

The Bush family’s links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was a partner of George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush.

Russia-Africa Relations Under “The Crisis of the Existing World Order”

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, April 28, 2023

Several reports have criticised aspects of Russia’s policy, further identified pitfalls, and highlighted challenges and approach toward Africa, even after its first symbolic summit held in October 2019.

Groups Pushing Vaccine Passports, Mandates Were Quietly Funded by Pfizer

By The Free Thought Project, April 28, 2023

Pfizer, the manufacturer of one of the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the country, silently funded groups advocating for vaccine mandates and passports, according to a report by Lee Fang (paywalled).

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: West Sends Depleted Uranium Weapons to Ukraine: MEP to Warmongers – “You Make Me Sick!”

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

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

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

*** 

Graeme MacQueen was a powerful voice and a lifelong friend. Outstanding scholar and professorHe was a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), His Legacy will Live. Michel Chossudovsky

To read Graeme’s extensive writings and analysis published by Global Research, consult the Graeme MacQueen’s Archive (2011-2023)

***

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”Edmund Burke

Graeme MacQueen worked hard and effectively for Peace by demolishing the “B Movie” narrative of the 911 false flag. In so-doing, he also destroyed the fake narrative of the War on Terror.

Those of us who profess to support Peace while working or thinking within the framework of imperial war lies are not supporting Peace at all. In so doing, we are cogs in a war machine that has slaughtered millions since the end of WW2, and continues to do so.

MacQueen was instrumental in destroying the foundational myth of the fraudulent “Global War on Terror”, cover for  global war of imperial conquest, and the on-going slaughter,  death, impoverishment, and displacement of multitudes.

Our governments support al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and beyond. Our governments are bringing us to the precipice of nuclear annihilation. Our governments need to be held to account, and it won’t happen if we continue to embrace criminal war lies.

Graeme MacQueen is an example of what we need to do. He embraced Truth for Peace. He was a “warrior” for Peace.

MacQueen was not silent.  His legacy will live on.

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.

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

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

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

*** 

Boise, ID – 42 year old photojournalist Theresa Marie Palmgren died suddenly on April 5, 2023 while at work from pulmonary embolism (click here)

St. Louis, MO – 27 year old artist and Twitch streamer Katlyn “Katie” Mae Cuneo died suddenly (from pulmonary embolism) on March 17, 2023

Guatemala – Pennsylvania mother of two boys, 27 year old Rocio “Rose” Michelle Roberts died suddenly on March 15, 2023, 4 days after giving birth, from a pulmonary embolism.

Eugene, OR – 46 year old Bethany Jessica Scott Price, age 46, died of a pulmonary embolism on March 6, 2023, according to those familiar with her death (click here)

UK – 31 year old beauty therapist Gemma Harries collapsed and died Jan. 16, 2023. She was found to have blood clots in her lungs and legs (click here)

May be an image of 3 people and wedding

UK – 41 year old Clare Duffy went to take a nap after waking up with a sore shoulder and died suddenly of pulmonary embolism on Jan. 8, 2023 (click here)

UK – 40 year old healthcare worker Kelly Gleeson died of a pulmonary embolism on Dec. 29, 2022 (click here)

Little Rock, AR – 18 year old cheerleader Victoria Moody died suddenly of pulmonary embolism on Oct. 23, 2022, after her dad took her to the hospital because she wasn’t feeling well on Sunday evening (click here)

Fareham, UK – 27 year old NHS nurse (who worked for Child and Adolescent Mental Health) Anna Harriman died suddenly in July 2022 of pulmonary embolism (click here)

Image

Monterey, CA – 51 year old Human Trafficking Outreach Manager Deborah Pembrook died suddenly on April 27, 2022 from a massive pulmonary embolus (click here)

Gering, NE – 36 year old Cylie Noel Wyatt died suddenly from a saddle pulmonary embolism on May 19, 2022 (click here)

Houston, TX – Rice University director of student media, 46 year old Kelly Lash died suddenly on Feb. 21, 2022 died of pulmonary embolism (click here)

Washington, DC – 28 year old law student at Howard University, Saron Berhe, died suddenly of pulmonary embolism on Jan. 17, 2022 (click here)

UK – 23 year old Georgina Furniss died suddenly of large saddle pulmonary embolism on June 21, 2021 (click here)

My Take…

Pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs) as an adverse event following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination has been well known since the vaccines were rolled out. Here is a case report of a 59 year old woman with pulmonary embolism 7 days after 1st Pfizer dose, published in June 2021. They always knew. (click here)

Shockingly, World Health Organization’s VigiAccess database records 29,046 pulmonary embolism adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination!

When a condition is as fatal as pulmonary embolism, 29,000 people reporting this to the WHO is an absolutely staggering number.

Anecdotally, women seem to be more affected by this adverse event, although it does happen to men as well.

Although a product like The Wellness Company’s Spike Support formula (CLICK HERE) contains Nattokinase, an enzyme that breaks down blood clots including those in the lungs, most people don’t know that they’re suffering from post COVID-19 vaccine blood clots until it’s too late.

That’s why it is so crucial to wake as many people up as possible.

*

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

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

Featured image:  A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Blood Clots, Pulmonary Emboli in Young Women: A Not-so-rare and Often Fatal Complication of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination

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

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

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

*** 

The UK is steaming towards a possible trade war with Turkey in defence of the country’s only manufacturer of ironing boards.

In a report published this week, the UK’s Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) said Turkish manufacturers had benefited from state subsidies, and UK ironing board prices had been kept unfairly low because of a surge in imports from Turkey.

It said it intended to recommend the imposition of a 4.44 percent tariff, to be paid by companies importing ironing boards from Turkey to the UK, in order to protect the British manufacturer.

Oliver Griffiths, chief executive of the TRA, said:

“Our provisional finding is that subsidies have kept prices of the imported goods unfairly low, causing injury to the British producer, and so we’re intending to recommend a new tariff on ironing boards from Turkey.”

The TRA is a public body set up in 2021, following the UK’s exit from the European Union, “to defend the UK against unfair international trade practices”.

It investigates complaints raised by British industries and advises the Department for Business and Trade on measures to redress unfair trade practices.

The investigation into Turkish ironing boards is the TRA’s first into foreign state subsidies affecting British industry since it was established. If a tariff is imposed, it would be the first new anti-subsidy measure to be applied since the UK left the EU.

A tariff on ironing board imports would be compatible with the free trade agreement signed by the UK and Turkey in 2020 because both sides agreed to adhere to World Trade Organization rules which allow action against subsidies which cause harm to a domestic industry.

The investigation was launched by the TRA following a complaint filed by the UK ironing board manufacturer in April 2022.

It found that Turkish ironing board manufacturers based in free zones, special areas set up within Turkey since the 1980s to promote export businesses, had benefited from corporation and income tax exemptions which amounted to government subsidies.

Manufacturers also benefited from loans provided by the state-owned Turk Eximbank, the Turkish government’s export credit agency, which investigators determined also amounted to subsidies.

In a response to questions from investigators, Turkey’s Ministry of Trade said there was “no government involvement in policy, economic regulation and decision-making activities related to the production of ironing boards”.

As part of the investigation, TRA inspectors visited the factory of one manufacturer, Milenyum Metal, based in a free zone in the central Anatolian city of Kayseri.

Milenyum Metal was the only Turkish company to submit evidence to the inquiry. Two other Turkish companies registered an interest in the case but did not respond to questions from the TRA.

A spokesperson for Milenyum Metal declined to comment because the TRA investigation is still ongoing.

Inspectors compared the physical and functional characteristics of ironing boards manufactured in the UK and Turkey as well as similarities in production methods.

They concluded that the items were “directly comparable and interchangeable”.

The report said:

“We found that the basic product type consists of steel legs, steel top, iron rest and textile cover. The primary use of all product types is the ironing of clothes.”

Investigators compared Turkish and British ironing boards (TRA)

A page of a TRA investigation document comparing Turkish and British ironing boards (TRA)

The investigation found that imports of Turkish ironing boards to the UK increased sharply in 2019. But sales of ironing boards fell in 2020 because of “changes in consumer habits” linked to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The ironing board market had displayed “signs of recovery” in 2021 with approximately 1.4m sold in the UK, the report said.

The report said the British producer held a market share of between 30 and 40 percent, but Turkish manufacturers retained an increased share of the import market and accounted for between 15 and 25 percent of the total market.

This had resulted, it concluded, in “significant price undercutting”, driving down the price of British-made ironing boards and preventing the UK manufacturer from raising prices in line with increased production costs.

The report noted that consumers were especially sensitive to price changes because of the “durable nature of ironing boards” and the existence of substitutes such as “table ironing mats, hand-held garment steamers, non-steel ironing boards, dry cleaning, or even wrinkle-free clothing”.

“UK ironing boards compete directly with ironing boards produced abroad, as they share physical and technical characteristics. Consumers are therefore driven by prices and would be willing to switch between brands to avoid higher prices,” it said.

The report said the British manufacturer, which is not named in the report, told investigators that it could be forced to cease production of ironing boards if a duty was not imposed on Turkish imports.

It is identified as having production sites in Rochdale and Manchester, with about 110 employees – just over a third of its total workforce – involved in making ironing boards. The company had a turnover of £42m ($53m) and a net profit of £1.8m ($2.2m) in 2021, according to data it submitted to the investigation.

Rochdale is the home of Minky Homecare, which describes itself as “the UK’s number one brand in the laundry market, with Minky ironing boards and covers found in over 70 percent of UK homes”.

Ironing boards advertised on Minky’s website are described as “designed and manufactured in the UK”.

Minky had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.

Wednesday’s report was a preliminary summary of the findings and likely recommendations of the investigation. Parties to the case, who also include UK importers of ironing boards, now have until 29 May to make further submissions prior to the publication of the TRA’s “final determination”.

The UK’s tax office on Wednesday announced that a provisional tariff on Turkish ironing board imports set at 4.42 percent would be imposed from 26 May. 

The final decision on imposing a tariff rests with Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch.

A spokesperson for the UK’s Department for Business and Trade declined to comment. Turkey’s Ministry of Trade did not respond to a request for comment.

*

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

Featured image: Ironing boards made by Turkey’s Milenyum Metal at a Hong Kong trade fair in 2018 (Facebook)

Who Gains from a Forever War in Ukraine?

May 1st, 2023 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

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

*** 

The newly elected president of the Czech Republic Petr Pavel is an unusual European politician. He is the second president in his country with a military background but the first without political experience. 

He never saw combat duty and is an arm chair military strategist but lionised as a “senior NATO leader” — whatever that may mean. The high noon of Pavel’s professional career in the military was reached in 1993 when while serving in the UN Protection Force in Bosnia, he led a team of 29 soldiers to evacuate a French military outpost under siege by Serbian soldiers, which he executed after overcoming obstacles that slowed down the operation such as fallen trees which his soldiers had to remove from the road. France decorated Pavel. 

At any rate, the 61-year old soldier-politician has hit the road running when barely 7 weeks into his new job as head of state, Pavel threw a curve ball claiming China cannot be a reliable mediator between Russia and Ukraine due to Beijing’s secret craving for “more war.”  

Pavel assessed that China gets cheap oil, gas, and other resources from Moscow in exchange for promises of “partnership” and its interest lies in prolonging the status quo “because it can push Russia to a number of concessions.” 

These remarks could have been dismissed as those of a greenhorn but for his fame as a “senior NATO leader” and the Czech Republic’s reputation as a chattel and cats-paw of Washington. Hence the big question: What is Biden administration up to? 

The obvious thing will be that Pavel’s remark on “cheap” oil and gas from Russia to China is a gross simplification of a complicated story. Europe was receiving Russian gas and oil for decades at low prices on the basis of long-term contracts until the EU, under American pressure, took the idiotic decision to sanction Russia.

Whereupon, Russia turned to other markets, principally Asian, China being one of them. The rest is history. What’s the point of sitting upon the ground and telling sad stories?

Europeans should feel worried that even after the war ends, once Russia diversifies its export markets, they may never again get “cheap” Russian gas. (By the way, China is not the only beneficiary, as Europeans who continue to buy Russian oil and petroleum products from Indian companies at much higher prices would know!) 

Pavel spoke in the context of the expected announcement by Joe Biden seeking the presidency once again in 2024. One hugely consequential part of Biden’s announcement on Tuesday is that the prospect of the Ukraine war ending between now and 2024 November elections in the US can now be deemed as practically nil. 

The only way it can happen otherwise is if the US outright wins the war and candidate Biden claims victory. But the reaction from Moscow shows that what is in the cards is an escalation in Ukraine that is fraught with great risk of a direct conflict between Russia and the US.

Top Kremlin officials came out on Tuesday with a spate of statements on an impending showdown with the Biden administration. The Russian media disclosed that Russia’s new state-of-the-art Armata T-14 main battle tank has been deployed on the Ukrainian front lines. 

Moscow anticipates large scale US interference in Russia’s internal politics to create conditions that would undermine the country’s stability, as part of a grand design to trigger a break-up of the Russian Federation, as had happened to the former Soviet Union. (here)

Moscow estimates that the Biden administration will try hard to bring about a regime change in the Kremlin. Above all, Moscow no longer rules out that the US escalation in Ukraine may aim to create conditions posing grave threat to the Russian state. ( here

The former president Dmitry Medvedev vividly spoke of such a scenario warning explicitly that Russia may be compelled to resort to first use of nuclear arms if its existence is threatened, underscoring that paragraph 19 of the country’s nuclear doctrine states that nuclear weapons “can be used when aggression is carried out against Russia with the use of other types of weapons that endanger the very existence of the state. It is essentially the use of nuclear weapons in response to such actions. Our potential adversaries should not underestimate this.” 

Specifically, with reference to Biden’s mental health and failing faculties, Medvedev also tweeted:

“Biden has made the decision, after all. A daring geezer. In place of the American military, I would immediately make a fake trunk with false nuclear codes in case he wins, so as to avoid fatal consequences.” 

On the other hand, the spectre that haunts the Biden administration is that Europe cannot easily extricate itself from its relationship with China and it is the interests of Old Europe’s economic heartlands that will ultimately determine EU policy.

Make no mistake, just 3 countries of Old Europe — France, Italy and Germany —  account for more than a half of EU’s GDP and they also happen to be China’s largest trading partners in the EU. Amidst the brouhaha over French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent endorsement of a close industrial relationship with China, what has gone unnoticed is that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is on the same page as Macron. Equally so with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. The European industry is also loathe to lose China as a privileged trading partner, after having lost Britain and Russia. 

New Europeans like Pavel may have different priorities, being the strongest trans-atlanticists in the EU, but East Europe makes up just 10% of the EU’s GDP and does not speak for the EU, despite the media hype its leaders have lately enjoyed as “frontline states”, due to the Anglo-American patronage.         

Suffice to say, there is trepidation in the American mind as to whether the EU will follow the US into a confrontational position with China in the coming months, or would strive to become more independent of the US, with all the consequences that would ensue. Equally, from the viewpoint of Old Europe, the gnawing doubt is whether a future US administration would want to align with Europe even if Europe were to align with the US. 

On balance, it is difficult to visualise the EU fully aligning with the US in an all-out conflict with China over Taiwan, agree to freeze Chinese official reserves as it did last year with Russia, and stop investing in China.

The EU economy is simply not built for cold-war style relations, as it has become too dependent on global supply chains. All things taken into account, therefore, the strong likelihood is that the pro-China lobby in Germany will win this debate. In fact, in the process, the Franco-German alliance may be rekindled, too.  

Pavel’s demonisation of China as an evil spirit stalking Europe can be put in perspective. His is a surrogate voice mouthing Biden’s angst that as the Ukrainian military is comprehensively ground down in the battlefields by the Russian forces in the months ahead, Europe may join hands with China to bring the war to an end. 

*

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

Featured image: Russia’s T-14 Armata Next Gen. Tank Deployed to Ukrainian Frontlines (Source: IP)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who Gains from a Forever War in Ukraine?

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

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

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

*** 

The US will work alongside South Korea to develop a strategic nuclear policy and frequently station nuclear weapon-armed submarines on the peninsula, according to an agreement announced by the White House marking the first visit of the new South Korean president to the US.

Released on Wednesday, before the East Room was festooned with guests watching President Yoon Suk-yeol sing The Day the Music Died karaoke style, it marks the first time that US nuclear warheads will be present on the Korean Peninsula since they were removed in 1991, and the first outright departure from commitments to reduce the reliance on deterrence with nuclear weapons.

It also came, unlikely by chance, on the 5-year anniversary of the signing of the Panmunjom Declaration between former President Moon Jae-in and Chairman Kim Jung-un.

That was the closest the Korean Peninsula had come to peace since the Korean War was concluded with a ceasefire in 1953, and the closest to a denuclearized Korea since the North first got the bomb sometime between when it left the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003, and its first detonation in 2006.

“US officials said the nuclear-armed submarines will only ‘visit’ South Korea and that the US won’t permanently deploy nukes to the country,” reports Antiwar news editor Dave DeCamp. “But under the deal, the temporary deployment of US strategic assets to the peninsula will become much more frequent”.

The deal stipulates that South Korea will not seek to individually obtain nuclear weapons, something which President Yoon mused about earlier in his presidency, but which the Blue House walked back.

Atoms for survival

The North Korean state is often referred to as “rogue” vis-à-vis the international community. But they aren’t madmen or fools. They knew the only way their regime could survive Washington’s unipolar moment following the collapse of their Soviet benefactors was to harness the power of the atom bomb.

The easiest comparison to make to understand their thinking is looking at the current North Korean dictatorship, which got nukes and is still around, and compare it to the Libyan dictatorship, which had chemical weapons, got rid of them around the same time that North Korea left the NPT to pursue nukes, and was overthrown by America under Obama.

South Korea on the other hand has for some time polled strongly in favor of establishing independent nuclear capabilities, and the New York Times suggests that Yoon is looking to assuage those in favor with this cooperative strategy with the US – amounting to what is essentially a carbon-copy of the NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement.

South Korea is part of the NPT, so in principle there’s no reason to think public pressure could change the status quo there. North Korea is the only country that‘s ever left the NPT having first ratified it.

The bigger concern should be, with nuclear weapons coming in and out of harbor in the South, to what degree does this agreement escalate tensions, reduce the future chances for better North-South cooperation, and increase the risk of a nuclear accident?

There’s always a risk when nuclear weapons are present in a geopolitical conflict zone, but with the existing conventional forces aimed at the North, the deterrence against a disarming nuclear first strike by Kim Jung-UN remains high.

Countering Trump

What is always the biggest risk, and what Daniel Ellsberg details so well in his 2021 book The Doomsday Machine, is the risk in these situations for a nuclear accident, or an unauthorized launch, particularly in the midst of other crises and communications disruptions.

On this front, the greater presence of nuclear weapons on the peninsula will do nothing to make the peninsula safer for the North and the South.

Much was made at the White House about the date being the 70th anniversary of the first alliance between the South Koreans and the US.

What the deal more likely represents is an attempt to rubber-stamp the military-industrial complex’s rejection of former President Trump’s notion, a notion that was realized five years ago today, that the way in which the peninsula could be made safer is through reduced sanctions, reduced military drills and buildup, and more cross-Korean dialogue.

With Donald Trump and Joe Biden having already announced their candidacies for the 2024 Presidential Election, making the American people’s latest memory of the stalemate in Korea be Yoon singing karaoke after agreeing to allow more US military involvement in the peninsula, is how the Biden team believes they can erase any memories of what was certainly one of the most significant events in the Trump presidency – that like Alexander the Great, he was almost able to cut the Gordian Knot of the Korean War.

The pictures of Trump, President Moon, and Chairman Kim shaking hands and crossing the turquoise border on the DMZ, and the later images of Kim clasping hands with Moon in the Blue House, having just signed an agreement to formally end the Korean War and begin talks on a stepwise disarmament effort, were exceptionally powerful images that sat on the front pages of every major news outlet on the planet for a week.

It’s a legacy that Biden hoped no doubt to erase with this recent agreement. More his part, Biden made a point in a statement on the meeting that he remains committed to negotiation with the North, and invites them back to the table. But that’s a lie, or at least foolish to say, because he’s “committed” absolutely nothing to the effort; not as president, nor as a senator.

*

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

Andrew Corbley is founder and editor of World at Large, an independent news outlet. He is a loyal listener of Antiwar radio and of the Scott Horton Show. Reprinted with permission from World at Large.

Featured image: Trump and Kim meet Sunday before Trump became first US president to step on North Korean territory. (White House photo)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US and South Korea Agree to Co-Design Nuclear Weapons Policy Five Years After Panmunjom Declaration
  • Tags:

Depleted Uranium – An Untold Story

May 1st, 2023 by Felicity Arbuthnot

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

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

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

*** 

Roger Helbig, a man with an unhealthy obsession: he believes that depleted uranium (DU) waste from the nuclear fuel cycle, which is used in munitions and bullets – is safe.

I received an unsolicited email from him, entitled ‘The Real Doug Rokke’ in response to an article I had written for The Brussels Tribunal. It read:

‘I see that you have been taken in by Doug Rokke, who really does not know much about anything, let alone depleted uranium. It is sad that a Phd has so little real knowledge. I also see you claim to be a journalist. What newspapers, radio stations or TV stations have you actually worked for, or are you like Bob Nichols, a self-described journalist with no actual journalistic experience?’

His tirade continued:

‘Rokke’s military records and part of his PhD thesis are attached. You will note he has no real expertise in depleted uranium and his claims about the Middle East are pure fantasy, yet you inflame the Arab street with them. You ought to learn more about what is before telling the world all about it.’

I had written in the article:

‘Depleted uranium from shells fired by British and American forces during the Balkan wars has found its way into the food chain and has been detected amongst the civilian populations of Kosovo and Bosnia. A study of the local population in three locations in the two Balkan regions has found samples of the highly radioactive particles in the urine of all those tested.’

Helbig had highlighted the excerpt, commenting:

‘This is pure bullshit and you know it. Where are the actual test results? I presume you don’t choose to read the United Nations Environmental Programme report – it is only about 300 pages, well documented instead of scientific myth!’

Lieutenant Colonel Roger Helbig, USAF, Rtd (it appears) is one of a small Pentagon-inspired group devoted to denigrating and undermining the efforts of those drawing attention to the dangers of DU, which three UN Sub-Committees have designated a weapon of mass destruction. Rokke is just the latest in a long line of Helbig targets. Journalist Bob Nichols, Project Censored award winner for his DU coverage, writes, ‘Individuals on web sites throughout the United States have complained about the abusive and aggressive actions of an Air Force Lieut. Colonel named Roger Helbig’.

David Lindorff, another award winner and the (UK) Observer’s David Rose, have also suffered a barage of abuse for stories exposing the dangers of DU, which poisons the environment, thus entire food chain regionally where used, for four-and-a-half billion years.

Nichols cites Helbig ‘attacking hundreds of sites and harrassing web moderators.’ Informative DU sites (such as [email protected] and www.notinkansas.us – the latter’s meticulously researched alerts included the chilling warning of US military in Iraq reagrding bathing in shower water taken from Tigris river: ‘GI’s Beware Radioactive Showers’) are also victims. Researcher, John Ervin, posted on www.apfn.net: ‘They’ve already sent Lt. Colonel Roger Helbig after me.’

Leuren Moret, President of Scientists for Indigenous Peoples and City of Berkeley (Ca) Environmental Commissioner states: ‘Helbig has been harassing me nonstop for two to three years.’ Moret travels the world warning on the dangers of DU, working with a group of independent scientists (www.radiation.org) and submitted a paper on DU to a UN Sub-Committee, one of the ones which led to DUs designation as a weapon of mass destruction.

The picture Helbig paints of his latest target Rokke is unrecognisable from the truth. Major (Dr) Doug Rokke, Former Director of the US Army Depleted Uranium Project (www.traprockpeace.org), principal author of the Pentagon regulations and procedural guidelines (US Army Regulation 700-48 And US Army PAM 700-48) on the dangers and handling of DU affected areas: tanks, structures, terrain, equipment and personnel, civilian and military.

Rokke, whose team led the (impossible) clean up in Kuwait in 1991 after the first Gulf War, was so horrified by what he found, he finally spoke out – at cost. Sick from DU poisoning himself, he has suffered ongoing ‘physical, psychological and economic threats’ from Helbig and other US government representatives since.

Rokke has crucial, credible, hands-on knowledge, thus, writes David Lindorff, the effort to discredit him, label him ‘a fraud’, demote him to ‘Lt.’ by Helbig, has been vicious and tenacious.

This is the same Doug Rokke whose Army evaluation report, dated July 30th 1994, cites the then Captain Rokke as being Project Director and primary technical expert and specialist adviser to US Army major commands, the US Army Chemical School and contractors during training, development and test implementation. In 1995 he was cited for a ‘meritorious service’ medal, for work on DU. He left the army when none of his health warning reached the troops.

Rokke and another former Pentagon advisor, Dr Asav Durakovic, whose CV and list of peer reviewed papers runs to 52 pages, Canadian expert Professor Hari Sharma (who wrote to NATO and world leaders of the dangers of DU), Dr Garth Nicholson and others have demanded appropriate testing and treatment of all affected – soldiers and civilians – and rigorous DU clean up, where used or tested ‘as already required by the US Department of Defence regulations…’, states Rokke. The polluter pays. But the cost would be stratospheric; so Helbig’s group stalk the internet to insult and intimidate.

‘The use of uranium munitions is an act of terror,’ Rokke says. In context, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority ‘selfinitiated’ a report for the British government on DU shortly after the 1991 war. If 50 tonnes of the residual DU dust remained, they estimated that there wiuld be in excess of half a million cancer deaths in the region by the year 2000. The Pentagon admits to 325 tonnes remaining and other estimates are as high as 900 tonnes. In 2003 a further two thousand tonne DU burden has been admitted to.

Iraq and the region’s cancers have become a tragedy equalling Chernobyl. Oddly, when the US/UK military allowed the looting of every Iraqi State building, all medical records of this unique war crime was destroyed.

Helbig is excercised by a memo from Los Alamos National Laboratories, New Mexico, from a Lt. Colonel Larson to a Major Ziehman. It is dated the day after the 1991 onslaught on Iraq ended (1st March 1991.) Headed ‘The Effectiveness of Depleted Uranium Penetrators’, it reads: ‘There is a relatively small amount of lethality data for uranium penetrators… The recent war has likely multiplied the DU rounds fired at targets by orders of magnitude…

‘There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus, be deleted from the arsenal.’ Thus, ‘we should assure their future existence’ otherwise may stand to lose them. He continues, ‘I believe we should keep this sensitive issue in mind, when, after action, reports are written.’

US tanks damaged by DU rounds in 1991 were taken to a nuclear decontamination plant at Barnwell, North Carolina, reportedly constructed the previous year solely for this purpose. Those beyond decontamination were buried in specially licensed landfill sites.

In June 1995 the US Army Environmental Policy Institute wrote of DU: ‘DU is a radioactive waste and therefore should be deposited in a licensed repository’. The poisoned chalice of breaking the news that Kuwait had been turned in to an unlicensed one, fell to the luckless British Ambassador.

Helbig’s email cites the United Nations Environment Agency Report. There were two UNEP Reports on Balkans contamination. The first was cut – under alleged US/UK pressure – from 72 pages, to two. An impeccable source on the second, to which Helbig refers, stated that in spite of considerable obstacles placed in their way, a list of the most contaminated sites to sample was compiled. On arrival, the multinational forces excluded visits to those sites. As Professor Malcolm Hooper, Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry at Sunderland University (UK) writes in his article ‘Most Toxic War in Western Military History’, regarding Iraq in 1991: ‘at every level, investigation into illness, birth defects, contamination has been blocked and bedevilled by … a pervasive myopia which sees lack of evidence as proof.’

Last September, Lieutenant Colonel Helbig, of Richardson, California, was in Court. Complex, inter-connected cases, heard also in June and July, due to resume in December, involve Helbig’s neighbour, Jamahl Feres, of Syrian origin and his Swiss wife Katherine. They allege suffering three years of harrasment including the last year, in which Helbig covered all windows in his house which faced theirs, with Israeli flags. Leuren Moret and Bob Nichol will be witnesses for the Feres’s.

*

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

Veteran War Correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization and Associate Editor of Global Research.

Le guerre divampano dal Sudan all’Ucraina. Cresce di conseguenza la spesa militare mondiale. L’Europa ha speso nel 2022 in armi e operazioni militari  il 13% in più rispetto al 2021, registrando il più forte aumento da 30 anni a questa parte. La spesa militare annua dell’Italia è salita a oltre 30 miliardi di euro, ossia a una media di oltre 80 milioni di euro al giorno.

Si continua allo stesso tempo a nascondere e mistificare le vere cause delle guerre. Il presidente Biden dichiara che “la tragica violenza in Sudan è inconcepibile e deve finire”. Cancella in tal modo il fatto che, quando era vicepresidente dell’Amministrazione Obama, è stato uno dei principali artefici della strategia statunitense che ha alimentato la guerra in Sudan per spaccare il paese in due parti. Nasceva così nel 2011 lo Stato artificiale del Sud Sudan, in possesso del 75% delle riserve petrolifere sudanesi. Ciò ha provocato l’ulteriore estensione dei conflitti interni e delle ingerenze esterne per il controllo della regione sudanese, importante sia perché è ricca di petrolio, gas naturale, oro e altre materie prime, sia perché  ha una posizione geostrategica  chiave nel continente africano.

In Ucraina Stati Uniti, NATO e Unione Europea continuano ad alimentare la guerra contro la Russia, fornendo al regime di Kiev crescenti quantità di armi e assistenza militare di ogni tipo. Allo stesso tempo fanno sì che il regime di Kiev cancelli tutto ciò che è russo dall’Ucraina e dalla sua storia. Dopo che Kiev ha decretato di mandare al rogo 100 milioni di libri russi a partire dai classici della letteratura – una pratica analoga a quella del nazismo hitleriano – Zelenski ha firmato una legge che vieta i nomi russi dei luoghi e altri simboli della fondamentale componente russa della storia ucraina. Il loro uso è considerato per legge un “atto criminale” e comporta gravi pene. Zelenski ha inoltre firmato una legge in base alla quale, per ottenere la cittadinanza ucraina, è necessario un esame non solo sulla lingua ma anche sulla “storia dell’Ucraina”. Questa è riscritta da “storici” che esaltano personaggi come Stepan Bandera, collaborazionista del nazismo hitleriano. Nello stesso quadro, la Corte Suprema Ucraina ha decretato nel 2022 che i simboli della Divisione SS Galizia – composta da nazisti ucraini che commisero crimini orrendi – non sono nazisti e possono quindi essere usati quali simboli politici anche nelle manifestazioni. Questa Ucraina il Governo italiano si impegna a “ricostruire” investendovi miliardi di euro sottratti ai cittadini italiani.

Manlio Dinucci

 

VIDEO :

Russia’s Electronic Warfare Capabilities

April 29th, 2023 by Drago Bosnic

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

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

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

First published on April 18, 2023

*** 

Electronic warfare (EW) is one of the most important aspects of modern military capabilities and is often the litmus test of how advanced the state and its armed forces are. It’s part of the “invisible” and yet extremely intense battle that we usually cannot see directly.

However, its impact is wholly undeniable. Russia is among the world leaders in EW and its warfighting capabilities in this regard are a source of pride for the Eurasian giant, but also fear for its adversaries.

Russian dominance in EW on the frontlines of Ukraine is so comprehensive and massive that it’s one of the few things the mainstream propaganda machine never dared to question or ridicule. Even Russian strategic thermonuclear capabilities were subjected to propaganda attacks at times, but its EW capabilities – never. And for good reason.

And yet, as with everything concerning the mainstream propaganda machine, we must tread carefully. This is especially true when it comes to the media citing the Pentagon “leaks” as their primary source of information. Needless to say, an actual leak would require an inadvertent release of classified information and most intelligence experts agree it’s extremely unlikely there was anything inadvertent about it. However, this is not to say that all information connected to the “leak” is false. On the contrary, its relatively elaborate nature implies that much of it is indeed true, but it can be difficult to discern what exactly. One of the few “leaked” facts we can surely believe concerns precisely Russian EW capabilities. Still, this begs the question – why?

To answer that, we should first dissect and specify the claims of the mainstream propaganda machine. The “leaks” include a massive amount of information, including the claim that US-made JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) bombs are failing in Ukraine due to successful Russian EW measures. The “leak” documents not only review the use of Russian countermeasures to make JDAMs ineffective, but also indicate that in some cases this results in failure to even detonate. It seems this includes the JDAM-ER (Extended Range) bombs that the troubled Biden administration sent to the Kiev regime in order to provide certain battlefield advantages to its forces. A futile effort, it would seem now, although the documents suggest that at least a thousand JDAM kits have been sent so far.

Politico claims that “Russia is using GPS jamming to interfere with the weapons’ targeting process, according to the slide and a separate person familiar with the issue who’s not in the US government”. The report further states that “American officials believe Russian jamming is causing the JDAMs, and at times other American weapons such as guided rockets, to miss their mark”. Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official and retired CIA officer claims: “I do think there may be concern that the Russians may be jamming the signal used to direct the JDAMs, which would answer why these munitions are not performing in the manner expected and how they perform in other war zones.”

This was quite an unpleasant surprise for the Kiev regime as it expected the JDAMs to be a “game changer” providing key tactical advantages that Russia supposedly “couldn’t match”. However, it’s not just that this completely false sense of security fell apart as a result, but it turns out that the performance of other much-touted NATO-sourced weapons is little more than PR optics. The “leak” suggests that even the M270 and HIMARS rockets are being successfully countered by Russian GPS jamming tactics. Many documents consistently show that the Kiev regime forces are generally beset by chronic munitions and advanced weapons shortages, and having Russian EW capabilities preventing precision targeting is exacerbating this exponentially, despite countless billions in weapons provided by the political West.

This is where we come to the “solution” the American Military Industrial Complex (MIC) may come up with.

How does the world’s largest cartel of arms producers solve the issues with the precision of their weapons? Well, more weapons!

With the Kiev regime potentially acquiring thousands of additional JDAMs, obviously by using funds provided by the political West, since the Neo-Nazi junta itself is “financially dead”, as Hungarian President Viktor Orban accurately assessed, US MIC contractors get even more billions of American taxpayers’ dollars. The contract to alter and/or upgrade thousands of JDAMs and other munitions would provide long-term contracts to the likes of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE Systems, etc. This could be one of the few logical answers to the question of why the mainstream propaganda machine suddenly felt the urge to tell the truth for once.

However, we shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking this has anything to do with altruistic motives or even the desire to make the Kiev regime a more effective fighting force. The main goal primarily revolves around causing as much death and destruction as possible, particularly to civilian infrastructure in the Donbass and other areas of former Ukraine. This has twofold advantages for the US. First, Russia is left with destroyed buildings and infrastructure that need to be renovated and second, the mainstream propaganda machine can portray the destruction as caused by Russia. This also explains why the Neo-Nazi junta continues using Western weapons that keep missing and hitting civilian areas. 

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on March 22, 2023

***

Those who have been following events in Ukraine will know of the bloodshed and destruction taking place in that country, especially if they go beyond mainstream media reports. This is not to excuse Russia’s brutal military actions, but it was a wholly avoidable conflict that was largely engineered in Washington by a clique of neoconservatives who have been responsible for igniting situations that have led to hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths this century, from Libya, Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond, aside from the displacement of many more.  

The NATO countries continue to ship arms and equipment to Ukraine, swelling the coffers of arms manufacturers like Raytheon. The UK has now decided to send weapons containing depleted uranium, provoking a firm response from Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Russian Television and Radio (VGTRK) that the UK’s depleted uranium supply violates international law.

Labrov said:

“They [the UK] have already lost their bearings in terms of their actions and how these actions undermine strategic stability around the world.”

He added that this will “end badly” for London.

On her Telegram account, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova explained:

“These shells not only kill but infect the environment and cause cancer in people living on these lands.”

It is clear that – and it has been clear for a very long time – that those who create policy care nothing for ordinary people who are regarded as expendable in the lust for power, profit and geopolitical gain.

Relatively few politicians have stood up to challenge the official narrative on Ukraine, let alone call out those responsible for adding fuel to a fire in danger of escalating out of control. MEP Clare Daly has been one politician (along with fellow MEP Mick Wallace) who has been fearless in her response to events, not only regarding Ukraine but also concerning US wars of aggression across the globe in that country’s ultimately doomed attempt to maintain global hegemony.

Her recent brief but powerful speech (with transcript) given to the European parliament on 15 March is worth listening to and is presented below.

“Listening to the cheerleading in here, safe and secure thousands of miles away from the frontlines, I think it would be a useful exercise for us to remind ourselves about what ordinary Ukrainians are experiencing.

“The Economist reports of forced recruitment across the country. Draftees with no experience or training are being sent to the front in what a UK minister calls First World War levels of attrition. Casualty figures are secret, but we know there are estimates of about 120,000 (dead). Battalion commanders tell the Washington Post of recruits fleeing positions on mass. Politico reports a crackdown on deserters.

“These are human beings and there is a shameful lack of empathy for ordinary people in the war rhetoric in here. The debate is about keeping the weapons flowing to keep the war going. Ukraine is burning through a generation of men. Sons, husbands, brothers who can never be replaced. This cannot go on indefinitely.

“And it’s sickening to watch generals who sit in here and will these men to their deaths. You make me sick!!

“We need peace. We need dialogue, however unpleasant that may be.”

*

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

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.

Featured image is from Kurt Nimmo


Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

Se extiende la rebelión contra el imperio del dólar

April 29th, 2023 by Manlio Dinucci

Miami, sueños convertidos en pesadillas

April 29th, 2023 by Hedelberto López Blanch

The Democrats Plan to Steal Another Election?

April 29th, 2023 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

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

*** 

Joe Biden with a dismal approval rating of 37% has announced that he is running for a second term. How can he possibly win? By again stealing the election.

Democrats control the large cities in swing states. In the past two elections, they have proven that they can easily steal the election. It is now impermissible to even report evidence of election theft. Experts who provided evidence were threatened with prosecution, and Fox News management rushed to pay more than three-quarters of a billion dollars of shareholders’ money in order to create the precedent that reporting evidence of stolen elections constitutes defamation. As Democrats control election procedures and vote counting in large cities, they, and not the voters, determine election outcomes. The last two American national elections prove the truth of Stalin’s dictum:  It matters not how people vote; it matters who counts the votes. 

The All-America Economic Survey found that 70% of Americans disfavor a Biden second term.This indicates that a large percentage of Democrats themselves do not want Biden. In America today, elections are nothing more than a veil behind which the elite rule.

The Democrats have a good candidate, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  But RFK opposes Big Pharma’s control of US medicine and the agencies–FDA, NIH, CDC–that serve as Big Pharma’s protectors and marketing agents, and he opposes other aspects of the oligarchic system protected by official narratives upheld by the media. RFK will not be permitted to be president.  

Republican Trump has by far the largest number of voters, but the Democrats have weaponized law in an effort to stop him from running. Other possible and strong Republican candidates – Ron DeSantis and Tucker Carlson – are unacceptable to the ruling elite and to the Republican establishment. If DeSantis makes himself acceptable to the establishment, he will lose his luster with voters.

The long-term ongoing collapse of US education has produced a population many of whom are comfortable with censoring and suppressing information that they are programmed to regard as “offensive” or “misinformation.” These two categories of unwelcome information refer to truths that are inconvenient for the elite and their official narratives. The regard of truth as hurtful has gained a foothold and exercises peer pressure on parts of the population, which makes it difficult for the people to act in their own interest.

Essentially, democracy has ceased to exist in the US. Increasingly, “elected” representatives are appointees of the ruling elite, who control the selection of candidates by their allocations of campaign funds. Trump was the last elected  President (twice). It is unlikely the ruling elite will allow Trump to again enter the White House.

When agendas prevail over truth, tyranny is the consequence. When facts can’t matter, there is no science. Remember how easy it was for a crank to destroy Soviet genetics. Already in the US we have reached the point where mathematics is said to be a tool of white supremacy. Americans might think this is laughable, but the Soviet geneticists who were executed and imprisoned didn’t find it laughable.

In America today there is no remaining foundation for democracy. The media has been captured and turned into a propaganda ministry for the ruling elites. Truth is discredited as hurtful, offensive, and a danger to national security–remember Julian Assange has been in effect incarcerated for a decade without due process of law simply because he reported leaked facts inconvenient for the US government. Tucker Carlson has just been fired from Fox News for telling truths inconvenient for the ruling elite.

Formerly, the Democrats represented the working class, and Republicans represented the business class. Today both parties represent the ruling oligarchy. No party represents the people.  

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is licensed under Creative Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Democrats Plan to Steal Another Election?

Not a Green Bone in Their White Bodies

April 29th, 2023 by Stan Cox

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

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

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

*** 

It’s not often that conservative lobbyists beat the drum for increased environmental oversight and regulation. But that’s what happened this month when the far-right Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), through its legal arm, filed a brief in federal court demanding that the Department of Homeland Security conduct an extensive environmental impact study examining, of all things, immigration policy.

In a press release, the group laid out its reasoning:

“Clearly, DHS desperately wants to avoid the impossible task of explaining, in detail, why adding millions of illegal aliens to our population does not harm the environment, or why the harm it does cause is somehow ‘worth it.’”

Ostensibly green rationales for ever harsher immigration policies are hardly a new phenomenon. U.S. and European anti-immigrant movements have long used the real need for environmental protection as an excuse for demanding ever harsher treatment of immigrants. Now, with drought, flooding, storms, and other manifestations of climate disruption swelling the ranks of people seeking refuge outside their home countries, far-rightists are dialing up their evocations of nature to push ever greater cruelty toward immigrants.

The pervasive theme in such circles is that, in an already overpopulated America, more millions of dark-skinned immigrants, having supposedly wreaked ecological destruction in their own countries in the Global South, are now crossing our borders in ever larger numbers. They will, so the thinking goes, despoil this country’s environment, too — and the only way to stop them is by using ever more violent means. The extremists peddling such propaganda are coming to be known these days as “ecofascists.” Above all else, they insist, the United States must maintain white control over “our” country — you know, the lands that our ancestors stole from Native peoples who actually knew how to live in harmony with nature.

In the process, such white supremacists are, without the slightest sense of irony, increasingly adopting the language of environmentalism to push both grotesque anti-immigrant bigotry and a broader, genuinely unnerving far-right agenda.

A Crueler Shade of Green

In the past few years, ecofascism has broken into the mainstream news cycle several times, most notably in connection with a grim set of mass shootings.

Nineteen-year-old Payton Gendron, who pled guilty to murdering 10 Blacks in a Buffalo grocery store last year, explicitly called himself an ecofascist. In the manifesto he left behind, he wrote,

“For too long we have allowed the left to co-opt the environmentalist movement to serve their own needs. The left has controlled all discussion regarding environmental preservation whilst simultaneously presiding over the continued destruction of the natural environment itself through mass immigration and uncontrolled urbanization.”

Urbanization, you see, because you know what kind of people live in cities. (Wink, wink.)

Patrick Crusius, who killed 23 people in an El Paso Walmart in 2019, left behind a manifesto raising false alarms about a “Hispanic invasion.” He wrote:

“The environment is getting worse by the year. Most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”

Both men drew inspiration from Brenton Tarrant, the white supremacist who, earlier in 2019, had murdered 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Tarrant wrote a manifesto in which he declared,

“The invaders are the ones over-populating the world… Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”

Florid rhetoric notwithstanding, those mass killers did not actually have ecological sustainability at the top of their minds. They just put a green veneer on their hatred of immigrants, an increasingly familiar tactic of the racist right. Philip Santoro, in a rant for the white nationalist publication American Renaissance in 2017, slathered on an early and especially rancid coat of green:

“The Left’s ‘green politics,’ combined with support for mass immigration and opposition to nuclear power, would mean a future of overcrowding, poverty, and the displacement of whites. When the Left tackles climate change, it wants to ‘save the planet’ — but apparently for someone else’s babies. The population explosion in the global south combined with climate change and liberal attitudes towards migration are the single greatest external threat to Western civilization.”

At the Global Network on Extremism and Technology, Frederike Wegener reported that, on social media, violent extremists increasingly “disguise racist and nativist ideas behind environmental concerns to lure in young people and environmental activists,” utilizing slogans like “Love Nature, Kill Non-Whites” and “Save Bees, Plant Trees, Shoot Refugees.” Creating an overwhelming sense of imminent ecological catastrophe, he wrote, can induce nonviolent, climate-conscious citizens to make common cause with violent nativists.

Deploying bees and trees as a cover for such right-wing policies has a long history in America. The growth of the anti-immigration movement over the past half-century in particular is widely credited to a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton, who, as Paloma Quiroga wrote for Wellesley College’s Environmental Synthesis and Communications blog in 2021, “viewed overpopulation and immigration as a threat to the environment and to the future of white America — views that are explicitly ecofascist. In his efforts to thwart immigration, he ended up creating a vast loose-knit network of anti-immigration groups and lobbyists, now dubbed the Tanton network.” Since the 1980s, that network has managed to sabotage all attempts to develop humane federal immigration policies.

Today, the most powerful group in the network is the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the outfit pressuring the Department of Homeland Security on the supposed environmental impact of immigrants. On its website, FAIR dwells on the evils of population growth — and by that it means only the growth of “certain” populations:

“Currently, there are 326 million people residing in the U.S., so immigration alone will be responsible for an additional 78 million people over the course of just 40 years… Growth of the population at those levels are certain to impact both the quality of life for average Americans and the sustainability of the environment. The threat of overpopulation is not to our economic health, but also to the present and future quality of life and environmental sustainability… The progress the nation has made toward increased conservation and fuel and energy efficiency will continue to be eroded…”

Connecting anti-immigrant and racist ideas via population growth to environmental degradation is nothing new. The racism of the conservation movement’s founding fathers, including John Muir and John James Audubon, have been widely discussed in recent years. In the late 1990s, Tanton, at the time still a member of the Sierra Club, pushed for that venerable environmental organization to adopt an explicitly nativist position. That proposal was voted down, but only by a very narrow margin. In 2004, anti-immigrant members again tried to seize control of the organization — and once again they failed. In recent years, in fact, the Sierra Club has forcefully renounced its former toleration of nativist sentiment within its membership and has come to actively support immigrant rights.

Ecofascist arguments serve not only as an excuse for abusing immigrants, but are also being deployed by a broader, more violent range of far-right groups and movements on both sides of the Atlantic. Environmental and anti-industrial calls to action have been a staple of the leading U.S. neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer, along with several far-right groups, including The Base, the neo-Nazi Atomwaffen Division (rebooted as the National Socialist Order), and the Pine Tree Gang. Far-right political parties in France, Austria, and Germany have similarly espoused the merging of “ecological civilization” and “ecocentric nativism.”

Equal-Opportunity Collapse?

The ecofascists’ use of green rhetoric is, of course, wholly disingenuous. But frightening as well is the way similar impulses have crept into the edges of the actual environmental movement, most of which is still identified not just with the leftward reaches of American politics, but with nonviolence. Still, in a country filled to the brim with weaponry and displaying a growing urge for violence (of which ecofascism is such a painful example), even those genuinely encouraging the greening of the planet have, sadly enough, not proven completely immune to the urge to deploy such tactics.

Last October, I experienced this personally. I gave an online talk about the role that rationing could play in curbing ecological destruction. The audience, including members of several West Coast environmental groups, seemed quite receptive. So, I was shocked when, as the hour ended, the moderator wrapped by veering into distinctly weird territory. Resolving the ecological crisis, he suddenly suggested, might require us to consider the “value” of “authoritarianism,” or more specifically, of “green fascism, or maybe green ‘equitable’ fascism.” As the session had already spilled into overtime, there was no opportunity for me to consider, much less discuss, how such ideas might have infiltrated a green movement that had long been peaceable indeed.

Radical movements to achieve a green, equitable society have been around at least since the rise of groups like Earth First! in the 1980s. In more recent times, however, movements like the Earth Liberation Front advocated damaging or destroying industrial infrastructure as an essential step toward a more ecologically sound society. For the past decade, the Deep Green Resistance movement has gone even further, insisting that the goal of such sabotage should be the complete collapse of industrial society. Only a return to pre-industrial civilization, it maintains, will give the planet room to heal, while creating opportunities for us to develop autonomous, egalitarian societies that exploit neither our fellow humans, nor nature.

In the 2011 book Deep Green Resistance, movement authors Lierre Keith, Aric McBay, and Derrick Jensen similarly argued that civilization’s industrial foundation needed to be completely pulverized, sooner rather than later. Convinced that “the vast majority of the population will do nothing unless they are led, cajoled, or forced,” they urged that “those of us who care about the future of the planet have to dismantle the industrial energy infrastructure as rapidly as possible.”  Precipitous de-industrialization is necessary, they wrote, because so little time remains to prevent an ecological collapse complete enough to render the world unlivable for humanity. Therefore, “rapid collapse is ultimately good for humans — even if there is a die-off — because at least some people survive.” This is jarring stuff, to say the least, and it has rightly been subjected to withering criticism,

So far, the deep green resistance people have stuck to proselytizing and organizing, rather than any kind of real-world sabotage. On the political right, however, incidents of eco-infrastructure sabotage are indeed on the increase. Over the past year, for instance, there have been a rash of attacks on power grids nationwide by right-wing extremists, not environmentalists. A man and a woman arrested in February for planning to take down four power substations in the Baltimore area proved, not surprisingly, to espouse neo-Nazi views. And successful attacks on two North Carolina substations last December were also linked to neo-Nazism and white supremacy. In late 2022, the Department of Homeland Security warned that there had been a significant rise in online discussions among far-right elements focused on assaulting the power grid to trigger cascading blackouts across the country. That, they believed, could lead to a governmental collapse and so create openings for a fascist takeover. (In a country already featuring the Trumpublican Party, this should be unnerving, even if not exactly surprising.)

Hunter Walker, a reporter for Talking Points Memo, recently obtained a copy of an online magazine that advocated attacks on power substations and provided coaching to would-be saboteurs, while announcing, as if they were greens, “It is our belief that the techno-industrial system presents an absolute and urgent existential threat to all life on earth.”   

Walker managed to track down one of the authors who told him that their aim was indeed to motivate not the far right but “militant groups of educated anarchists.” As the author acknowledged, however, the far right is “far better armed” and better prepared for shooting out transformers “than the Left or post-Left.” That being the case, the manual’s author added, if the question was whether “I would accept assistance or ‘alliance’ with any far-right group, I would hesitate to say no. I would much rather turn the lights out and then fight them in the quiet dark afterwards.”

This raises a question: Might radical individuals or even groups at opposite ends of the political spectrum ever converge on the same violent direct-action tactics?

Brian Tokar is on the faculty and board of the Institute for Social Ecology in Plainfield, Vermont, which offers courses on ecofascism. I asked him how much overlap he and his colleagues had noticed between violent, racist, ecofascist movements and nonviolent, anti-racist, radical environmental movements. Tokar responded, “I don’t think there’s a lot of overlap, but there’s certainly enough that it’s deeply disturbing.”

“This goes back,” he said, “to the… eighties when Dave Foreman and Edward Abbey [of the Earth First! movement] were saying a lot of disturbing things, including a lot of anti-immigrant stuff — especially Abbey, who was all about protecting the borders against people who, he said, would spread pollution. It was just blatantly racist… but there were also a lot of people who vocally challenged it from the beginning.”

“Fast forward to more recent times,” Tokar continued, “and my colleagues have documented stories of people who started out in leftist ecological circles and drifted over into an overtly ecological neo-fascist or neo-Nazi anti-immigrant kind of politics.” In fact, the ecofascists’ strategy, he added, “seems to be that if they can skim off a few people, especially people who have a following, they can shift the discussion in their direction.”

A Future in Danger

I feel confident in predicting that the ecofascists won’t manage to seize power by taking down the national electric grid. Still, by fueling human-rights abuses, racial hatred, and deadly violence, their toxic propaganda has made the United States a more perilous place to live if you weren’t born white and within its borders. By hijacking the message of ecological renewal and using it to persecute the powerless, they could, at a minimum, make it far more difficult for this country to act boldly in the future when it comes to the climate crisis and environmental justice. That’s why the message of such ecofascists has to be verbally shredded wherever and whenever they try to spread it.

*

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

Stan Cox, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of The Path to a Livable Future: A New Politics to Fight Climate Change, Racism, and the Next Pandemic, The Green New Deal and Beyond: Ending the Climate Emergency While We Still Can, and the current In Real Time climate series at City Lights Books. Find him on Twitter at @CoxStan.

Featured image: BorderEncuentro2017_Day3_IMG_1409-1 by Peg Hunter is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 / Flickr

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

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

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

*** 

Italy — 38 year old bodybuilder Simone Venturini died suddenly in his home on April 24, 2023. An autopsy has been ordered (click here). 

Monselice. Malore crushes Simone Venturini, 38-year-old bodybuilder. Autopsy arranged

Uruacu, Brazil — 24-year old personal trainer and bodybuilder Jhonatan Saraiva had a sudden medical emergency while swimming in a lake on March 25, 2023 and died (click here)

Turkish-Canadian bodybuilder Murat Gonul age 46, died suddenly on Jan. 10, 2023, cause of death not revealed (click here)

Murat Gonul Obituary

German Bodybuilder Andreas Frey, age 43 died in his sleep on Oct. 20, 2022 (click here)

Death

Los Angeles, CA — COVID-19 Vaccinated Professional bodybuilder Doug Brignole, age 63, died on October 13, 2022. LA County Medical Examiner claims he died from “COVID-19”. Doubtful.

Argentine bodybuilder Johana Colla, age 30, was found dead in the hotel where she was staying after winning 2nd place in the South American Bodybuilding Championship in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on October 8, 2022 (click here)

Mystery for the death of the Argentine bodybuilder Johana Colla in Brazil: “She knew she was in danger”

Professional Polish bodybuilder Paul Poloczek, age 37, died suddenly hours after competing in tournament, May 28, 2022, cause of death unknown (click here)

Bodybuilding champion Cedric McMillan, age 44, died by having a heart attack while on a treadmill, on April 12, 2022 (click here)

Bodybuilder Bostin lloyd, age 29 died suddenly on Feb. 25, 2022 from an aortic dissection (click here)

Feb. 2022 – 34-year old Indian bodybuilder Jagdish Lad, and 40-year old Brazilian bodybuilder Roberto Gervasio both allegedly died of “COVID-19”. These may have been COVID-19 vaccine deaths instead. 

Mr. Olympia Shawn Rhoden, age 46, died of heart attack Nov. 6, 2021 (click here)

Image

Professional bodybuilder Jennifer Hernandez died in Oct. 24, 2021 of unknown causes (click here)

Jennifer Hernandez bodybuilder

Mr. Olympia contestant, fully vaccinated George Peterson, age 37, was found dead in his hotel room, possible brain aneurysm bleed?, died Oct. 6, 2021 (click here)

Hilton, NY — Bodybuilder 28 year old Jake Kazmarek died four days after getting seconnd Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine on Oct. 2, 2021 (click here)

My Take…

Some people might be tempted to dismiss deaths of bodybuilders. Not me.

There are many deaths here that are highly suspicious, cardiac arrests, deaths in their sleep, and what I found particularly interesting, deaths with seemingly no explanation.

So many deaths that I had to remove the powerlifters and weightlifters and put them in a separate substack article.

*

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

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bodybuilders Collapsing and Dying Suddenly. More Suspicious High Level Athlete Deaths

Image: George W. Bush’s Grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush

Of relevance to an understanding of America’s insidious role in supporting Nazi Germany.

This article was first published on GR in March 2016.

 

*

“A  famous American family” made its fortune from the Nazis, according to John Loftus’ documented historical analysis.    

The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was a partner of George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush: 

From 1945 until 1949 in Nuremberg, one of the lengthiest and, it now appears, most futile interrogations of a Nazi war crimes suspect began in the American Zone of Occupied Germany.

Multibillionaire steel magnate Fritz Thyssen-the man whose steel combine was the cold heart of the Nazi war machine-talked and talked and talked to a joint US-UK interrogation team.

… What the Allied investigators never understood was that they were not asking Thyssen the right question. Thyssen did not need any foreign bank accounts because his family secretly owned an entire chain of banks.

He did not have to transfer his Nazi assets at the end of World War II, all he had to do was transfer the ownership documents – stocks, bonds, deeds and trusts–from his bank in Berlin through his bank in Holland to his American friends in New York City: Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker [father in law of Prescott Bush]. Thyssen’s partners in crime were the father and [grandfather] of a future President of the United States [George Herbert Walker Bush]. (John Loftus, How the Bush family made its fortune from the Nazis: The Dutch Connection, Global Research, February 2002, edit by GR)

The American public is not aware of the links of the Bush family to Nazi Germany because the historical record has been carefully withheld by the mainstream media.

In September 2004, however, The Guardian revealed that:

George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. ( Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, How the Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitlers Rise to Power,   Guardian, September 25, 2004)

 

The more fundamental question is not whether Prescott Bush helped Adolph Hitler. From a historical perspective, what is important is how the rise to power of Adolph Hitler was supportive of  US business interests in Germany.

US  Presidential Elections

The Guardian article was published on September 25, 2004 at the height of the US election campaign which led to the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on Tuesday November 2nd 2004.

Deafening silence. The US media provided no coverage of GWB’s family history. Had the American people known that the Bush family had links to Nazi Germany, John Kerry would have won the presidency in 2004 in a landslide.

Similarly, Michael Dukakis would have won the presidency in 1989 against George Herbert Walker Bush. In fact, had this been revealed to the American people in the wake of the Nuremberg trials (1945-1949), Bush Senior would never have entered politics and his father Prescott Bush would never have become Senator.

Is there a pattern?  Do you have to be a wealthy war criminal to accede to high office?

Prescott Bush had links to Nazi Germany, Bush Senior and George W. Bush had links to the Bin Laden Family…

What must be ensured  to “protect American democracy” is that none of these “awkward truths” which reveal the crimes committed by prominent politicians be the object of media coverage. Needless to say, propaganda is essential to uphold the legitimacy of presidential candidates in the eyes of public opinion.

War Crimes. Crimes against Humanity

Nazi war crimes with the complicity of Wall Street and the Bush family?

US war crimes committed by Bush Junior in Iraq (2003), Bush Senior (the Gulf War, 1991), Is there a relationship?

What was the role of the late senator Prescott Bush in his dealings with Nazi Germany:

While the president’s [George W. Bush]  father had dealings with the bin Ladens, his grandfather [Prescott Bush] made a considerable share of the family fortune through his dealings with Nazi Germany. Some have suggested that the Bushes’ assets have their ultimate source, in part, in the exploitation of slave labor at Auschwitz itself.

In an interview with journalist Toby Rogers, the former prosecutor said:

“It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920s, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed Allied solders. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen’s coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family’s complicity.” (emphasis added)

Prescott Bush was by no means unique, though his financial connections with the Third Reich were perhaps more intimate than most. Henry Ford was an avowed admirer of Hitler, and together GM and Ford played the predominant role in producing the military trucks that carried German troops across Europe. After the war, both auto companies demanded and received reparations for damage to their German plants caused by allied bombing. (Bill Venn, A presidential visit to Auschwitz, The Holocaust and the Bush family fortune, WSWS.org,  5 June 2003)

Evidence of the Bush family’s  links to Nazism was available well before George Herbert Walker Bush (Senior)  and George W. Bush entered politics. According to John Buchanan (New Hampshire Gazette, 10 October 2003):

After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enemy national” partners.

The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law. Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush’s maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.

While Prescott Bush’s “company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, George W. Bush’s grandfather was never prosecuted for his business dealings with  Nazi Germany.

“In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past. There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush, or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in The Boston Globe in 2001.” (John Buchanan, op. cit)

Up until Pearl Harbor (December 1941), Wall Street was trading with the enemy. In the wake of Pearl Harbor, Standard Oil continued to sell oil to Nazi Germany through the intermediation of so-called “neutral countries” including Venezuela and Argentina.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research March 6, 2016

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bush Family Links to Nazi Germany: “A Famous American Family” Made its Fortune from the Nazis

The Rise of China, And the Fall of the US?

April 28th, 2023 by Prof Alfred McCoy

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

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

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

*** 

From the ashes of a world war that killed 80 million people and reduced great cities to smoking rubble, America rose like a Titan of Greek legend, unharmed and armed with extraordinary military and economic power, to govern the globe. During four years of combat against the Axis leaders in Berlin and Tokyo that raged across the planet, America’s wartime commanders — George Marshall in Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower in Europe, and Chester Nimitz in the Pacific — knew that their main strategic objective was to gain control over the vast Eurasian landmass.

Whether you’re talking about desert warfare in North Africa, the D-Day landing at Normandy, bloody battles on the Burma-India border, or the island-hopping campaign across the Pacific, the Allied strategy in World War II involved constricting the reach of the Axis powers globally and then wresting that very continent from their grasp.

That past, though seemingly distant, is still shaping the world we live in. Those legendary generals and admirals are, of course, long gone, but the geopolitics they practiced at such a cost still has profound implications. For just as Washington encircled Eurasia to win a great war and global hegemony, so Beijing is now involved in a far less militarized reprise of that reach for global power.

And to be blunt, these days, China’s gain is America’s loss. Every step Beijing takes to consolidate its control over Eurasia simultaneously weakens Washington’s presence on that strategic continent and so erodes its once formidable global power.

A Cold War Strategy

After four embattled years imbibing lessons about geopolitics with their morning coffee and bourbon nightcaps, America’s wartime generation of generals and admirals understood, intuitively, how to respond to the future alliance of the two great communist powers in Moscow and Beijing.

In 1948, following his move from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, Secretary of State George Marshall launched the $13 billion Marshall Plan to rebuild a war-torn Western Europe, laying the economic foundations for the formation of the NATO alliance just a year later. After a similar move from the wartime Allied headquarters in London to the White House in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower helped complete a chain of military bastions along Eurasia’s Pacific littoral by signing a series of mutual-security pacts — with South Korea in 1953, Taiwan in 1954, and Japan in 1960. For the next 70 years, that island chain would serve as the strategic hinge on Washington’s global power, critical for both the defense of North America and dominance over Eurasia.

After fighting to conquer much of that vast continent during World War II, America’s postwar leaders certainly knew how to defend their gains. For more than 40 years, their unrelenting efforts to dominate Eurasia assured Washington of an upper hand and, in the end, victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. To constrain the communist powers inside that continent, the U.S. ringed its 6,000 miles with 800 military bases, thousands of jet fighters, and three massive naval armadas — the 6th Fleet in the Atlantic, the 7th Fleet in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, and, somewhat later, the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Thanks to diplomat George Kennan, that strategy gained the name “containment” and, with it, Washington could, in effect, sit back and wait while the Sino-Soviet bloc imploded through diplomatic blunder and military misadventure.

After the Beijing-Moscow split of 1962 and China’s subsequent collapse into the chaos of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, the Soviet Union tried repeatedly, if unsuccessfully, to break out of its geopolitical isolation — in the Congo, Cuba, Laos, Egypt, Ethiopia, Angola, and Afghanistan. In the last and most disastrous of those interventions, which Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev came to term “the bleeding wound,” the Red Army deployed 110,000 soldiers for nine years of brutal Afghan combat, hemorrhaging money and manpower in ways that would contribute to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

In that heady moment of seeming victory as the sole superpower left on planet Earth, a younger generation of Washington foreign-policy leaders, trained not on battlefields but in think tanks, took little more than a decade to let that unprecedented global power start to slip away. Toward the close of the Cold War era in 1989, Francis Fukuyama, an academic working in the State Department’s policy planning unit, won instant fame among Washington insiders with his seductive phrase “the end of history.” He argued that America’s liberal world order would soon sweep up all of humanity on an endless tide of capitalist democracy. As he put it in a much-cited essay: “The triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident… in the total exhaustion of viable systemic alternatives to Western liberalism… seen also in the ineluctable spread of consumerist Western culture.”

The Invisible Power of Geopolitics

Amid such triumphalist rhetoric, Zbigniew Brzezinski, another academic sobered by more worldly experience, reflected on what he had learned about geopolitics during the Cold War as an adviser to two presidents, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. In his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski offered the first serious American study of geopolitics in more than half a century. In the process, he warned that the depth of U.S. global hegemony, even at this peak of unipolar power, was inherently “shallow.”

For the United States and, he added, every major power of the past 500 years, Eurasia, home to 75% of the world’s population and productivity, was always “the chief geopolitical prize.” To perpetuate its “preponderance on the Eurasian continent” and so preserve its global power, Washington would, he warned, have to counter three threats: “the expulsion of America from its offshore bases” along the Pacific littoral; ejection from its “perch on the western periphery” of the continent provided by NATO; and finally, the formation of “an assertive single entity” in the sprawling center of Eurasia.

Arguing for Eurasia’s continued post-Cold War centrality, Brzezinski drew heavily on the work of a long-forgotten British academic, Sir Halford Mackinder. In a 1904 essay that sparked the modern study of geopolitics, Mackinder observed that, for the past 500 years, European imperial powers had dominated Eurasia from the sea, but the construction of trans-continental railroads was shifting the locus of control to its vast interior “heartland.” In 1919, in the wake of World War I, he also argued that Eurasia, along with Africa, formed a massive “world island” and offered this bold geopolitical formula: “Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.” Clearly, Mackinder was about 100 years premature in his predictions.

But today, by combining Mackinder’s geopolitical theory with Brzezinski’s gloss on global politics, it’s possible to discern, in the confusion of this moment, some potential long-term trends. Imagine Mackinder-style geopolitics as a deep substrate that shapes more ephemeral political events, much the way the slow grinding of the planet’s tectonic plates becomes visible when volcanic eruptions break through the earth’s surface. Now, let’s try to imagine what all this means in terms of international geopolitics today.

China’s Geopolitical Gambit

In the decades since the Cold War’s close, China’s increasing control over Eurasia clearly represents a fundamental change in that continent’s geopolitics. Convinced that Beijing would play the global game by U.S. rules, Washington’s foreign policy establishment made a major strategic miscalculation in 2001 by admitting it to the World Trade Organization (WTO). “Across the ideological spectrum, we in the U.S. foreign policy community,” confessed two former members of the Obama administration, “shared the underlying belief that U.S. power and hegemony could readily mold China to the United States’ liking… All sides of the policy debate erred.” In little more than a decade after it joined the WTO, Beijing’s annual exports to the U.S. grew nearly five-fold and its foreign currency reserves soared from just $200 billion to an unprecedented $4 trillion by 2013.

In 2013, drawing on those vast cash reserves, China’s new president, Xi Jinping, launched a trillion-dollar infrastructure initiative to transform Eurasia into a unified market. As a steel grid of rails and petroleum pipelines began crisscrossing the continent, China ringed the tri-continental world island with a chain of 40 commercial ports — from Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, around Africa’s coast, to Europe from Piraeus, Greece, to Hamburg, Germany. In launching what soon became history’s largest development project, 10 times the size of the Marshall Plan, Xi is consolidating Beijing’s geopolitical dominance over Eurasia, while fulfilling Brzezinski’s fear of the rise of “an assertive single entity” in Central Asia.

Unlike the U.S., China hasn’t spent significant effort establishing military bases. While Washington still maintains some 750 of them in 80 nations, Beijing has just one military base in Djibouti on the east African coast, a signals intercept post on Myanmar’s Coco Islands in the Bay of Bengal, a compact installation in eastern Tajikistan, and half a dozen small outposts in the South China Sea.

Moreover, while Beijing was focused on building Eurasian infrastructure, Washington was fighting two disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in a strategically inept bid to dominate the Middle East and its oil reserves (just as the world was beginning to transition away from petroleum to renewable energy). In contrast, Beijing has concentrated on the slow, stealthy accretion of investments and influence across Eurasia from the South China Sea to the North Sea. By changing the continent’s underlying geopolitics through this commercial integration, it’s winning a level of control not seen in the last thousand years, while unleashing powerful forces for political change.

Tectonic Shifts Shake U.S. Power

After a decade of Beijing’s relentless economic expansion across Eurasia, the tectonic shifts in that continent’s geopolitical substrate have begun to manifest themselves in a series of diplomatic eruptions, each erasing another aspect of U.S. influence. Four of the more recent ones might seem, at first glance, unrelated but are all driven by the relentless force of geopolitical change.

Image: Afghans stand in the sewage ditch outside Abbey Gate as they attempt to show documents to Marines processing evacuees on Aug. 25. Credit: Mirzahussain Sadid for Alive in Afghanistan

First came the sudden, unexpected collapse of the U.S. position in Afghanistan, forcing Washington to end its 20-year occupation in August 2021 with a humiliating withdrawal. In a slow, stealthy geopolitical squeeze play, Beijing had signed massive development deals with all the surrounding Central Asian nations, leaving American troops isolated there. To provide critical air support for its infantry, U.S. jet fighters were often forced to fly 2,000 miles from their nearest base in the Persian Gulf — an unsustainable long-term situation and unsafe for troops on the ground. As the U.S.-trained Afghan Army collapsed and Taliban guerrillas drove into Kabul atop captured Humvees, the chaotic U.S. retreat in defeat became unavoidable.

Just six months later in February 2022, President Vladimir Putin massed an armada of armored vehicles loaded with 200,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. If Putin is to be believed, his “special military operation” was to be a bid to undermine NATO’s influence and weaken the Western alliance — one of Brzezinski’s conditions for the U.S. eviction from Eurasia.

But first Putin visited Beijing to court President Xi’s support, a seemingly tall order given China’s decades of lucrative trade with the United States, worth a mind-boggling $500 billion in 2021. Yet Putin scored a joint declaration that the two nations’ relations were “superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era” and a denunciation of “the further expansion of NATO.”

As it happened, Putin did so at a perilous price. Instead of attacking Ukraine in frozen February when his tanks could have maneuvered off-road on their way to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, he had to wait out Beijing’s Winter Olympics. So, Russian troops invaded instead in muddy March, leaving his armored vehicles stuck in a 40-mile traffic jam on a single highway where the Ukrainians readily destroyed more than 1,000 tanks. Facing diplomatic isolation and European trade embargos as his defeated invasion degenerated into a set of vengeful massacres, Moscow shifted much of its exports to China. That quickly raised bilateral trade by 30% to an all-time high, while reducing Russia to but another piece on Beijing’s geopolitical chessboard.

Then, just last month, Washington found itself diplomatically marginalized by an utterly unexpected resolution of the sectarian divide that had long defined the politics of the Middle East. After signing a $400-billion infrastructure deal with Iran and making Saudi Arabia its top oil supplier, Beijing was well positioned to broker a major diplomatic rapprochement between those bitter regional rivals, Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. Within weeks, the foreign ministers of the two nations sealed the deal with a deeply symbolic voyage to Beijing — a bittersweet reminder of the days not long ago when Arab diplomats paid court in Washington.

Finally, the Biden administration was stunned this month when Europe’s preeminent leader, Emmanuel Macron of France, visited Beijing for a series of intimate tête-à-tête chats with China’s President Xi. At the close of that extraordinary journey, which won French companies billions in lucrative contracts, Macron announced “a global strategic partnership with China” and promised he would not “take our cue from the U.S. agenda” over Taiwan. A spokesman for the Élysée Palace quickly released a pro forma clarification that “the United States is our ally, with shared values.” Even so, Macron’s Beijing declaration reflected both his own long-term vision of the European Union as an independent strategic player and that bloc’s ever-closer economic ties to China

The Future of Geopolitical Power

Projecting such political trends a decade into the future, Taiwan’s fate would seem, at best, uncertain. Instead of the “shock and awe” of aerial bombardments, Washington’s default mode of diplomatic discourse in this century, Beijing prefers stealthy, sedulous geopolitical pressure. In building its island bases in the South China Sea, for example, it inched forward incrementally — first dredging, then building structures, next runways, and finally emplacing anti-aircraft missiles — in the process avoiding any confrontation over its functional capture of an entire sea.

Lest we forget, Beijing has built its formidable economic-political-military power in little more than a decade. If its strength continues to increase inside Eurasia’s geopolitical substrate at even a fraction of that head-spinning pace for another decade, it may be able to execute a deft geopolitical squeeze-play on Taiwan like the one that drove the U.S. out of Afghanistan. Whether from a customs embargo, incessant naval patrols, or some other form of pressure, Taiwan might just fall quietly into Beijing’s grasp.

Should such a geopolitical gambit prevail, the U.S. strategic frontier along the Pacific littoral would be broken, possibly pushing its Navy back to a “second island chain” from Japan to Guam — the last of Brzezinski’s criteria for the true waning of U.S. global power. In that event, Washington’s leaders could once again find themselves sitting on the proverbial diplomatic and economic sidelines, wondering how it all happened.

*

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

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power. His newest book is To Govern the Globe: World Orders and Catastrophic Change (Dispatch Books).

Featured image: Chinese Military, Forbidden City – Beijing, China by Patrick Rodwell is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 / Flickr

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

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

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

*** 

Several reports have criticised aspects of Russia’s policy, further identified pitfalls, and highlighted challenges and approach toward Africa, even after its first symbolic summit held in October 2019. The latest report titled ‘Ways to Increase the Efficiency of Russia’s African Strategy under the Crisis of the Existing World Order’ (ISSN 1019-3316, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022), co-authored by Professors Irina O. Abramova and Leonid L. Fituni, both from the Institute for African Studies (IAS), Russian Academy of Sciences.

Access it here.

According to authoritative sources, aspects of this report were presented at the RAS Presidium on February 9, 2022. The report is dedicated to a new configuration of the world order and the place of Russia and Africa in the changing world.

The authors argued that it is time for Russia, which over the past 30 years has unsuccessfully sought to become part of the West, to abandon illusions and reconsider its foreign economic and foreign policy strategy, reorienting itself to states that are turning from outsiders into significant players in the international political and economic space and are willing to interact with our country on a mutually beneficial and equal basis. 

Certainly African countries are among such states. The strategies of old and new players on the African continent are analyzed, and the current areas of Russian-African cooperation in the short, medium, and long term are identified. The main mechanisms and tools necessary to intensify our interaction are revealed, including informational and financial-economic levers.

According to Professors Abramova and Fituni, the key area of Russia’s relations that could become attractive for African countries and contribute to the successful economic development of Russia may be the development of bilateral opportunities for technological partnerships. The modern world order is going through a stage of a very deep political, economic and humanitarian, and not yet global but already very dangerous local military crisis. The Russian special military operation in Ukraine has sharply accelerated the disintegration of the unipolar world led by the United States. Although the outlines of the emerging new world order are already visible, they are not quite definite to date. Multi-polarity, as a possible model of the new maturing world order, urgently needs a system of bilateral and multilateral geo-strategic checks and balances that could exclude or minimize the danger of a global armed conflict. 

At the same time, it seems to be the most acceptable option for rebuilding the world for most countries and people since it opens opportunities for establishing a more just world order that will account for the interests of the widest possible range of members of the world community. Against this background, the relative importance and role of the regions of the world as zones of conflicts of interest of the participants in the renewed rivalry are being reassessed. 

As is known, the global center of economic power is gradually shifting from the West to the East or, depending on the coordinate system, from the socalled North to the South. In the context of long-term global trends, the conditional West, perhaps for the first time in the last 500 (and certainly 300) years, is facing the prospect of a gradual transformation into a relative periphery. This means that even within the current market model, in the not-so-distant future the bulk of global production and the bulk of global consumption will shift from the northern Euro-Atlantic to the south and east-to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. 

In the market model, this means that the manufacturer will adapt not to the tastes and needs of the conditional European (including Americans, Canadians, and Australians) but to those of Asians and Africans, who are included because at present most representatives of the middle class, which supply the main demand for goods and services, live in the Asian region, but from around 2040, according to UN calculations, the growth of the middle class will occur not at the expense of Asia but at the expense of Africa, while the impoverishment of the middle class of Europe and the United States has already begun.

Of course, we do not mean a one-shot or instantaneous (in the historical sense) change. Yet these are real deep transformations that are already taking place in what, applying Marxist terminology to the modern globalized world, could be called the global base. These transformations will inevitably entail changes in the global superstructure, that is, in the Western-centric world order that dominates now. These are changes in politics, in culture, in the worldview, and in the system of values, which is manifested in the rejection of the unipolar world and the methods of colonial domination and subjugation that it imposes.

In real life, this is a slow and complex process, which proceeds with different speeds at different stages, often in zigzags. Today no one doubts that the modern East and South (and this is not only China or India but also many other countries, including African and Latin American ones) are the producers of the main part of resources and goods, especially basic ones, that is, those without which large-scale real production in any part of the world, including in developed countries, is impossible. Moreover, the real (not virtual) process of expanded reproduction is also extremely difficult without these resources and goods.

Yet the economic role of the West, especially in advanced areas, is far from exhausted. However, today it is not this role that determines the model of its behavior: the meaning of its efforts, including economic ones, is to prevent the loss of its influence and control over the flows of world wealth. The West is trying to preserve its positions and habitual lifestyle using superstructural elements, namely, those levers of influence that it still has military, financial, administrative, informational, cultural, and value based.

For the Euro-Atlantic bloc, Africa appears primarily from the point of view of the forecast prospects for global economic development and resource and military-geopolitical components. All three aspects are viewed through the prism of rivalry with the main competitors-China and Russia. At the same time, the West is closely monitoring the growing activity and influence in this region of second-tier rivals – India, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, South Korea, and others, some of which it is trying to control by turning them, at least, into situational allies but strategically retained as an exploited periphery.

Under these conditions, the main task of the policy of the collective West in Africa is to maintain and strengthen its economic, political, and military influence using both traditional and new, post-neocolonialist, methods, as well as to avoid the challenges and threats associated with the African continent. Note that the strategy of the Western powers in Africa has certain specific traits. The US strategy on the African continent, announced in 2018 by the Trump administration and practically unchanged under J. Biden, has been based on opposition to China and Russia and their removal (in the case of China) or non-admittance (in the case of Russia) to the African region. 

In the context of Brexit and the implementation of the concept of Global Britain, the United Kingdom has seriously attended to the development of strategies for assimilating markets other than the EU ones and compensating for the falling part of state budget and private business revenues by activating the African vector of its policy. The shaken authority of France in African states, primarily in ensuring their security and combating terrorism, has prompted the French authorities to adapt to the new conditions, striving for maximum savings in the exploitation of African resources and actively using such instruments of influence as, albeit significantly weakened but still systemically significant, dominance in both zones of the African franc and cultural and linguistic influence on education, science and youth education within the framework of the Francophonie project.

In Germany’s Africa strategy, the main role is assigned to the private sector, especially medium-sized businesses, which generate consistently high profits for themselves on the continent and will have to provide the bulk of investment and create jobs for the local population (unlike China, which actively imported its labor to Africa). Note that the German state seeks to contribute to the creation of a favorable working environment for its entrepreneurs through investments in African education, health care, and infrastructure. Italy’s current foreign policy on the African continent is focused primarily on North Africa. The Italian government has been paying attention to sub-Saharan Africa only since 2013. The role of Italy in Africa has decreased compared to the 1980s in areas such as foreign trade, development assistance, and participation in peacekeeping activities. 

In recent years, however, Africa has somewhat grown in importance as a market for Italian weapons, as has the presence of Italian nongovernmental humanitarian aid organizations on the continent. In a number of countries, including those in Tropical Africa, Italian firms retain strong positions in the field of exploration and development of the continent’s hydrocarbon resources. As for new non-Western players, they build their cooperation on other principles, far from the domination-submission model.

India is developing cooperation with Africa along the South-South line, that is, strengthening economic and other ties with African states on mutually beneficial terms, which is fundamentally different from the North−South format that developed in the colonial era. In general, noteworthy is the high degree of geographical (mainly the east coast and southern Africa) and historical and cultural (English-speaking countries, former British possessions) concentration of Indian business activity.

Turkey politically focuses on joint defense of the national identity of both Turks and Africans, which is under threat due to the ideas of globalization promoted by the West and the imposition of values alien to the East and Africa. In the economic sphere, Turkey is actively expanding its exports to Africa, implementing many projects for small and medium-sized businesses, and rapidly developing air links with the continent. Turkey has become the main hub for the movement of passengers from Africa to Europe and the United States. Turkey is also intensifying military and technical cooperation with the countries of the continent, primarily the Mediterranean ones, and the countries of the large region of the Horn of Africa.

In addition, in recent years, there has been an active, albeit still pinpoint, search for opportunities to use the religious factor in the Muslim countries of Africa, in which Turkey did not previously show interest. Brazil, like India, is establishing South-South cooperation with Africa within the BRICS and IBSA formats (forum of India, Brazil, and South Africa). This largest Latin American country is currently moving from a policy of predominant interaction with the Portuguese-speaking countries of Africa to cooperation with all African states, primarily in the mining industry, agriculture, and the development of transport infrastructure.

In determining its strategy in the African direction, it is the experience of China that is especially interesting for Russia: after the collapse of the Soviet Union, China took and strengthened the positions that the Soviet Union had held in Africa and even significantly expanded them. Having intensified economic cooperation with Africa, turning African countries into a guaranteed market for its products with more than a billion consumers, China in the 1990-2000s raised its industry and mass production precisely at the expense of what the “foremen of perestroika” and the ideologists of the 1990 reforms declared as the main burden for the Soviet Union. In the 2010s, China became the main trade and economic partner of African states. That required a deliberate and consistent effort, retraining or removal of those who hindered the achievement of real success for bureaucratic, parochial, or corrupt reasons or simply could not work in the African direction.

At present, Beijing is consistently building global value chains, which offer African producers a significant role. Such a policy is built into the strategic plans for the socioeconomic development of China itself and the implementation of its global projects, which fundamentally distinguishes it from the strategies of other countries. The ultimate goal of the ongoing efforts should be the creation of a Chinese-African “community of common destiny” in the new era.

At the latest ministerial conference, held in December 2021 in Senegal’s capital Dakar, Chinese President Xi Jinping made four proposals to African participants: to show solidarity against the pandemic, to deepen pragmatic cooperation, to promote “green development,” and to uphold honesty and justice in the international arena. The Chinese leader recalled that, prior to this meeting, a joint document, The 2035 Vision for China-Africa Cooperation, had been adopted and had announced Beijing’s plans for the first three years. China plans to implement nine programs in the following areas: health care (in particular, China will provide one billion doses of vaccines, implement ten medical projects, and send 1500 medical specialists to Africa); poverty alleviation and agricultural development (ten projects); trade (China plans to increase the imports from Africa to $300 billion, open a green corridor for African agricultural exports to China, and allocate $10 billion to support African exports to China); investment (it is planned to increase direct investment in Africa by $10 billion over three years, create a China-Africa platform for encouraging private investment, allocate $10 billion to support African financial institutions, create a China-Africa center for cross-border operations in yuan, write off part of the debt of the poorest African countries, and transfer to African countries an additional amount of special drawing rights (SDR) of the IMF in an amount of $10 billion); digital innovation (ten projects); green development (ten projects: support for the Great Green Wall of Africa project, etc.); human potential (funding projects in the field of education and training, the creation by Chinese companies of at least 800 000 jobs for the local population); cultural and humanitarian contacts (including the creation of new centers for culture and the study of the Chinese language); and peace and security (ten projects: providing military assistance to the African Union, training military specialists, etc.)

Even a brief listing of all these programs indicates the seriousness and depth of China’s strategic vision of its cooperation with the African continent in the coming years. A general analysis of the above-mentioned strategies in the African direction leads to the conclusion that it will not be easy for Russia to compete in the geo-strategic battle for Africa with other players, both old and new. Many may even wonder if we have any chance at all in this fight. In the report authors’ opinion, to answer this question, it is necessary to analyze Russian-African relations in recent years, identify the main problems and the mistakes that have been made while interacting with African partners, and determine those areas of cooperation that are of mutual interest and in which Russia has clear competitive advantage. 

In addition, it is necessary to ask ourselves: Do we, in the current conditions, have the right not to take advantage of the opportunities that Africa opens for our economy and security and ignore them only because obtaining these advantages requires responsibility and expenditure of effort and resources, as well as initiative?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had viewed interaction with the African continent as a major component of its foreign policy, Russia, despite the colossal efforts and funds invested in the development of Africa, practically curtailed relations with African states. This was done clearly purposefully by the people who headed our foreign policy and foreign economic departments at that time and were mainly oriented towards the West. Under the slogan “Stop feeding Africa!” they, in fact, did not allow our country not only to take advantage of real dividends on Russian investments (about 300 industrial enterprises; more than 1000 infrastructure facilities; hundreds of educational, scientific, and cultural centers built in Africa by the Soviet Union; the friendly Russian-speaking African political and economic elite trained in Soviet universities; etc.) but also agreed, under pressure from the Americans and their satellites, the former colonial metropoles, to write off more than $20 billion of African debt to our country on extremely unfavorable terms for Russia.

In addition, informal cultural centers and coteries of the Russian language used to appear at almost all significant objects of Soviet−African cooperation) and bureaus of the Russian media. The number of African students studying at Russian universities also drastically decreased. Thus, according to the Ministry of Education and Science, in the 2018–2019 academic year, only 2066 candidates from 52 African countries were enrolled. The new African elite is being trained today in Western European, American, and Chinese universities and is becoming a conductor of interests that are by no means Russian. 

In other words, in the 1990s, not only were the economic foundations destroyed but so was the entire infrastructure of our cooperation with Africa, including the humanitarian sphere – science, education, culture, and the system of values. It is no secret that, in the modern world, information has begun to play an increasingly important role. Virtual reality, in fact, practically forms a living reality; in any case, it has a colossal impact on the latter.

Under these conditions, the role of the media in building our relations with Africa is of paramount importance. We have already said that Russia practically curtailed its information network in Africa. Fragmentally, our news agencies are present there, for example, TASS and Sputnik (TASS has only five representative offices in Africa – in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Kenya, and South Africa, while Sputnik and Russia Today have none), but, as a rule, they are both understaffed and underequipped; they cannot withstand competition from the Western and Chinese media and do not broadcast in African languages. In addition, we do not work at all on African social networks, which are very popular among young Africans. Hence, Africans draw information about Russia, often distorted or even false, from Western sources. Africa is practically absent in the Russian information space, and news about the continent is predominantly negative, sensational, or ironic, in most cases demonstrating a low level of general education and erudition of Russian authors, not to mention their understanding of African realities.

We analyzed news stories on the African agenda for one week (January 18−24, 2022) and obtained the following disappointing results. Today the Russian media demonstrate an extremely low level of coverage of key events taking place in Africa. This indicator reached 0.7% of the total feed of the leading Russian media (Interfax, RIA Novosti, TASS) in the period under study. For comparison, news related to the United States, on average, occupied 14.6% of the entire news feed and news related to China, 1.4%. At the same time, during the week-long period of the study, events took place in the countries of the African continent that are of particular importance for both Russia and the whole world, including a military coup in Burkina Faso; contacts of the current leadership of Mali with private military companies created by Russian citizens, as mentioned by Foreign Minister S.V. Lavrov, and the conflict between the Malian authorities and partners in military cooperation from the EU countries; disagreements between the Church of Alexandria and the Russian Orthodox Church due to the decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church to form the Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa; hosting the African Cup of Nations football et cetera.

For example, the Russian media discussed the political events in 43 news articles in various editions and another nine publications presented the position of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on this issue. For comparison, the story about the evacuation of British diplomats from Ukraine was men2 For the calculations, statistical data of the Yandex.News service was used, where 7685 information partners send their materials (including all the main federal and regional domestic media).

It is especially noteworthy that, in the Russian media, on average, more than 75% of the news about Africa is negative. The countries of the continent often appear in the news in the context of military and religious conflicts, serious economic problems, poverty, the spread of dangerous diseases, etc. Therefore, the African agenda is on the periphery of the domestic information space. Even though the key news of the continent fragmentarily falls into the feeds of the Russian media, as a rule, they do not constitute news stories or rubrics (consisting of several articles) that could help to form a comprehensive, dynamic public opinion about the situation in that macro-region. Information about Africa is often not only insufficient and pointwise but also has a onesided negative connotation. That is why even events of significance for the Russian Federation that take place in Africa quickly fall out of the domestic information space. As a result, the Russian public and even the professional community, which includes the political, economic, and scientific elites, are forming an utterly wrong idea about modern Africa, which is associated with concepts such as poverty, under-development, hunger, illiteracy, coups d’état, dictators in power, terrorism, armed conflicts and wars, piracy and hostage-taking, illegal migration and refugees, corruption, etc.

In addition, the Russian elite demonstrates a somewhat arrogant attitude towards Africa. We have often heard the phrase “We (that is, Russia) are not Africa” from high-ranking officials. Meanwhile, for the purpose of so-called deterrence, colonial methods are being very successfully applied to Russia today, which were once applied to African states. We mean such tools as dependence on Western goods and technologies; sanctions; bribery and corruption of political, economic, and intellectual elites; attempts to change objectionable authorities through mechanisms of internal social protests, primarily relying on young people and even children; encouragement of brain drain; the imposition of the Western value system and the erosion of national identity, including the narrowing of the use of the national language; the formation of a colonial type of thinking; and so on and so forth. 

In this sense, the study of the African experience can significantly help us in overcoming our own mistakes and solving the problems of accelerated development of the economy and the social sphere. Despite the thoughtless imposition of the idea of Africa as the most backward and problematic region of the world in Russian public opinion, qualified Africanists, including Western experts, call Africa the continent of the 21st century, attributing this to the stable growth rates of the African economy over the past 20 years and the colossal resource and human potential of the African region. It makes no sense to argue that African countries and their inhabitants are on average (but by no means all!) poorer than many countries in the world. However, in terms of profitability, prospects, and security for Russian business since March 2022, they are preferable compared to Western countries. 

The Africa’s average annual GDP growth rate over the past 20 years has been higher than that of the world as a whole, which has allowed the continent to increase its share in world GDP, although it remains quite low. Recently, however, experts have begun to form the opinion that the very methodology for calculating GDP is based on indicators that do not reflect the actual situation in the world economy in terms of owning real wealth and producing real values. Based on these indicators, the role of Africa in the world economy is growing significantly. Thus, among other regions of the world, Africa ranks first in the reserves of manganese, chromites, bauxites, gold, platinoids, cobalt, vanadium, coltan, diamonds, phosphorites, and fluorite; second in reserves of copper, asbestos, uranium, antimony, beryllium, and graphite; and third in the reserves of oil, gas, mercury, and iron ore. There are also significant reserves of titanium, nickel, bismuth, lithium, tantalum, niobium, tin, tungsten, and precious stones. 

Most of the minerals listed are necessary to produce modern high-tech goods for a wide range of purposes, which makes the strategic dependence of many participants in the world economy on their regular supplies very significant. For example, dependence on chromium supplies from Africa reaches 97% in the United States, 62% in the EU countries, and 84% in China. For cobalt, these figures are 71, 82, and 100%, respectively. The share of the African continent in manganese imports is 79% for the United States, 68% for the EU countries, and 67% for China. China also receives 86% of its copper needs from Africa. The EU countries import from Africa 63% of their aluminum raw materials and 58% of titanium, while China imports 49% and 50%, respectively. The share of African uranium supplies is 27% for the United States, 35% for the European Union, and 36% for China. More than half of all EU imports of metals such as niobium, tantalum, vanadium, and zirconium come from Africa. In the United States and China, the corresponding indicators are 43 and 49%. Thus, a significant number of Western and Chinese industrial enterprises producing modern hightech goods, including those related to military production, simply cannot function without the supply of African raw materials. 

As for Russia, according to RAS Academician N.S. Bortnikov, a prominent Russian mineralogist, it is experiencing an acute shortage in metals such as uranium, manganese, chromium, aluminum, zirconium, beryllium, lithium, rhenium, and rare earth metals of the yttrium group. In ten years, it will be short of lead, antimony, gold, silver, diamonds, and zinc as well. Most of these minerals are present in Africa, the cost of their extraction being rather low, which will allow us to consider the development of African resources (if it is economically viable compared to the development of our own deposits, if available) as one of the important ways to overcome the shortage of critical strategic raw materials. 

Modern Africa is gradually becoming both a significant consumer market and a supplier of labor for the global economy. Africa’s population already exceeds 1.2 billion and is growing at the fastest rate in the world. According to UN forecasts, in 2050 more than a quarter of the world’s population will live in Africa. Today, 60% of this population are young people under the age of 25, and it is young people who provide the demand for modern goods and services. According to the United Nations, from 2040, two-thirds of the growth in global labor will come from the African continent. The consumer market in Africa doubles every five years, and the growth rate of the middle class, which forms the basis of demand for modern goods and services, already exceeds the corresponding indicators of Asian states.  

In addition, over the past 30 years, Africa has managed to halve illiteracy to 34%, while some developed countries (for example, the United States) demonstrate the opposite trend. Thus, according to some data, 43 million Americans cannot read and write. Of great importance for the successful development of the African economy is the development and deepening of integration processes, which can unite the material and human resources of African states that were once separated by borders artificially drawn by the colonial authorities. A landmark event in the development of the African continent, comparable only to the creation of the WTO, was the signing of an agreement on the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) on March 21, 2018 (at the emergency summit of the AU heads of government in Kigali, Rwanda). If successfully implemented, this project will lead to the emergence of the largest free trade zone in the world in terms of the number of participants, with a market uniting the population of 55 member countries of the African Union. 

Africa has the highest digitalization rates in the world. Few people know that the world’s first online payment was made in Kenya. Today, online payments predominate in most African countries. Rwanda has announced the rejection of the use of cash. In Nigeria, the largest African country in terms of population, payments are already being made in electronic naira. Cryptocurrencies are rapidly spreading on the continent. A recent report from the blockchain data platform Chainalysis showed that between July 2020 and June 2021, Africans received $105.6 billion worth of cryptocurrency payments, which was 1200% more than in the previous year.  

It is noteworthy that, according to the Chainalysis rating, Kenya, South Africa, and Nigeria are in the top ten countries for the use of cryptocurrency. DeFi (decentralized finance) technologies are becoming more and more popular in Africa. At the African Technology Forum in Nairobi, which took place in February 2022, the issue of decentralized finance was one of the three main topics for discussion, along with African startups and mobile networks. Africa sets an example for the world in increasing the role of women in all spheres of public life. Women have twice held the presidential positions – in Liberia and Mauritius, and today Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, an ethnical Nigerian, heads the WTO. African women are actively involved in legislative activities, including as chairs of the lower and upper houses of parliaments, and in Rwanda, for example, 63% of all parliamentarians are women. Women also lead in the number of start-ups launched in Africa. The number of women who are politicians, entrepreneurs, and scientists is also growing. 

All this once again confirms the fact that our ideas about Africa as a territory of backwardness, including in the social sphere, to put it mildly, do not correspond to reality. Today, in the context of a sharp aggravation of relations with the United States and the European Union, Russia can and should use the African vector of foreign policy to solve the problems of its own development and strengthen its positions in the international arena, forming, in the national interests and, where necessary, in opposition to aggressive geopolitical rivals, its own strategic alliances and associations. 

As was shown by the first Russia-Africa Summit, held in October 2019 in Sochi, the authority of the Russian Federation in most African states is extremely high. Africans view our country as the legal successor of the Soviet Union, which is actively defending its political and economic sovereignty and can provide security guarantees to other states. The countries of the continent also see Russia as a reliable economic partner interacting with African public and private businesses on a mutually beneficial basis. Note, however, that the hopes of Africans to intensify cooperation with the Russian Federation should be supported by real steps in the economic and political spheres and not be limited to verbal declarations about the “return of Russia to Africa,” especially because almost three years after Sochi, it was very modest. Recall that in the conditions of the reorganization of the world order and increased competition for African resources, the time allotted for such a return with maximum benefit for our country is very limited.

Today we find ourselves in the same boat with Africans, and not only in terms of Western pressure on our political and economic agency and the desire to free ourselves from old and new forms of colonialism. Today we have common goals and objectives. We are mutually interested in the formation of a just multipolar world, where every country and people can find a worthy place. Both we and the Africans have unique natural resources that have a powerful impact on the development of the world economy, and we need to act not as competitors in this area, as is happening today in the oil and gas sector, but as partners.  

Both Russia and Africa are at the crossroads of the most important trade routes connecting countries and continents. Most importantly, Russia’s economic development strategies are focused on the development of its domestic markets and on the transfer of our countries from raw materials to industrial and high-tech areas, largely relying on our own resources and capabilities. It is noteworthy that Africans were the first to understand the need to intensify Russian−African cooperation in the new conditions. Despite colossal pressure from the collective West, most African states, even those that voted for the anti-Russian resolution at the UN General Assembly (there were 28 of 54 such countries), did not support economic sanctions against Russia.  

Moreover, many African countries are ready to increase the supply of their goods to Russia, including products of agriculture and light industry, pharmaceuticals, and necessary types of raw materials. They are also ready to build new logistics chains with our country, providing the Russian side with the opportunity to use their transport infrastructure facilities. In turn, they expect that Russia in 2022 will supply to Africa grain and fertilizers – the goods most in demand today; they also hope for the development of technological partnerships with our country in areas where the Russian Federation has significant competitive advantages. 

Accounting for the growing competition of old and new players on the African continent, Russia, when formulating its strategy, should consider the interests of African states formulated in the strategic document of the African Union – Agenda 2063, according to which Africa should turn into a prosperous continent with advanced infrastructure and industry and qualitatively new human potential. At the same time, it is necessary to understand clearly how interaction with Africa will contribute to the solution of Russia’s own development tasks, its economic and technological breakthrough, and ensuring national security against the backdrop of aggravated confrontation with the West.  

In the context of the most severe sanctions and attempts to exclude Russia from the global political and economic space, the search for new partners capable of both supporting Russia on various international platforms and opening new opportunities for economic cooperation takes on a special role. The growing tension in relations with Europe and the United States, the growth of China’s economic and political power and influence in the Asian direction, and the swaying situation in the Middle East determine the importance of the African vector of Russia’s foreign policy. 

In political terms, the support of African countries, which make up more than a quarter of all UN voters, is extremely important for us. Now, when the expulsion of Russian diplomats from most Western states is becoming increasingly practiced, there is a real opportunity to strengthen diplomatic work in the African direction without additional financial costs, open previously closed Russian embassies and trade missions, and expand the size of qualified diplomatic personnel in African states. Economically, Africa is not only a supplier of raw materials for Russia but also the most important market to sell Russian industrial products and use Russian technologies, including the localization of Russian production facilities on the continent, training of personnel, and transfer of knowledge and skills.  

Therefore, the second Russia-Africa summit should become a qualitatively new step in the development of Russian-African relations. It is necessary to move from formulating the goals and objectives of Russian policy in the African direction to the implementation of specific projects and the development of a mechanism and tools for mutually beneficial cooperation. In political terms, the expectations of African countries from Russia in the context of the formation of a multipolar world are related to supporting their political sovereignty and countering color revolutions organized by the United States and the European Union, as well as solving security problems, including military, antiterrorist, and informational components. 

Africans are waiting for Russia to increase mutual trade, primarily through an increase in the supply of African products to the Russian Federation. At the summit in Sochi, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir V. Putin set the goal of at least doubling the volume of trade in the coming years. For the 2019 pre-Covid year, data on Russian-African trade were very modest compared to other partners, although over the past ten years they have tended to grow. The share of Russia in Africa’s foreign trade turnover increased over this period from 0.8 to 1.6%, which was not only incomparable with the EU and China (28 and 16%, respectively) but also significantly behind individual European and Asian countries. 

To increase the volume of Russian-African trade under the economic war unleashed against Russia, it will be necessary, first of all, to solve logistics issues related to the transportation of goods in both directions, building new logistics chains and organizing logistics centers (seaports, airports, warehouses, etc.) to deliver Russian products to African markets. Of great importance are the creation of new mechanisms of paying for goods to reduce the role of settlements in dollars and euros, including countertrade (barter); the development of a mechanism of accounting for concessions for natural resources in export transactions; the use of national, including electronic, currencies et cetera. Using foreign experience, it is also necessary to consider the possibility of granting special powers to one of the Russian state-owned banks to carry out targeted financing of export transactions and investment projects on the African continent.

However, in our opinion, it is not trade that should become the link through which we can raise the entire system of Russian-African relations to a new level. The key direction in the near future, which will become attractive for African countries and will contribute to the successful economic development of the Russian Federation, may be Russian investments in those areas of the African economy that are of interest to both the Russian Federation and African states. We primarily mean the development of bilateral opportunities for technological partnership. 

In the conditions of the post-Covid world, the demand for Russian technologies in Africa could grow significantly since Russia has high competencies in the areas that are most in demand today on the African continent. The most pressing problem facing Africans today is energy. About half of Africans do not have access to electricity. A promising solution to the problem of providing energy could be the construction of nuclear and hydroelectric power plants, for which the main contractor would be the Russian Federation, which has a great wealth of experience in this area. Russia is already implementing a project to build a powerful nuclear power plant in Egypt and is preparing similar projects in a number of other African states. We can also manufacture equipment for the oil and gas industry, ferrous metallurgy, mining, small aviation, and agriculture. Africans are interested in building factories to produce copper cable, fiber optics, and fertilizers from local raw materials and mini-factories for processing agricultural products, as well as in programs for the digitalization of the economy, including digital transformation programs – from a “smart city” and taxation control to creating a cybersecurity system. 

There are also great prospects for cooperation in the space sector, including the creation of joint satellites for remote sensing of the earth (optical, radar, and spectroscopic), ground equipment for receiving and processing data from satellites, as well as in the construction industry, including in the construction of roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, river harbors, and seaports. It is necessary to develop cooperation in the field of medicine, including both the joint fight against dangerous infectious diseases and the pharmaceutical industry. Water purification technologies play a special role since the problem of clean drinking water is very topical for a number of African states.  

In all the above areas, Russia has high competences and capabilities, including the training of respective staff and local personnel. Cooperation in the scientific sphere should become an important area. The priorities of scientific cooperation with Africa should be specific and different from the tasks of cooperation with the United States or EU countries. Most important is not to learn something or adopt scientific experience but to use the special conditions and opportunities inherent in the African continent to increase the scientific and technical potential of our country and science.  

In the first place, we mean cooperation in biosafety, medicine, biodiversity, geology, processing of minerals, ecology, climate, the “blue economy,” agriculture, space, information technology and the humanities. The first concrete step in this direction could be the creation a joint Russian-Ethiopian biological center in Africa on the basis of the only Joint Soviet-Ethiopian (later Russian-Ethiopian) biological expedition, which has been working since 1987. The transfer of Russian technologies, as well as cooperation in the scientific field, is beneficial to Russia not just in terms of its international image as a country that contributes to the advanced development of Africa and the strengthening of its economic sovereignty. Such a transfer makes it possible to form an army of supporters in the countries of the continent by solving the problem of overcoming technological backwardness and training qualified personnel who will master and promote Russian technological solutions. 

In addition, Russia gets the opportunity, on the one hand, to develop and improve its technologies, which are in demand by the rapidly growing young African population, and, on the other hand, a huge market for Russian high-tech goods and services, which is so necessary for many domestic manufacturers. In Professors Abramova and Fituni opinion, it is the topic of the transfer of Russian technologies to Africa, along with political and information issues, that should become the most important for discussion at the second Russia−Africa summit. This is in the interests of both Russia and all African states.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS) and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia-Africa Relations under “The Crisis of the Existing World Order”

NATO Wants Georgia Involved in Its Proxy War with Russia

April 28th, 2023 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

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

*** 

The current crisis in Georgia has been news on media outlets around the world. However, few analysts have paid attention to the real reason why so much instability is being fomented in the country. Indeed, Tbilisi seems to be the new focus for western warmongers. NATO plans to bring Georgia into a conflict with Russia. This will allow the West to open a new flank and distract Moscow by forcing it to send troops to yet another battlefield.

While the wave of violent protests has decreased its strength the crisis in Georgia appears far from over. Destabilizing forces are boosting the social and institutional chaos in order for the government to make decisions in favor of foreign interests. This is becoming increasingly clear as domestic players are formally calling on Western countries to impose sanctions on Georgia to advance pro-NATO and anti-Russian agendas.

In April, former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili formally requested that the Collective West sanction his own country. According to Saakashvili, currently imprisoned on serious charges of abuse of power and other crimes, with Western coercive measures, Georgia would be forced to release him and thus increase civil and political freedoms. On the occasion, he emphasized that the US and Europe would be the global defenders of democracy, decency and justice, and should therefore react to the supposedly “pro-Russian” tendencies of the current Georgian government – which he accuses of complying with “orders” from Moscow.

The case is particularly curious as it echoes the current Georgian domestic political situation. The opposition to the government uses as its main rhetoric a supposed connection of the Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili with Russia. No evidence of his alleged connection with Moscow is presented, other than his resistance to being actively involved in the Ukrainian conflict – in addition to his wise attitude to avoid fomenting new security crises in the separatist regions on the border with Russia.

When anti-government protests began in March, the signs of foreign interference to promote anti-Russian policies were already obvious. In the streets of Tbilisi, protesters held Ukrainian flags and sang the Ukrainian national anthem, as well as war songs of the neo-Nazi regime. President Vladimir Zelensky himself went public to thank the protesters for their support and said that “there is no Ukrainian who would not want the success of our friendly Georgia”, in addition to calling the demonstrations a “democratic success. European success”.

It is important to remember that at the height of the protests, these pro-instability actions were supported by the country’s own president, the native Frenchwoman Salome Zurabishvili, who expressed strong opposition to the government and parliament for the approval of a law against foreign espionage. Being a foreign agent on Georgian soil herself, Zurabishvili echoed Western rhetoric that demanding special registration for NGOs funded by international groups would be a kind of abusive or dictatorial attitude.

In fact, these attitudes on the part of the opposition to the current Prime Minister are not by chance – these moves indicate a coordinated action to pressure Georgia to act incisively in favor of Western interests. Zurabishvili, before becoming the country’s president, had served as foreign minister, standing out for her extremely pro-NATO work. In the same vein, former President Saakashvili, who is now demanding Western sanctions to pressure the government to release him, was recognizably a US-backed head of state, largely responsible for provocations against pro-Russian border regions during the 2008 conflict. He also gained asylum in post-Maidan Ukraine, even being governor of Odessa during the Poroshenko era.

The fact that politicians like Zurabishvili and Saakashvili are acting incisively to foment polarization and protests within Georgia, in addition to sanctions and external pressure at the international level, shows that there is indeed a Western plan for Tbilisi to take an openly anti-Russian position in the current NATO’s proxy war with Moscow. This scenario reflects the current strategy of the Atlantic alliance, which seems focused on the multiplication of battlefields. The more conflict zones, the better for the Western powers, which want to harm Russia as much as possible, causing it to lose troops and weapons.

Many analysts believe that the West is currently about to “admit” its failure in Ukraine, which is why, in order to safeguard its global hegemony, NATO’s new focus would be to fight against China, which is seen by the US as a weaker adversary and against which there are more chances of victory in direct military confrontation. But for a war against China to be viable, it would be necessary to prevent Moscow from helping Beijing on the battlefield, which would explain the attempt to distract the Russians with multiple conflicts in the Eurasian space.

In this military context, forcing Georgia to assume a fully pro-NATO and anti-Russian foreign policy would be a great victory for the West. As long as the Georgian government continues to avoid involvement in the conflict, international pressure and the foment of internal color revolution will remain. Certainly, chaos in the country will continue to be stimulated by foreign agents until the government agrees to send troops to provoke the Russians in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, opening a new front in NATO’s war of aggression.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

*** 

With each passing day, the Ukrainian Army is being carved up and decimated in Bakhmut. To use a cinematic metaphor, this is a preview of the coming attraction, with Ukraine facing intense pressure to launch a counter-offensive that will push the Russians out of Ukraine. Ain’t going to happen.

Take a look at the following video. Yes, it is but one isolated anecdotal account of the slaughter in Bakhmut, but it rings true and provides a chilling picture of the desperate state of Ukrainian forces in that battle.

Even If Ukraine is able to scrounge up troops and vehicles that surpass anything the Russians have in place on the front-lines in the Donbass (a dubious assumption), it still lacks the artillery, air support, logistics and ammunition to sustain such an attack.

How do I know? Very simple. Just look at how Ukraine currently is performing in Bakhmut, Ugledar, and Avdevka. In every case, Ukrainian forces are retreating, albeit slowly, rather than blunting the Russian offensive. The following image (taken from liveuamap.com, a pro-Ukrainian site) shows the harrowing situation the Ukrainian troops confront.

Ukraine, which in theory should have an advantage by fighting from defensive positions, has failed to stop the slow but steady advance of Russian troops all along the line of contact. Instead of attacking and destroying Russian lines of communications that supply the Russian forces, Ukraine is launching artillery and HIMARS missile strikes on civilian targets. Those attacks do nothing to weaken Russia’s tactical and strategic situation.

The seven blue circles visible on the map signify locations where air raid warnings are sounding on April 25. This means the Russians hitting these sites with fixed wing aircraft to deliver 500 kg glide bombs and explosive laden drones. The effect is devastating for the Ukrainians on the receiving end.

These strikes also confirm the assessment contained in one of the leaked pieces of U.S. intelligence that Ukraine’s air defense system (ADS) has been destroyed and Ukraine lacks a layered ADS to fend off Russian attacks. Russian military sources claim they are inflicting an average of 500 fatalities on the Ukrainian troops. In other words, in the last 60 days the Ukrainians have suffered at least 30,000 KIA across the 950 km front. Ukraine does not have a limitless supply of manpower. 

No amount of happy talk in Washington or the capitals of other NATO countries alters the dire tactical situation confronting Ukraine. If you look at the changes on the liveuamap during the last six months, it is Russia, not Ukraine, that is relentlessly attacking all along the line of contact. Russia is conducting a brutal war of attrition and Ukraine is willingly sending irreplaceable forces into the maw of destruction. How is Ukraine going to mount a credible counter offensive without adequate air support, an exhausted air defense system, a weakened tank force, shortages of artillery and missiles that cannot be readily replaced and a chaotic logistics system that is failing to keep front-line troops fully supplied with ammunition, fuel and food?

Ukraine’s prospects are made more grim by the realization that Russia, during the last six months, has built layered defense systems along likely avenues of attack, stepped up its use of fixed wing aerial attacks on Ukrainian mobilization positions and kept massive trained reserves off the front lines. Russia is not behaving like an overly confident number 1 seed in the NCAA Basketball tournament. The Russian General Staff realize they are in an existential fight with NATO and are not engaging in premature victory celebrations. Russia is prepared for the long haul. However, Ukraine is not.

The leaders in Kiev are behaving like depraved junkies, totally dependent on the willingness of the West to keep sending money and weapons. But there is a problem. The United States and NATO have exhausted their stocks of weapons and ammunition and do not have the industrial base in place to quickly produce replacements. Ukrainian confidence in victory is no substitute for a fully supplied and trained army. Lack of supplies and raw recruits with minimal basic training is a recipe for catastrophe.

*

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

All images in this article are from GP

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

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

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

*** 

In a shocking development, the government has announced it will be sending depleted uranium (DU) rounds to Ukraine along with Challenger 2 tanks.

As we know from several wars in the past few decades, the health consequences for Ukrainian civilians will be high. DU is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal and it’s a by-product of the enrichment process used to make reactor-grade uranium.

Its chemical and physical properties have made it popular for a range of military and commercial uses: its density and its ability to self-sharpen attracted the attention of the US Department of Defence (DoD) in the late 1950s. The military was looking to increase the armour-piercing capacity of munitions and to strengthen the armour of tanks.

DU seemed to fit the bill. But its use has had a devastating impact on the populations caught up in numerous conflicts, with the terrible type of health consequences that we associate with radiation impacts.

DU is used for armour-piercing tank rounds and bullets as it is so heavy, meaning it can easily penetrate steel. Because of its heaviness, DU has also been used as ballast in aeroplanes, notably in hundreds of Boeing 747s — the early jumbo jets — that were built before 1981.

The practice became particularly controversial after an El Al cargo jet crashed into an apartment block in Amsterdam in 1992. Forty-three people were killed and the cargo, which included 10 tons of chemicals, as well as flammable liquids, gases, and caustic substances, burst into flames, along with hundreds of kilos of DU carried as weighting.

Although residents were assured that no health risk was posed, it was apparent that much of the DU had been released as dust particles into the atmosphere.

The risk is not that DU munitions will cause a nuclear explosion. It’s that the impact of their use causes toxic or radioactive dust to be released and if this is subsequently inhaled or ingested in other ways, it has very significant negative health consequences.

After the first Gulf war, the DoD Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf war Illnesses (OSAGWI) identified several DU exposure scenarios including through wounds caused by DU fragments, inhalation of airborne DU particles, ingestion of DU residues, or wound contamination by DU residues.

DU munitions were used on a large scale by the US and Britain in the Gulf war in 1991 and in Iraq in 2003. Their use has caused a sharp increase in the incidence rates of some cancers, such as breast cancer and lymphoma, in the areas where it has been used.

It has also been implicated in a rise in birth defects from areas adjacent to the main Gulf war battlefields. Other health problems associated with DU include kidney failure, nervous system disorders, lung disease and reproductive problems.

A report funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2013 showed that more than 400 tonnes of DU ammunition were estimated to have been used in 1991 and 2003, the vast majority by US forces.

The report showed that the Iraqi government’s Radiation Protection Centre had identified between 300 and 365 contaminated sites by 2006, mostly in the Basra region in southern Iraq.

As well as warning of contamination being spread by poorly regulated scrap metal dealers, including children, it also shared evidence that DU munitions were fired at light vehicles, buildings and other civilian infrastructure including the Iraqi Ministry of Planning in Baghdad — despite official assurances of military-only armoured targets.

Its use in the former Yugoslavia by Nato forces in 1995 and 1999 led to the same type of consequences. It was also used by the US in Syria in 2015. The impacts have not been confined to local populations — they have also affected the troops involved in or close to their use, and also military clean-up teams sent to deal with the impact of the DU.

The severe health consequences have led to the terms “Gulf war syndrome” and “Balkan syndrome” entering our vocabulary. The Ministry of Defence disputes the risks of DU, yet it recommends “ongoing surveillance” for veterans with embedded DU fragments.

No treaty explicitly banning the use of DU is yet in force, but it is clear that its use runs counter to the basic rules and principles of international humanitarian law. In 2006, the European Parliament strengthened its previous calls for a moratorium by calling for an introduction of a total ban, classifying the use of DU, along with white phosphorus, as inhumane.

Since 2007, repeated UN general assembly resolutions have highlighted serious concerns over the use of DU weapons. Britain, together with the US, France and Israel, are the only states that have consistently voted against the resolutions.

The British government must put an immediate end to its use of DU — inflicting it on the people of Ukraine is the last thing they need.

*

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

Kate Hudson is general secretary of CND (cnduk.org).

Featured image is from MS

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

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

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

*** 

Pfizer, the manufacturer of one of the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the country, silently funded groups advocating for vaccine mandates and passports, according to a report by Lee Fang (paywalled).

In August 2021, the president of the Chicago Urban League, Karen Freeman-Wilson, in an interview on TV, argued that vaccine mandates would not disproportionately harm the black community.

“The health and safety factor here far outweighs the concern about shutting people out or creating a barrier,” Freeman-Wilson said at the time.

Earlier that year, the Chicago Urban League had received $100,000 from Pfizer for a project on promoting “vaccine safety and effectiveness.” The organization did not list Pfizer as a donor or partner on its website and Freeman-Wilson did not mention the funding during the interview.

The Chicago Urban League grant is one of many Pfizer-awarded groups to promote and encourage vaccine mandates. The pharmaceutical giant awarded grants to public health organizations, civil rights groups, as well as consumer, medical, and doctors’ groups. Most of these groups did not disclose the funding from Pfizer.

Corporate watchdog group the National Consumers League announced support for “government and employer mandates” requiring Covid vaccination in August 2021. The announcement came at around the same time the organization received a $75,000 grant from Pfizer for “vaccine policy efforts.”

Houston-based public health organization the Immunization Partnership publicly lobbied against bills introduced in Texas aimed at banning vaccine passports and vaccine mandates. The organization did not disclose that Pfizer gave it $35,000 earlier that year for “legislative advocacy.”

*

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

Cuba and the Children of Chernobyl

April 28th, 2023 by Tanalís Padilla

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

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

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

*** 

On April 26, 1986, the explosion of a reactor at the Chernobyl plant produced a nuclear spill whose radiation contaminated 150 thousand square meters of what today are Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Considered the worst nuclear accident in history, it was in many ways a slow-motion mishap. In addition to the 30 workers and rescuers who perished in the hours and days immediately after the explosion, hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Land, water, agriculture and livestock were contaminated. The number of deaths in subsequent decades remains in dispute. The lowest estimates are 4,000; others 90,000 and up to 200,000.

Several countries contributed resources, personnel and assistance to the recovery; the overwhelming majority went to contain and seal the reactor. In 1990, when the horror of the tragedy had ceased to be news, Cuba sent a medical team to evaluate the health consequences of the radiation. They found a situation in which cancer levels in children had increased 90 percent. The island would soon undertake medical assistance that is still difficult to measure: from 1990 to 2011, it cared for 26,000 people – 22,000 children – from the affected area, covering medical, food, housing and recreational expenses for the minors and their companions.

The first 139 children from Chernobyl arrived on March 29, 1990 and were received by Fidel Castro. The images are touching, the President looks and greets the parents with attention and tenderly caresses the little ones. He promises them the best medical care.

The little ones from Chernobyl continued to arrive for more than two decades. Tarará, a city 20 kilometers from Havana, was selected to take care of them. Located on the seashore, before the revolution it was a vacation destination for the upper middle class. The revolutionary government transformed it into a youth summer camp. In 1990 it was adapted to care for the children of Chernobyl. In addition to having two hospitals and a clinic, the camp had a dining hall, recreational and cultural spaces, school, theater and parks.

“It wasn’t like being in a hospital,” recalls Roman Gerus who was in Tarara as a child, “even the sickest children had a good time.” Khrystyna Kostenetska, who was also treated there, describes, “I remember an incredible sea, waves, sunsets, nature and ice cream; I also remember children with serious health problems.”

Upon arrival in Cuba, the children were evaluated by doctors organized into four categories: the most serious ones with oncohematological problems that required specialized therapies; those suffering from chronic pathologies; children who could be treated on an outpatient basis; and the relatively healthy ones who required medical follow-up because they had lived in the contaminated area. All were treated under the comprehensive logic of the Cuban medical system, whose teams included pediatricians, oncologists, psychiatrists and dentists. Sometimes ailments unrelated to the spill were detected and treated as well.

This Cuban initiative, which has been characterized as the longest humanitarian program in history, took place during one of the most difficult times for Cuba. The disintegration of the USSR in the early 1990s had eliminated its main trading partner and the island’s economy suffered a brutal contraction. Everything was in short supply except solidarity.

When historian John Kirk – whose book Public Health Without Borders provides a detailed account of the island’s care for the Chernobyl children – asked the director of the medical program in Tarará how Cuba could offer such help in such difficult times, he replied, “These are children, very sick children. How could we not treat them?”

Several of the children who arrived were orphans and many others were poor. The disintegration of the Soviet Union meant the end of its social care infrastructure. The incipient capitalist system put a price tag on treatment that many could not afford. In addition to suffering from physical ailments, many lived with the trauma of having been evacuated from their homes. And the question remained as to what ailments would develop in the future and in other generations.

Xenia Laurenti, deputy director of the Chernobyl Children’s Health Care Program, states bluntly: “If you ask a Ukrainian child what he or she would like, the answer is not ‘toys’, but ‘health’. This is psychologically built in. And part of the program is aimed precisely at psychological rehabilitation, at not rejecting any kind of pathologies. Our goal is to cure.

No price can be put on this effort to heal. In 2010, a Ukrainian NGO tried to do so, calculating it at more than 300 million dollars for Cuba’s medical expenses alone. The testimonies of parents who, years later, between tears and smiles, express their gratitude to the Cuban people for the care they gave children, best capture the human dimension. “This is not just medical help – expressed one mother – it is a very great moral help for my people”.

It was, like so many other initiatives of the Cuban revolutionary government, an unparalleled globalization of solidarity.

*

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

Tanalís Padilla is a professor-researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Author of the book Unintended Lessons of Revolution, a history of the rural teacher training colleges.

Featured image is from Resumen

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

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

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

*** 

The House committee dedicated to countering China is preparing bipartisan proposals for the fiscal 2024 defense authorization bill that would accelerate U.S. munitions production and arms transfers to Taiwan, its chairman told Defense News in an exclusive interview.

The committee is drawing on lessons learned from the Taiwan tabletop wargame it held last week as it drafts its proposals, which aim to ramp up production of high-priority munitions, help clear the $19 billion arms sale backlog to Taipei and bolster Pentagon cybersecurity cooperation with the island nation.

“We’re hoping to get consensus on a series of proposals that the committee can endorse that would be tailor-made for insertion into this year’s [National Defense Authorization Act],” Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., said Thursday.

He’s also using his position as a subcommittee chairman on the Armed Services Committee to introduce those Taiwan recommendations as amendments when the House marks up the FY24 NDAA in early June.

Gallagher discussed lessons from the wargame on Wednesday with members of three external groups: retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Stacie Pettyjohn from the Center for a New American Security and Jimmy Goodrich from the Semiconductor Industry Association. In addition to shattering the global economy and potentially killing many people, the wargame found that a U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan would rapidly deplete long-range missile stockpiles.

Beijing considers the island a rogue province, and has threatened to take it back by force.

“Whatever we do to deter the war has to happen before the war,” Gallagher told Defense News. “We need to jump-start industry now if we want to actually stockpile munitions that give us a chance of preserving the peace, which means in my opinion that you need multiyear appropriations for critical munitions like the long-range anti-ship missile.”

“We need about 1,000 to 1,200 [long-range anti-ship missiles] if you believe the unclassified wargames,” he added. “Our inventory is less than 250, and we’re just not producing them at a rapid rate. I believe we can get up to above 200 a year.”

Other high-priority munitions Gallagher identified are the Naval Strike Missiles, which U.S. Marines are fielding in Japan and the Philippines as part of an expeditionary ship interdiction system; Joint Strike Missiles; Joint Direct Attack Munitions; and SM-6 missiles.

A U.S. Navy ship launches an SM-6 during a live-fire test of the Aegis weapons system. (U.S. Navy)

“We need multiyear appropriations to make that happen,” he said. “We’re talking about a relatively small amount of money compared to the overall defense budget.”

Multiyear procurement authorities historically have been used for big-ticket items like ships and aircraft, but the Pentagon and some lawmakers have recently expressed interest in using them for munitions acquisition to encourage defense companies to ramp up production amid concern about insufficient U.S. stockpiles.

The FY23 NDAA sought to jump-start high-priority U.S. munitions production by authorizing multiyear procurement contracts for thousands of critical munitions. That includes 950 long-range anti-ship missiles, 1,250 Naval Strike Missiles and 1,500 SM-6 weapons, as well as thousands of other munitions — some of which the U.S. is backfilling after sending some of its stocks to Ukraine.

But appropriators did not fully fund the critical munitions authorization in the FY23 government funding bill. The spending bill allocated $687 million for the Army for two years to accelerate production “of critical munitions to replace defense articles” provided to Ukraine and its backers.

Gallagher said that this funding level in the appropriations bill “fell far short of what was authorized” and that he’s talking to appropriators “to get to some sort of compromise.”

“I understand why they usually resist multiyear authority and why they are skeptical about the way [the Defense Department] spends money,” he said. “Sometimes [the department] spends money in a stupid fashion.”

The Pentagon requested multiyear procurement authorities for munitions for the first time in March as part of its FY24 budget request, which asks Congress for $30.6 billion in missile and munition procurement. That includes the long-range anti-ship missile, the Naval Strike Missile and the SM-6.

Arming Taiwan

The FY23 NDAA also authorized up to $2 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing grants for arms to Taiwan and another $1 billion in presidential drawdown authority to give it weapons from existing U.S. stockpiles — the same authority President Joe Biden has used to arm Ukraine. But like multiyear procurement authorities, the FY23 appropriations bill did not fund either Taiwan aid authorization.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told the Senate in March that the Pentagon is preparing a weapons drawdown package from U.S. stocks for Taiwan, but that he’ll need lawmakers to follow through with appropriations to backfill those munitions.

Additionally, industrial capacity issues have contributed to a $19 billion arms sale backlog to Taiwan — something Gallagher also hopes to ameliorate. That will also require reforms to the Foreign Military Sales process. Montgomery, the retired Navy officer, told the House’s China committee that it can take more than 30 months from the announcement of a Taiwan arms sale until the Defense Department inks a contract for the weapon system.

“Once the sale is approved, there’s nobody in [the Defense Department] that then rides herd on the contract to actually get it done,” said Gallagher, noting that the Foreign Military Sales process “exists in this weird no-man’sland” between the Pentagon and State Department.

The chairman also wants to move Taiwan to the front of the line for certain arms sales, including Harpoon missiles. Saudi Arabia stands ahead of Taiwan in the queue for those anti-ship weapons, which Gallagher said “makes no sense.”

An initial draft of last year’s Taiwan aid legislation in the Senate would have required defense manufacturers to “prioritize and expedite” weapons for Taiwan in their queues, but lawmakers dropped that provision when they added parts of the bill to the FY23 NDAA due to concerns it would violate U.S. contracting law.

Lastly, Gallagher — who chairs the Armed Services Committee’s cyber panel — hopes to enhance the U.S.-Taiwan cybersecurity partnership to improve the island’s “resiliency and critical infrastructure.” He has introduced a bill, the Taiwan Cybersecurity Resilience Act, which would require the Pentagon to work with the Asian nation to improve cooperation on military cyber operations.

*

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

Bryant Harris is the Congress reporter for Defense News. He has covered U.S. foreign policy, national security, international affairs and politics in Washington since 2014. He has also written for Foreign Policy, Al-Monitor, Al Jazeera English and IPS News.

The Censorship-Industrial Complex

April 28th, 2023 by Andrew Lowenthal

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

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

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

*** 

I knew things were bad in my world, but the truth turned out to be much worse than I could have imagined.

My name is Andrew Lowenthal. I am a progressive-minded Australian who for almost 18 years was the Executive Director of EngageMedia, an Asia-based NGO focused on human rights online, freedom of expression, and open technology. My resume also includes fellowships at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center and MIT’s Open Documentary Lab. For most of my career, I believed strongly in the work I was doing, which I believed was about protecting and expanding digital rights and freedoms. 

In recent years, however, I watched in despair as a dramatic change swept through my field. As if all at once, organizations and colleagues with whom I’d worked for years began de-emphasizing freedom of speech and expression, and shifted focus to a new arena: fighting “disinformation.”

Long before the #TwitterFiles, and certainly before responding to a Racket call for freelancers to help “Knock Out the Mainstream Propaganda Machine,” I’d been raising concerns about the weaponization of “anti-disinformation” as a tool for censorship. For EngageMedia team members in Myanmar, Indonesia, India, or the Philippines, the new elite Western consensus of giving governments greater power to decide what could be said online was the opposite of the work we were doing.

When Malaysian and Singaporean governments introduced “fake news” laws, EngageMedia supported networks of activists campaigning against it. We ran digital security workshops for journalists and human rights advocates under threat from government attack, both virtual and physical. We developed an independent video platform to route around Big Tech censorship and supported campaigners in Thailand fighting government attempts to suppress free expression. In Asia, government interference in speech and expression was the norm. Progressive activists in search of more political freedom often looked to the West for moral and financial support. Now the West is turning against the core value of free expression, in the name of fighting disinformation.

Before being put in charge of tracking anti-disinformation groups and their funders for this Racket project, I thought I had a strong idea of just how big this industry was. I’d been swimming in the broader digital rights field for two decades and saw the rapid growth of anti-disinformation initiatives up close. I knew many of the key organizations and their leaders, and EngageMedia had itself been part of anti-disinformation projects.

After gaining access to #TwitterFiles records, I learned the ecosystem was far bigger and had much more influence than I imagined. As of now we’ve compiled close to 400 organisations globally, and we are just getting started. Some organisations are legitimate. There is disinformation. But there are a great many wolves among the sheep.

I underestimated just how much money is being pumped into think tanks, academia and NGOs under the anti-disinformation front, both from the government and private philanthropy. We’re still calculating, but I had estimated it at hundreds of millions of dollars annually and I’m probably still being naive – Peraton received a $1 billion contract from the Pentagon. 

In particular, I was unaware of the scope and scale of the work of groups like the Atlantic Council, the Aspen Institute, the Center for European Policy Analysis, and consultancies such as Public Good ProjectsNewsguardGraphika, Clemson’s Media Forensics Hub, and others.

Even more alarming was just how much military and intelligence funding is involved, how closely aligned the groups are, how much they mix in civil society. Graphika for example received a $3 million Department of Defense grant, as well as funds from the US Navy and Air Force. The Atlantic Council (of Digital Forensics Lab infamy) receives funds from the US Army and Navy, Blackstone, Raytheon, Lockheed, the NATO STRATCOM Center of Excellence, and more. 

We have for a long time made distinctions between “civilian” and “military.” Here in “civil society” are a slew of military-funded groups that mix and merge and become one with those advocating for human rights and civil liberties. Graphika also does work for Amnesty International and other human rights campaigners. How are these things compatible? What is this moral drift?

Twitter emails show consistent collaboration between military and intelligence officials and elite “progressives” from NGOs and academia. “They/them” signatures mingle with .mil, @westpoint, @fbi and others. How did the FBI and the Pentagon, once the avowed enemies of progressives for their attacks on the Black Panthers and the peace movement, their war-mongering and gross overfunding, begin to fuse and collude? They join together in election tabletop exercises and share hors d’oeuvres at conferences put on by oligarch philanthropists. That cultural and political shift was once a heavy lift, but now it is as simple as cc’ing each other.

Worse still, representatives of the military-industrial complex are lauded in the digital rights field. In 2022, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken featured prominently at RightsCon, the digital rights field’s biggest conference (an event EngageMedia co-organised in 2015 in the Philippines — Blinken did not appear then). Blinken oversees the Global Engagement Center (GEC), one of the most important US Government anti-disinformation initiatives (see #TwitterFiles 17), and is now alleged to have initiated his own disinformation campaign related to the Hunter Biden laptop – that of the “Russian information operation” letter signed by 51 former US intelligence officials.

Former adversaries are brought together via a strong through-line tracing from counter-terrorism, to countering violent extremism, to Minority Report-style policing of everyday speech and political difference.

I also underestimated just how explicit many organizations were regarding narrative policing, at times blatantly drifting from anti-disinformation to monitoring wrongthink. Stanford’s Virality Project recommended that Twitter classify “true stories of vaccine side effects” as “standard misinformation on your platform,” while the Algorithmic Transparency Institute spoke of “civic listening” and “automated collection of data” from “closed messaging apps” in order to combat “problematic content,” i.e. spying on everyday citizens. In some cases the problem was in the title of the NGO itself – Automated Controversy Monitoring for instance does “toxicity monitoring” to combat “unwanted content that triggers you.” Nothing about truth or untruth, it’s all narrative control.

Government and philanthropic oligarchs have colonized civil society and proxied this censorship through think-tanks, academia, and NGOs. Tell this to the sector, however, and they close ranks around their government, military, intelligence, Big Tech, and billionaire patrons. The field has been bought. It is compromised. Pointing that out is not welcome. Do so, and into the “basket of deplorables” for you.

The Twitter Files also show just how much the NGO and academic set had been absorbed into the inner Big Tech elite, upon whom they pushed their new anti-free-expression values. It accounts for some of the antagonism toward Elon Musk, who kicked them out of the club, to say nothing of all the “townies” he let back on the platform. (Musk’s disruption, whilst an improvement, is clearly inconsistent and brings its own problems).

Despite members of the Saudi royal family being large shareholders of both Old and New Twitter, NGOs and academia never had much to say about Twitter’s ownership pre-Musk. It’s the same Saudi regime that murders journalists, oversees a system of gender apartheid, executes gays, and is responsible for more CO2 emissions than anyone can imagine. These should be bread-and-butter issues for progressives, who have looked the other way.

In days gone by the digital rights field would have paid close attention to the #TwitterFiles, as we did with the Wikileaks or Snowden revelations. Much of the same field that once lauded Wikileaks and Snowden are now the ones who have become compromised. The Files make plain that egregious acts of censorship were enabled or ignored by NGOs and academia, often not because they were wrong, but because the ideas came from the wrong people.

The Old Normal

Trump and Brexit are often cited as the turning point, a great political realignment that saw cultural elites shift to the left, and the working class move to the right. The NGO and academic class (elites despite their internal narratives) reacted by aligning their causes ever more tightly with corporate and government power, and vice-versa.

Brexit and Trump seriously dented the authority and status of the expert/professional managerial class. These events were explained away as being the result of bad actors (racists, misogynists, Russians), stupidity, or “misinformation.” The usual leftist class/materialist analysis was thrown out for a simple story of good and evil.

COVID-19 made things weirder. Big Media and Big Tech fell completely out of sync with material reality, smearing criticism that had previously been normal, and explicitly banning topics from social media such as discussion of a possible lab leak, or vaccines not stopping viral transmission. Polite society agreed with such bans, stayed silent, or even, as in the case of the Virality Project and its partners, led the censoring.

A cadre of North American and European anti-disinformation elites meanwhile had been slowly convincing NGOs in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that their biggest problem was not too little but too much online freedom, the solution to which was more corporate and government control in order to protect human rights and democracy.

Given that almost all the funding for such civil society initiatives comes from the US and Europe, those in the rest of the world had the option of losing funding or following suit. So much for “decolonizing” philanthropy.

Of course there had always been philanthropic control, but until 2017, my experience of this had been marginal. Top down direction and conformity crept in, post-Trump, and exploded during COVID-19. There was no doubt in my mind that failure to conform to official pandemic narratives would see you defunded. At EngageMedia, we tried to sound the alarm about the new authoritarianism in our Pandemic of Control series, writing:

The “approved” pandemic response was defended at all costs. News media ridiculed alternative viewpoints as fake news and misinformation, and social media platforms took down contradictory views from their feeds, silencing voices that questioned vaccine passports, lockdowns, and other controls.

And while restrictions continue to be eased in most countries, in others they are not. In addition, much of the infrastructure remains at the ready, and the population itself is now well-groomed for the new sets of demands, from digital IDs to central bank digital currencies and beyond.

Such concern about rights and overreach was unfortunately rare in the field. Control of funds under a philanthropic sector operating largely in lockstep with government accounts for much of the increasing conformity in the sector. More concerning, however, is that many, if not most of the educated activists and intellectuals in these organizations agree with the recent turn against freedom of expression. Writing this, I’m reminded of a media literacy/disinformation event I attended in 2021 at an Australian university – a participant bemoaned that the cause of our ills was too much free speech; all four panelists, one after the other, agreed. All the money aside, many elite hearts and minds have already been won.

At the same time, many are afraid to have a different opinion and only whisper their dissent in the hallways between sessions. The axe of cancellation hangs above the necks of those who step away from the consensus, and the triggered are trigger-happy. A sadistic happiness ensues when any deplorable gets a comeuppance.

By legitimizing wide-ranging government intervention in the speech of everyday citizens, the anti-disinformation field and its ideological allies including Canada’s Justin Trudeau, America’s Joe Biden, and former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, have given authoritarian regimes much greater license to do the same to their own citizens.

Disinformation does of course exist and does need to be addressed. However, the biggest source of disinformation are governments, corporations, and increasingly anti-disinformation experts themselves, who have through COVID-19 and many other issues gotten the facts wrong.

Weaponizing anti-disinformation to censor and smear their opponents is resulting in exactly what the expert class feared: diminished trust in authority. The moral depravity of the Virality Project protecting Big Pharma by advocating for the censorship of true vaccine side effects is beyond astounding. Imagine doing this for a car company whose airbags were unsafe, because it might cause people to stop buying cars.

It wasn’t always like this. Over the past century the primary advocates of free speech have been liberals and progressives like myself, who frequently defended the rights of people whose values they sometimes differed from and were highly unpopular with mainstream American society at the time, such as the over-policing of the Muslim community during the War on Terror.

At the most basic level, the idea that one day the shoe might be on the other foot seems beyond the comprehension of most. The result is a court of clowns. Feedback is not being taken in, pivots are not made, epistemological entropy ensues.

While progressives might believe they are in charge, I think it’s much more the case that we are being used. Under the cover of social justice, the corporate machine rolls on. The US government and its allies, realizing that information was the future of conflict, slowly but surely engineered a takeover of the independent, adversarial organisations that should be holding them to account.

Some say this shift began under the “humanitarian intervention” rubric built for the Balkan conflicts. This was stepped up further when Condoleezza Rice provided a feminist cover for invading Afghanistan. The elites grab the ideas that serve their purposes, hollow them out, and get to work. Wealth inequality became much worse under COVID-19, even as the halls of power became more diverse. “Progressives” hardly said a word.

The cultural shift is only partly organic. The Virality Project shows how powerful people cynically harnessed well-intentioned ideas about protecting people’s health, when in reality, they were protecting and advancing the interests of Big Pharma and expanding the infrastructure for future information control projects.

In February 2021 I met with a leading anti-disinformation organization, FirstDraft — now called the Information Futures Lab at Brown University — to discuss collaborating. The meeting became awkward when they claimed the Philippine #Kickvax campaign was anti-vaccination. Nearly half of EngageMedia’s staff and most of the leadership team were Filipino. The campaign had come up in conversations with them, so I knew it was actually an anti-corruption drive focusing on the Chinese vaccine, hence the name: SinoVac + kickbacks = #Kickvax.

The campaign was making serious allegations regarding the SinoVac procurement process. In 2021 Transparency International ranked the Philippines 117th for corruption out of 180 countries surveyed. Left-wing activism in the Philippines has long taken aim at corruption among elites.

Despite this, FirstDraft staff told me very firmly again that #Kickvax was spreading anti-vaccine misinformation. I was given an “Are you from outer-space and/or a potential menace?” -type look before the meeting wrapped up. No collaborations were pursued. 

From the #TwitterFiles I’ve since seen just how deeply involved FirstDraft were in trying to squash valid questions around the vaccine. It was a core focus. FirstDraft were also part of the Trusted News Initiative, a kind of Virality Project for the legacy media. The Information Futures Lab runs a project to “increase vaccine demand.” Co-founder Stefanie Friedhoff is also part of the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

Beyond reaction, a new vision

Removing government funding for the Censorship-Industrial Complex is a critical first step toward getting free speech back on track. The Complex’s key leaders also need to be called to testify before Congress.

Western oligarchs too fund a huge amount of censorship work and wield far too much power over politics and civil society. Changing how tax breaks work for philanthropy is also needed. It’s not that all such money is to be removed, but it should be a supplement, not the main course.

Civil society needs to stop cozying up to Big Tech and taking huge amounts of its money. This too has resulted in capture and the faltering of proper watchdog roles. 

Of course, new financial models will need to be developed to break from all this cash, which will be a huge task in its own right. As a sizable amount of the anti-disinformation field is essentially censorship work, halving the funds available alone will immediately make a big difference.

Clearer boundaries need to be drawn. I’m not generally for deplatforming, but anyone taking military, defense contractor, or intelligence agency money should not be part of civil society and human rights events. That includes the Atlantic Council (including DRFlabs), Graphika, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Center for European Policy Analysis and many others — the list is long. As the database of “anti-disinformation” groups and their funders develops there will be more to add.

More decentralized, open-source and secure platforms are needed to resist corporate, philanthropic, and government capture. There are only so many people with $44 billion on hand. The challenge is generating the wide audiences that drive so many users to large platforms. Bitcoin demonstrated that such decentralized network effects are possible, but this needs to be made real in the social media field. Nostr appears to have some potential.

The even bigger problem is a culture that supports widespread censorship, particularly among its previous guardians, progressives, liberals and the left. Free speech has become a dirty word for the very people who once led the free speech movement. Changing that is a long-term project that requires demonstrating how free speech is primarily there to protect the powerless, not the powerful. For example, the Virality Project’s censorship of true stories of vaccine injury left us to the predation of Big Pharma, making us less safe. More free speech would have resulted in a better informed and better protected society.

Most important is to return to strong principles of free expression, including for ideas we dislike. The shoe will one day again be on the other foot. When that day comes free speech will not be the enemy of liberals and progressives, it will be the best possible protection against the abuse of power.

Rough edges are the price we pay for a free society.

*

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

Andrew Lowenthal is co-founder and former executive director of EngageMedia, an Asia-Pacific digital rights, open and secure technology, and documentary non-profit, and a former fellow of Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society and MIT’s Open Documentary Lab.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Censorship-Industrial Complex

Chinese “Police Stations” and War Propaganda

April 28th, 2023 by Margaret Kimberley

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

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

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

*** 

“Right now there are changes – the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years – and we are the ones driving these changes together.” — Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin, March 22, 2023

President Lula da Silva of Brazil recently visited China’s President Xi Jinping. French President Emmanuel Macron, Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi and Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez have all made the journey in recent months. Even Germany’s amateurish Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock went, but her goal was to make sure that double talking Macron didn’t stray far from the EU’s pro-U.S. orthodoxy.

The frequency of high level meetings is interesting when one considers Joe Biden‘s bizarre rant in his State of the Union Speech. He blurted out, “Name me a world leader who would trade places with Xi Jinping! Name me one!” Apparently the answer is all of them because they are making a collective beeline to Beijing. Because of his odd screed and shooting down a weather balloon, Biden can’t get Xi to take his phone call. Nor can Secretary of State Blinken schedule a meeting with his Chinese counterparts that was planned before the balloon fiasco. China is “ghosting” the U.S., which responds in typical fashion.

Like every small child does when frustrated about not getting their way, the U.S. ups the ante with a brand new tantrum.  Balloons are so two months ago, as are demented questions about Tik Tok. Now the courts are tools of the futile effort to subjugate China. In New York City prosecutors charged two Chinese-Americans with failing to register as agents of a foreign government by setting up a “police station” under the control of China’s government.

The trope of the Chinese police station has gone from a laughable war propaganda theory to war by other means. Federal prosecutors are charging the two men with obstruction, not espionage, and it appears they may not have been charged at all had they exercised their right not to talk to the FBI.

The charges are a prosecutor’s dream complete with press conferences where they can make outrageous claims against defendants. U.S. Attorney Breon Peace waxed particularly eloquently,

“Today’s charges are a crystal clear response to the P.R.C. that we are onto you, we know what you’re doing and we will stop it from happening in the United States of America. We don’t need or want a secret police station in our great city.”

Of course the office was not a secret as it had been opened publicly. Nor is it anything resembling a police station. The term is a fiction, a creation of the state and their friends in the media meant to incite fear and hatred of China and to normalize the idea of armed conflict. These offices where Chinese citizens can get licenses renewed don’t have lock-ups or armed officers and are definitely not police stations.

The charges filed against the two men are purely political and will not lead to any advantage for the United States. While camera-loving prosecutors make nonsensical statements, China’s Defense Minister was in Moscow meeting with Vladimir Putin. China and Russia are now inextricably linked and are preparing to face the U.S. in whatever way it may choose to confront them.

In addition to the two New York men, the Justice Department indicted 34 people in China and charged them with conspiracy to transmit foreign threats but the complaint is a rehash of the old Russian troll farm stories. What was their crime? Among other things, “…an account controlled by the Group made numerous posts about George Floyd’s death and accusing U.S. law enforcement institutions of racism.” Any accusation of racism in law enforcement is a fact and not a reason for an indictment of any kind, but facts are never the issue when the U.S. declares another nation an enemy.

In attempting to diminish China’s economic prowess the U.S. has elevated its stature around the world. The ceasefire between Yemen and Saudi Arabia is the result of Chinese diplomacy as is the recent rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Ukraine obsession and failure to harm Russia with sanctions has instead demonstrated the need to minimize relations with the U.S. and move away from the use of the dollar as the world reserve currency. China is leading in this regard and the more the U.S. amateurishly tries to isolate Beijing, the more it isolates itself.

China’s diplomatic success proves that the U.S. cannot be a peacemaker in the world. Its system depends upon domination and making what passes for friends through threats of force and interference. When another nation was able to bring persuasion to bear, the U.S. role as a hegemon and international aggressor was exposed for all to see.

The U.S. can call names, create hysteria about Tik Tok, claim that China uses “spy balloons” and “police stations” or make up anything else it wants. One quote in the Department of Justice press release is particularly revealing. “This case serves as a powerful reminder that the People’s Republic of China will stop at nothing to bend people to their will and silence messages they don’t want anyone to hear.” That statement is more accurately directed at the U.S.

The people of this country are the ultimate losers. Thanks to the corporate media repeating state talking points, they have no idea that China is moving up in the world and the U.S. is more and more isolated. They don’t know that the long predicted process of dedollarization is beginning to take shape.

The U.S. should be engaging in peaceful co-existence with the rest of the world. But that isn’t what the oligarchs and plutocrats here want. There would be no need for a military industrial complex if the U.S. wasn’t constantly creating new enemies and undermining other countries. All it has is aggression and the spectacle of name calling and incompetent diplomacy. The descent is obvious to anyone paying attention.

*

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

Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents. You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on the Twitter and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at margaret.kimberley(at)blackagendareport.com.

Featured image: U.S. Attorney Breon Peace (Source: US DOJ)

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

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

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

*** 

 

 

In March 2017, ISNA Islamic Services of Canada, a Muslim charity that operated in Ontario, was sent a notice that its charitable status was being revoked and that in 30 days it would be shut down without any other recourse.

The Notice of Intention to Revoke (NITR) was the result of a years-long audit, in which the CRA said the organisation failed to meet the necessary requirements to be constituted for charitable purposes, including failing to devote resources to charitable activities and maintain adequate books and records. The CRA also accused the organisation of possibly funding a Pakistani militant group.

By May of that year, it ceased to be a charity operating in Canada. But while the news coverage at the time largely focused on alleged terror links, experts in the charity sector say charities like this one have been a part of a decades-long clampdown on Muslim charitable organisations, in which they were unfairly targeted due to Islamophobic bias and then given an unequal appeals process.

Middle East Eye looked through the audits of dozens of charities over the last decade, and while most were given ample time and space to object to being shut down, none of the Muslim charities seen by MEE were given the same opportunities to object to and delay the revocation of their charitable status.

The Canadian government’s conduct highlights the discrepancy between how some charities are treated during and after being audited and how the Canadian government treats Muslim charities, researchers, and practitioners in the charity sector have told Middle East Eye.

“This isn’t fair because it’s not the same way other faith groups or other sectors operate,” said Mahmuda Khan, executive director of the charity, Human Concern International, a Muslim charity that was not shut down but was suspended.

“The fear that we have, the extra cautiousness that we have, the levels of due diligence and compliance that we’re thinking of doing. [In] having forums and dialogues with others in the sector, I don’t see that fear in others.”

‘Where’s the fairness?’

Middle East Eye looked at 63 Notices of Intention to Revoke (NITRs) that were sent to Canadian charities between 2015 and 2019. Of those charities, 38 were allowed the opportunity to object and delay their revocation by submitting a response, while 25 were not given the same chance and would have had to obtain an order from the federal appeals court.

However, MEE also viewed NITRs that were sent during that same period to five Muslim charities, all of which were told that regardless of whether they filed an objection, their charitable status would be revoked unless they received an order from the appeals court.

“It seems unfair. If you’re giving this notice of intent, and then basically saying, well we’re going to revoke whatever you do anyway, where’s the fairness? I mean, there should be some process,” said Faisal Kutty, a lawyer and associate professor at Southwestern Law School who has advised dozens of Muslim charities and groups trying to apply for charitable status in Canada.

In 2014, two charities operating under the umbrella of the Jewish organisation, B’nai Brith – B’nai B’rith Foundation District No 22 (BBFD) and The League for Human Rights of B’nai B’rith (LHR), received a NITR letter from the CRA stating their intention to revoke the groups’ charitable status.

And several years later in 2021, the original two charities were finally shut down.

The CRA told Middle East Eye it could not provide further details on the timeline of the revocation of B’nai B’rith Foundation District No 22 and The League for Human Rights of B’nai B’rith, but said the agency followed “normal administrative procedures”.

The CRA also confirmed that charities are allowed to continue operating until their status is officially revoked.

MEE also reached out to B’nai Brith with several questions regarding this, but the organisation did not respond.

In a similar scenario, another charity, the Ark Angel fund, was sent a NITR in 2015 and was told it would be shut down in 90 days unless it received an objection from the charity. It was not fully revoked of its charitable status until February 2021.

Kutty told MEE that even though Muslim charities are given some type of option to oppose being shut down, the actual reality of fighting back is incredibly difficult.

“The theory is you can oppose these things, you can fight these things. But the practical reality is that once this is out, people are not going to even give you money to do a legal challenge to fight it,” Kutty told MEE.

“The challenge is not like you just stand up and challenge. You’re going to end up mounting a legal challenge, a PR challenge. So where do you get money for that now? We’ve had cases where the funds are frozen.”

Feeling ‘targeted’

The CRA told MEE that as a “general rule”, charities can file an objection to the agency’s appeal branch within 90 days of receiving a letter saying they intended to revoke their status.

But charities like the Ottawa Islamic Centre and Assalam Mosque, ISNA Islamic Services of Canada, The Canada Islamic Trust Foundation, the Islamic Shia Assembly, and the Anatolia Cultural Foundation all received letters saying that their statuses would be revoked after 30 days, regardless of whether they objected to it or not.

“The Muslim charities who were faced with audits and revocations were never granted the opportunity to delay the revocation of their status,” Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), told MEE.

“It was kind of a final notice that they received.”

Middle East Eye asked the CRA why during the years between 2015 and 2019 there appeared to be an inconsistency in how Muslim charities were treated versus other organisations.

The CRA told MEE it can’t discuss specific cases, but added that it has two types of revocations, a 90-day revocation and a 30-day one.

“Consideration is always given to proceeding with a 90-day Notice of intention to revoke, unless an organization has demonstrated egregious non-compliance,” the CRA said.

But in the cases where a 30-day notice is given, the CRA will “not hold the revocation in abeyance given the seriousness of the non-compliance”, unless it receives an order staying publication of the notice of revocation from the Federal Court of Appeal within 30 days.

Yet in four of the NITRs seen by MEE that were sent to Muslim charities, the option to obtain a court order to prevent revocation was not outlined in the letters.

Even prior to the 2015-2019 period that MEE reviewed, Muslim organisations in Canada have been calling on the government to look into what they say is an unfair targeting of Muslim charities by the government.

The ICLMG reported that from 2008 to 2015, 75 percent of organisations whose charitable status was revoked following audits were Muslim charities.

The CRA said that it does not discriminate against any charities based on their religious affiliation.

“Under no circumstances are registered charities selected for audit by the CRA based on a particular faith or denomination, nor would such factors impact the outcome of an audit,” the agency told MEE.

“The CRA assess all concerns about registered charities against a clear regulatory and risk-based framework designed to prevent bias in its decision-making process.”

Terrorism allegations

Many audits against Muslim charities were also conducted by a special agency within the CRA called the Review and Analysis Division (RAD), a secretive arm of the CRA that works with national security agencies and is tasked with investigating allegations of terrorist financing in the charity sector.

In the years following the 9/11 attacks, RAD was tasked by the government of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper to root out any type of terror financing among Canadian charities, and experts say it tended to have an acute focus on Muslim charities.

“Essentially what we’ve seen and what we’ve documented in pursuit of countering terrorism financing in the charity sector, is that they’ve exclusively looked at mostly Muslim charities, but exclusively charities within racialised communities,” McSorley said.

“That has been guided by internal government policy that there’s an inherent risk to terrorist financing in the charitable sector, and they identify that risk as being linked to mostly so-called Islamic terrorist organisations.”

The report from ICLMG said the CRA worked with national security agencies to carry out audits that unfairly target Muslim charities, with little accountability.

And despite the revocations, some of which took place during the successive liberal governments led by current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the report said that none of the Muslim charitable organisations or associated individuals were ever charged with a terrorist-financing crime, according to ICLMG.

For charities like Human Concern International (HCI) – a Muslim-Canadian relief organisation – which did not get their status revoked but received a suspension that it has tried to appeal, the experience of being audited was “intense and intimidating”.

“There’s one thing where there’s open dialogue, friendly dialogue, but it felt very intimidating to the members who were being interviewed,” said Khan of HCI, who was not present at the time of the audit but shared the experiences of her colleagues.

“The reason we felt it was not like any other audit and it felt sort of targeted was because we were audited by the Review and Analysis Division.”

And when organisations lose their charitable status, donors can no longer claim the funds as a tax deduction, causing a drop in contributions.

“The CRA targeting Muslim charities definitely has a chilling effect on the Canadian Muslim community,” Khan said.

“It was very hard to explain from our point of view that this audit in no way means the charity is doing anything wrong.”

And on top of that, a recent study conducted by law professors Faisal Kutty and Faisal Bhaba found that the sources of many of the CRA’s claims against these charities came from known Islamophobic and far-right experts that perpetuate anti-Muslim sentiment.

In a recent court hearing, in which the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) is challenging the CRA’s targeting of Muslim charities, Kutty noted that the lawyer for MAC laid out the issue well.

“I liked the lawyer for MAC when he concluded, he basically said, the CRA’s position is they have 300 some odd sources they rely on, and only 30 of them or 32 of them are discredited or unreliable or problematic,” Kutty said.

“Then the lawyer concludes: ‘Your Honour, that’s like saying that when you’re trying to target a Black charity and you say only 10 percent of our materials come from the KKK’.”

Who gets audited?

In the past few years, the Trudeau government has made attempts to look into complaints of Islamophobia in the CRA, and in March, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA), an independent government watchdog, announced its intention to probe the CRA’s review and analysis division.

This came after Canada’s Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson was tasked with looking into the issue, but ultimately came up with what he said was an inconclusive report, noting that CRA would not hand over key documents.

The double standards applied to different charities, however, are demonstrative of a larger problem within Canada, according to Anver Emon, director of the University of Toronto’s Institute of Islamic Studies and co-author of a report on tax audits on Muslim charities.

“We’d like to think in the Canadian context that we’re a very sophisticated government with a very transparent rule of law orientation, but at a certain point, there’s still sort of an old boys club element to some of the ways in which it seems to me that we’re governed, that’s my impression,” Emon said.

The CRA has around 40,000 employees and is responsible for overseeing the 80,000 registered charities in Canada worth more than $300bn. However, for the past several years, it has audited less than 300 charities a year.

And while the CRA says it remains independent, Emon says there are questions surrounding how it picks and chooses which charities get audited.

“What happens politically if they’re auditing a politically connected charity? We don’t know what that’s gonna look like,” Emon said.

“You may be independent politically, but what happens when the Ministry of National Revenue starts getting calls from big donors around why are you auditing this charity?”

*

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

Featured image is from isnacanada.com

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

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

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

*** 

The top American diplomat in Hungary attacked Budapest for insufficient commitment to the NATO proxy war against Russia, with the ambassador claiming that support for a ceasefire in Ukraine was “cynical.”

US Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman made the remarks during the opening of the Hungary-Ukraine Relations Panel on Wednesday.

“It is cynical to call for a ceasefire when it is not your country that is almost 20 percent occupied by a foreign invading army,” he said. “The United States wants peace, one that is just and lasting. And that is precisely why we are standing shoulder to shoulder with the victims, with Ukraine.”

In February, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban called for a truce.

“[Russia] cannot win because the entire Western world has lined up behind [Ukraine],” he tweeted, “At the same time, [Russia] is a nuclear power and a nuclear power cannot be cornered because they may trigger a nuclear war. We need a ceasefire and peace talks. The sooner the better.”

“[Ukraine] is fighting valiantly and they have our full sympathy. But the only thing that can save lives in the [Ukraine War] is a ceasefire,” the PM added.   

Pressman went on to accuse Budapest of hindering dialogue between the North Atlantic alliance and Kiev.

“Amidst a land war in Europe, consultations with our partner Ukraine are vitally important to our shared security as Allies, and Hungary’s policy of standing alone in an effort to block high-level meetings of the NATO-Ukraine Commission is untenable,” he said in his speech on Wednesday, adding that this “will no longer be accepted.”

Hungary has taken issue with Ukrainian language laws which impact the 150,000 Hungarians living in the country, even vowing to block Kiev’s bid to join NATO over the legislation. The NATO-Ukraine Commission has not met since 2019 because of Budapest’s objections.

Last month, NATO civilian head Jens Stoltenberg declared that the alliance would go through with another meeting despite Hungary’s protests.

This is an established framework. I have the mandate to convene it,” he said. “In respect for the issues that Hungary has raised I have not convened that for some time, but now I will continue to convene the meetings of the NATO-Ukraine Commission.”

*

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

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman.

Featured image: Ambassador David Pressman’s Introductory Remarks at the Hungary-Ukraine Relations Panel Discussion

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Ambassador Blasts Hungary’s Call for Ceasefire in Ukraine as ‘Cynical’
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

*** 

In the name of “protecting future generations from potentially devastating consequences,” a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation meant to prevent artificial intelligence from launching nuclear weapons without meaningful human control.

The Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Act—introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), and Ken Buck (R-Colo.)—asserts that “any decision to launch a nuclear weapon should not be made” by AI.

The proposed legislation acknowledges that the Pentagon’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review states that current U.S. policy is to “maintain a human ‘in the loop’ for all actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the president to initiate and terminate nuclear weapon employment.”

The bill would codify that policy so that no federal funds could be used “to launch a nuclear weapon [or] select or engage targets for the purposes of launching” nukes.

“As we live in an increasingly digital age, we need to ensure that humans hold the power alone to command, control, and launch nuclear weapons—not robots,” Markey asserted in a statement. “We need to keep humans in the loop on making life-or-death decisions to use deadly force, especially for our most dangerous weapons.”

Buck argued that “while U.S. military use of AI can be appropriate for enhancing national security purposes, use of AI for deploying nuclear weapons without a human chain of command and control is reckless, dangerous, and should be prohibited.”

According to the 2023 AI Index Report—an annual assessment published earlier this month by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence—36% of surveyed AI experts worry about the possibility that automated systems “could cause nuclear-level catastrophe.”

The report followed a February assessment by the Arms Control Association, an advocacy group, that AI and other emerging technologies including lethal autonomous weapons systems and hypersonic missiles pose a potentially existential threat that underscores the need for measures to slow the pace of weaponization.

“While we all try to grapple with the pace at which AI is accelerating, the future of AI and its role in society remains unclear,” Lieu said in a statement introducing the new bill.

“It is our job as members of Congress to have responsible foresight when it comes to protecting future generations from potentially devastating consequences,” he continued. “That’s why I’m pleased to introduce the bipartisan, bicameral Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous AI Act, which will ensure that no matter what happens in the future, a human being has control over the employment of a nuclear weapon—not a robot.”

“AI can never be a substitute for human judgment when it comes to launching nuclear weapons,” Lieu added.

While dozens of countries support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, none of the world’s nine nuclear powers, including the United States, have signed on, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reawakened fears of nuclear conflict that were largely dormant since the Cold 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 button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Featured image: U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Jacob Puente of the 912th Aircraft Mainenance Squadron secures an AGM-183A air-launched rapid-response hypersonic air-to-ground missile to a B-52 Stratofortress bomber at Edwards Air Force Base in Kern County, California on August 6, 2020. (Photo: Giancarlo Casem/USAF)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bipartisan US Bill Aims to Prevent A.I. from Launching Nuclear Weapons
  • Tags: ,

UK Covers Up Somaliland Massacre Report

April 28th, 2023 by Phil Miller

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

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

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

*** 

UK diplomats will not declassify their assessment of who killed pro-Somalia activists at a demonstration in the bitterly contested city of Las Anod over the New Year.

The censorship decision was made in response to a freedom of information request by Declassified UK.

Las Anod, which is home to around a quarter of a million people, is claimed by both Somalia’s federal government and the breakaway northern administration of Somaliland.

Britain does not officially recognise Somaliland as an independent state but it has funded its security forces, including a unit suspected of carrying out the massacre.

The Foreign Office said last week that releasing its records from the incident “could potentially damage the relationships between the UK and Somaliland” and even jeopardise national security.

Around 20 people died from the shootings, according to a municipal doctor interviewed by Reuters.

The killings sparked months of open warfare, in which the local Dhulbahante clan – who generally favour union with Somalia – took up arms in a bid to stop Somaliland’s army controlling the city.

148 civilians have died in the ensuing conflict since February, research by the charity Action on Armed Violence has found.

Its executive director, Dr Iain Overton, told Declassified the Foreign Office’s censorship was “deeply concerning” and said British diplomats were withholding “vital information about the violence against civilian protesters in Las Anod”.

Overton added: “The refusal to engage undermines the transparency that is essential for public trust. As casualties continue to rise, it is crucial that all parties prioritise the protection of civilians and work towards a peaceful resolution.”

‘Soaked in blood’

Amnesty International said more than 600 people have been injured in the recent fighting, according to a new report released last week. Up to 200,000 others have fled.

The human rights group said international humanitarian law had been violated, claiming: “Somaliland security forces indiscriminately shelled the town, damaging hospitals, schools and mosques” by firing from military bases outside the city.

Amnesty added: “Among the civilians killed were women, children, older people with health conditions, and healthcare workers. They were mostly killed during indiscriminate attacks involving rockets, mortars, and other explosive weapons with wide area effects, which should never be used in populated areas.”

A seven-year-old girl was among the first to die in the fighting, when a shell hit her aunt’s house and shrapnel struck her head. Other casualties included a mother of seven children and a Red Crescent nurse. 

An eyewitness who lost a niece in the shelling said: “We were engulfed with dust and smoke; we could not see each other. I heard Saynab scream. When we cleared our eyes, I found Saynab soaked in blood. She was already dead.”

But Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, rubbished Amnesty’s report and suggested “perhaps…the United States and its European partners should arm Somaliland with more precise weaponry as it stands on the frontlines of a fight against insurgents and terrorists?”

Rapid Response Unit

The ongoing violence in Las Anod is a setback for UK policy in the region, which has seen Britain forge closer ties to Somaliland’s de facto authorities than most other Western powers.

In censoring the documents, UK diplomats controversially relied on an exemption in the freedom of information act that is meant to protect international relations between states – even though the British government does not officially recognise Somaliland as a state.

It comes as substantial UK aid has gone towards strengthening Somaliland’s security forces, including the Rapid Response Unit (RRU), an elite police team implicated in the Las Anod killings.

The RRU was funded by British taxpayers for almost a decade until 2020, despite long-running concerns over its human rights record. 

Overseas development minister Andrew Mitchell has said: “Exact figures for the amount of funding allocated to Somaliland’s police RRU are not available, as support was provided as part of wider projects.”

The UK now funds a police “Counter Terrorism Unit” instead of the RRU. Britain’s defence ministry has previously paid Adam Smith International, a security consultancy, to train Somaliland’s military intelligence.

Conservative backers

Somaliland has caught the attention of senior Conservatives. Mitchell, when he was a backbencher, supported calls for the UK to recognise its independence.

His colleague, Gavin Williamson MP, visited Somaliland in 2019 when he was defence secretary and met its top army general. He was accompanied by Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, the then head of the British army and former commander of UK special forces.

Williamson has since returned on a private visit – sponsored by Somaliland’s Chamber of Commerce – and holds honorary citizenship.

Another ex-defence secretary, Michael Fallon, has his eyes on Somaliland. Fallon is deputy chairman of Genel Energy, an Anglo-Turkish firm exploring for two billion barrels of oil in the breakaway region – against the wishes of Somalia’s government. 

Their hydro-carbon prospects lie close to the geo-strategic Gulf of Aden, a major international shipping lane. Liz Truss, when she was foreign secretary, ploughed up to £232m into Somaliland’s largest port, Berbera. The investment was made through British Investment International, the old Colonial Development Corporation.

*

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

Phil Miller is Declassified UK’s chief reporter. He is the author of Keenie Meenie: The British Mercenaries Who Got Away With War Crimes. Follow him on Twitter at @pmillerinfo

Featured image: British Foreign Office Minister Henry Bellingham addressing the Somaliland Parliament, July 2011 (Licensed under OGL v1.0)

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

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

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

*** 

In a breathtaking moment of unbridled honesty and defiance, activist Jose Vega confronted the mainstream media powerhouses for their warmongering narratives and blatant disregard for the truth. Vega attended a panel discussion at the Columbia Journalism Review, which featured editors from The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Reuters. The panel was titled “Fault Lines – a Panel on Building a Democratic Press,” but it quickly turned into a moment of reckoning for these media giants.

During the discussion, Vega seized the microphone and challenged the editors on their lack of coverage and misreporting on critical issues like the Nord Stream pipeline destruction. He called out their hypocrisy in trying to silence investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and questioned if their publications had any remaining credibility.

Vega’s impassioned speech highlighted the failures of these esteemed publications in the last two decades. He pointed out their inaccuracies in reporting on Iraq, Syria, and Russiagate, asking if they had managed to get anything right during that time. He urged the editors to at least acknowledge the leaked information that revealed Ukrainian President Zelensky’s plan to bomb Moscow on the anniversary of the war, which brought the world to the brink of World War Three.

As Vega continued to criticize the mainstream media for their incompetence and bias, he reminded everyone that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is still in prison for doing the job that these editors should have been doing – seeking and reporting the truth. This statement ultimately led to Vega’s forceful removal from the event by the police.

Vega’s confrontation is a sobering reminder that the mainstream media has strayed far from its once-honorable role as the watchdog of democracy. His words expose the double standards and deceitful practices of these powerful publications, as well as the need for courageous whistleblowers and independent journalists to stand up for truth and transparency.

The response from the panelists and the subsequent removal of Vega from the event only serve to underscore the lack of accountability and willingness to engage in constructive dialogue within the mainstream media. As the world grapples with complex challenges and the need for honest reporting has never been greater, it’s crucial that we support and amplify the voices of those who, like Vega, are unafraid to challenge the status quo and demand better from those who claim to represent the fourth estate.

“Is this the lecture hall with Seymour Hersh? I just I’m looking for the one with Seymour Hersh because it’s a policy and press hall event. So shouldn’t we be talking about the Nordstream since that’s the biggest story of the century? And you guys, I mean, you have the executive editor of The New York Times there who came out with a phony story to try and block Seymour Hersh. It’s just kind of funny how that happened, you know? I mean, did you even acknowledge Seymour Hersh? All of you are executive editors of papers that broke the Pentagon papers, My Lai, Watergate. Are these the same papers or not? I mean, is there anything you’ve gotten right in the last 20 years? Or am I mistaken about that? I mean, it’s just kind of funny because Iraq – wrong, Syria – wrong, Russiagate – really wrong. Okay? I mean, the list goes on and on. So the last thing you could do to try and actually fix your reputation is acknowledge that through leaks we had to find out that Zelensky was going to bomb Moscow on the anniversary of the war. I mean, if you’re so impartial, shouldn’t you at least say that Zelensky was going to bring us on the verge of World War Three?”

*

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

Video: Ukraine War: The Battle for Bakhmut

April 28th, 2023 by South Front

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

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

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

*** 

What is urgently required is a ceasefire to save lives coupled with a peace initiative.

 

***

While NATO is preparing the Armed Forces of Ukraine for the decisive offensive on the Donbass front, the Wagner PMC is grinding reserves of the Ukrainian army in Bakhmut, allowing the units of the Russian Defense Ministry to gain time and prepare for the upcoming escalation.

Wagner fighters have already secured their positions near the railway station and took control of the high-rise apartment buildings along Pushkin Street, as well as of the jail building. They continue their assault on the territorial military unit in the western part of the city.

Heavy battle is ongoing at entrance to the city on the south-western outskirts, where Wagner assault units are storming Ukrainian strongholds near the Mig-17 monument. Russians are close to take control of the crossroad on Yubileinaya and Chaikovskoho streets.

Wagner fighters are advancing along the streets of Pavel Novgoredtsev and Second Lesnaya. If they succeed, the Ukrainian garrison risks being surrounded.

The Ukrainian military is in control of only about 10 % of Bakhmut. At the same time, they continue to repel Russian attacks on the city outskirts. Russian servicemen are close to cut the main road used for supply of the Ukrainian grouping near Khromovo but no Russian success in the area has been confirmed so far.

Ukrainian forces can still send some military reinforcement to Bakhmut through the field roads on the south-western outskirts of the city. However, such maneuvers are complicated by bad weather and Russian artillery fire. As a result, Ukrainian losses are growing.

The Ukrainian military command explains that defending Bakhmut is necessary to prevent Russian forces from breaking to the flank and rear of the Ukrainian garrisons in the Lisichansk and Donetsk regions. Ukrainian retreat from Bakhmut would reportedly pose a great threat for the entire Ukrainian defense in the Donbass. Despite the fact that about 80 thousand Ukrainian servicemen are deployed in the Bakhmut region, ready to fight the exhausted Russian units.

Such claims cause no public surprise, since the Kiev regime is hiding the truth about the state of its garrison in the city. In fact, thousands of Ukrainian servicemen are dying in Bakhmut in order to cause at least some damage to the most professional Russian infantry, the Wagner PMC. The Ukrainian side is suffering more losses then well-trained Russian fighters despite the fact that the Russian Defense Ministry is yet to provide the PMC with necessary ammunition and descent support on the flanks.

The persistence of the Ukrainian military, pushed by its NATO patrons, allows Wagner fighters to destroy the Ukrainian reserves necessary for the upcoming offensive. On the other hand, Russian success is only possible if the Russian Army takes all necessary measures to repel the attacks, which is yet to happen.

*

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

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

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

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

*** 

Last Monday, I attended an event at which the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, spoke on “Digital Authoritarianism: A Growing Threat”.[1] While bemoaning the infringements on press freedom by “authoritarian” regimes like the one in Russia, Ms. Haines reminded us how lucky we are to live in a country where our democratic institutions prevent the government from acting in such an authoritarian manner (With all the censorship taking place in this country—from persecuting nonconforming investigative journalists like Julian Assange to limiting our access to alternative points of view by, for instance, banning the Russian TV channel RT from our airwaves,[2] you can’t help but feel Ms. Haines needs to get out more).

Ironically, and contradictorily, Director Haines spoke on the same day we learned that Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson had been dumped by his employer. Different explanations have been offered as to why Carlson lost his job, but I had always been amazed that Carlson could say such critical things about our foreign policy and provide a platform for fellow critics you would never see on CNN (like ex-congresswomen Tulsi Gabbardi, Edward Snowden-collaborator Glen Greenwald, and The Gray Zone’s Anya Parampil) without being quashed by the Deep State.[3] I figured his days were numbered despite being Fox News’s most popular commentator, and, sure enough, they were.

One of the last guest’s Carlson had on his show was Matt Taibbi, the journalist to whom Elon Musk gave a bundle of internal emails he discovered consequent to his purchase of Twitter. Based on these, Taibbi used Musk’s platform to publicize what the emails revealed; namely, that operatives of US government agencies, including the FBI, had colluded with Twitter executives to thwart Donald Trump’s reelection bid in 2020.[4] Not surprisingly, Taibbi became a marked man, suddenly becoming subject of an IRS audit and being threatened with jail time, as  he revealed on Carlson’s show. In feigned bewilderment, Tucker asked why no self-declared defenders of press freedom had come to Taibbi’s defense. 

*

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

Notes

[1] The event was hosted by the Carnegie Institute for International Peace, which, for an organization with a name like that, provides a platform for an unseemly number of apparatchiks working for “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today“ (MLK).

[2] Fearful of suffering the same fate as RT, the Chinese government channel, CGTN, has been as patriotic as CNN in cheering on the US side in the Ukraine conflict, its correspondents parading a constant stream of Ukrainian refuges before their cameras and often quoting the rabidly warmongering Institute for the Study of War on claimed Russian atrocities. If it weren’t so sad and disappointing, it would be comical.

[3] Thanks to DVR technology, I would tape Carlson’s show, then fast-forward over the segments that didn’t interest me (Biden-bashing, chaos at the border, LBGTQXYZ-phobia, etc.) and restrict my viewing to foreign policy-related pieces, on which I thought he did as good a job as most antiwar sites—or better, while reaching an audience the size of which alt sites could only dream.

[4] One of the government mucky-mucks pressuring Twitter was Antony Blinken, then a top advisor to the Biden campaign, now Secretary of State. You won’t want to miss the Reporters Without Borders’ release of their annual World Press Freedom Index on May 3rd, an event hosted by The Washington Post—that irrepressible darkener of any light shining on our democracy—which features Secretary Blinken (look forward to Blinken confessing about his checkered past… NOT).  

Featured image: A US government propaganda poster from the 1940s (Source: Multipolarista)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Free Speech? “First They Come for … Before They Come for You.”

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

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

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

*** 

It was never easy to question the election machines or the electronic systems that tally our votes, but now it has become much harder. Dominion Voting Machines has sued Fox News Network on the grounds that they were not sufficiently skeptical of Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell when the latter claimed they had evidence that the 2020 election had been stolen from their client, Donald Trump. A judge handed down a partial summary judgment for the plaintiff, and Fox has settled for more than ¾ of a billion dollars — an amount far greater than the total dollar value of Dominion’s sales over its entire history. 

From this time forward, the derisive moniker “Trumpster” is attached to anyone who questions computerized voting, added to the time-worn moniker, “conspiracy theorist”. Worse, there is a risk of financial ruin to any mainstream outlet that publishes on the subject.

I first became involved in the Election Integrity movement in November, 2004. A handful of activists online exchanged evidence that the Presidential election had been rigged, in Ohio and elsewhere, for G. W. Bush over John Kerry. I was teaching a statistics course at the time, and proud to crunch numbers for the group. We all thought this was big news, and the New York Times would gobble it up.

The Times didn’t gobble. The Times didn’t ignore us. They created a hit piece and dismissed our concerns without ever talking to me (as statistician) or to the lawyers, scientists, and professors who spoke for our nascent movement.

Gradually, over the ensuing years, we came to realize that the press wouldn’t come near our issue, that the DNC didn’t want to talk to us, and the Democratic think tanks inside the Beltway were taking their cues from the party. We watched as one election after another showed surprising departures from exit polls, almost always Republicans doing better than expected.

2016 followed a pattern we knew well. It seemed that operators on behalf of Trump stole just enough votes to squeak by Hillary Clinton in the electoral college.

But 2020 was a surprise to all of us. We learned that Trump was not an ordinary Republican. He was not a team player, and the usual oligarchs and plutocrats couldn’t count on him to stay in line. They wanted him out.

Was the 2020 election stolen from Trump? Our movement doesn’t have an answer. Our forensic methods rely on exit polls, but exit polls were worthless in 2020 because more than half the voters voted by mail, and the election day voters were skewed toward Republicans, because Democrats tended to be more spooked by COVID, more likely to vote in advance. Telephone polls did not indicate a consistent disparity, but they are less reliable than exit polls. Also because of COVID, the tabulation process was even more hidden from public supervision than previously. Widespread use of mail-in ballots created new opportunities for corruption, while delayed scanning of mail-in ballots aroused suspicions.  

When elections were stolen from Gore (2000) and Kerry (2004), they sat down and kept their mouths shut. But shutting up was never Trump’s strong suit. So, after 2020, we had loud claims of a stolen election. During all those years when the Democrats had strong claims that they had been cheated, they chose silence, but with far weaker evidence, Trump was not shy about crying foul.

My movement — a few hundred people around the country who follow Election Integrity and make a study of it — my movement was deeply split over the 2020 election. I was with the minority, who welcomed the call from Giuliani and Powell to examine the election process more closely. We, the minority, feel that opening the black box is necessary if we are ever to have honest elections. We’re willing to take the short-term risk that Trump may benefit from the process in this case in order to have more transparency in the long term. The majority of our members are staying silent about the 2020 election, or even citing evidence to refute Giuliani and Powell. I think they believe that the weakness of Trump’s case creates a bad precedent if Giuliani argues for close scrutiny and then the scrutiny turns up no foul play. But some are also open about not wanting to offer their influence and reputations in a cause that might potentially benefit Trump. 

Dominion vs Fox

This is the context for Dominion’s defamation lawsuit against Fox News. In the weeks after the 2020 election, Fox gave Giuliani a platform to make his charges that he had evidence in his back pocket that would overturn the election. Some of his complaints were about the software company, Dominion. In March, 2021, Dominion sued Fox for defamation.

Dominion is a relatively new name in the field of voting machines. Perhaps you are familiar with the three giants from previous years, Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S. Diebold and Sequoia were swallowed by Dominion, and ES&S remains an independent competitor, though Dominion acquired some of their intellectual property. Dominion was taken private in 2018. 

Defamation lawsuits are hard to win. The plaintiff has to prove (#1) that the defendant made false statements, (#2) that defendant knew they were false, and (#3) that plaintiff lost money because of defendant’s statements. 

The case against Fox was unusual in that almost all the objectionable statements were made not by Fox broadcasters but by Giuliani and Powell, who were interviewed on air. If you care about my opinion, my opinion is that a news network has a right, probably an obligation, to give the President’s lawyer an airing, whether or not the President’s lawyer is telling the truth. Sometimes the Fox interviewers challenged Giuliani and Powell to produce evidence, sometimes they seemed swept away by the audacity of their charges.

Dominion’s case against Fox is based largely on their claim that Fox “omitted a context for the content”, and thereby left viewers with the impression that Giuliani’s claims were more credible than they really were.

Personally, I find it mystifying that Giuliani and Powell puffed so boldly about all the affidavits and the physical evidence that they had in their back pocket. They folded their tent completely a few days later. Was it all bluff and bluster? Or did they actually have some evidence and they were reined in, one way or another, by the powers that really control our elections?

January 6, I think, is no parenthesis

In my opinion, the reporting on January 6 has been part of the propaganda campaign to discredit anyone who questions America’s election machinery. The word “insurrection” is absurdly inappropriate. People who were invited as speakers and journalists filming the event have been jailed and intimidated. Habeas corpus has been denied to hundreds of people who were guilty, at worst, of a misdemeanor.

I know people who were in the Capitol on January 6, and based on what I’ve heard and read, I believe that January 6 was a mostly peaceful demonstration, and the disorderly behavior was instigated by agents provocateurs from the FBI.

For years, my people in the Election Integrity movement have been asking, when will the public get out in the street and demand an honest vote count? On January 6, we got what we wished for, but most of my colleagues in Election Integrity wanted nothing to do with the protestors.

The summary judgment order

Before a trial begins, it is customary for both sides to ask the judge to rule in their favor — no trial necessary. This is called a “summary judgment motion” and the threshold for summary judgments is a high bar. The judge will rule summarily for the defendant if he finds that, even if everything the plaintiff claims is true, there is still no case that can be made against the defendant. Much more rarely, the judge will rule summarily for the plaintiff if he finds that there are no relevant facts in dispute and all the claims made in defendant’s pleadings are judged to be an insufficient defense.

The judge is not permitted to base his summary decision on disputed facts; if facts are in dispute, then the case must go to trial. Either side has a right to ask for a jury. 

In this case, the judge made a partial summary judgment ruling in favor of the plaintiff. He ruled that plaintiff’s burden of proof #1 had been satisfied — that Fox had indeed made false statements. How could he presume to know this? In the decision, he seems to have conflated #1 with #2. #1 means that the claims were false; #2 means that the defendant believed them to be false. The judge cites internal memos in which Fox expresses doubts about what Giuliani and Powell are saying. Logically, it is possible that the claims were true but that the defendant believed them to be false. The judge did not seem to consider this possibility. Nor did he account for the obvious: that reporters and different managers within Fox had different opinions about the veracity of Giuliani’s claims. I dare say that the decision to give Giuliani a platform was based on a combination of factors, including his inherent newsworthiness as the President’s lawyer and the red meat that draws viewers to Fox News. 

The settlement

Last week’s news was that Fox settled Dominion’s claim without a court hearing. I can understand that Fox was shy about going to trial after the judge’s Summary Judgment order signaled that he was sympathetic to the plaintiff’s case. But in court, Dominion’s first burden of proof would be that the election was not stolen — something I claim is impossible to know, given the lack of paper trails and statistical evidence. Dominion would also have to prove that Fox knew at the time that the election was not stolen. And then Dominion would have to establish the amount of their damages. 

How much revenue did Fox’s broadcasts cost Dominion? This is a question that a jury would be asked to decide. The amount of the settlement, $787 million, represents 45 times the revenue in their peak year. Dominion would have to prove not just lost revenue, but lost profit. Because Dominion is privately held, its profit figures are not public knowledge, but even if their profit margin is as high as 50%, it means that Dominion would have to prove that they lost 90 years’ worth of profit because of Fox’s broadcasts.

It doesn’t make sense to me that Fox was afraid that if they didn’t settle for $787 million, then a jury might find damages greater than this. Something else is going on. Does Fox have secrets that they did not want to come out in a court proceeding? Did they fear adverse publicity that would affect their ratings? Or were they being pressured by the same forces that have stifled the Election Integrity movement over the years?

This week, Fox News fired Tucker Carlson, who had attracted their biggest audiences, and was still growing in his reach. Carlson is quoted in the Summary Judgment Order as having broadcast on the subject of the putatively stolen election, but he was far less involved than Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo. Dobbs and Bartiromo were not fired. My guess is that Carlson has stepped out of the party line once too often, interviewing Democrats RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard, COVID dissidents Dr Peter McCullough and Dr Simone Gold, and Pfizer-slayer Ed Dowd.

The Future

My reading is that this is the final nail in the coffin of the Election Integrity movement. No matter how unexpected the results, no matter how opaque the vote tallying process, no one will ever again dare to question the reported results of an American election.

*

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

Featured image source

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

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

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

*** 

Australian Amateur boxer, 28 year old Charlie James Bradley, died suddenly in Bali on April 16, 2023, he was found dead outside of a medical clinic in the middle of the road (click here).

British boxer – 19 year old 2-time National Champion boxer Jude Moore died suddenly from “unknown cause” on March 17, 2023 (click here).

Nottingham, UK – Amateur boxer and student from Abu Dhabi Jubal Reji Kurian died in Ultra White Collar Boxing Charity Event on March 25, 2023 (click here)

Teenage European Boxing Champion, 16 year old Vassilis Topalos of Greece, died suddenly on Dec. 16, 2022 after fainting and collapsing in bathroom of his gym (click here)

Vassilis Topalos

Medical examiner found very severe brain injury that led to brain necrosis. According to forensic sources, the injuries to the brain were so severe that they are similar injuries to found in traffic accidents after violent collisions.

Undefeated Colombian Boxer Luis Quinones, 25 years old, died after a knockout loss in the final round of a fight in Barranquilla, Colombia, on Sep. 30, 2022 (click here)

Undefeated Teenage Boxer, 18 years old Miracle Amaeze died during a sparring session in Lagos, Nigeria on July 24, 2022 (click here)

Miracle Amaeze.

Indian Kickboxer Nikhil Suresh died after being knocked out at a kickboxing event in Bangalore, India, on July 13, 2022 (click here)

Indian fighter Nikhil Suresh passes away following knockout at Kickboxing event

South African Boxer Simiso Buthelezi, 24 years old, collapsed during a fight on June 5, 2022 and died suddenly in the hospital due to a brain bleed (click here)

Simiso Buthelezi: A tragedy beyond words amidst the dangers of boxing

In this shocking video, he is seen disoriented and punching air:

Undefeated German boxer, 38 year old Musa Yamak collapsed and died of a heart attack in the third round of a fight on May 14, 2022 (click here)

Musa Yamak.

Mexican boxer, 18 year old Jeanette Zacarias Zapata died Sep. 4, 2021 following a boxing match in Montreal, Canada (click here)

Dead for $1,430: the fate of Mexican boxer Jeanette Zacarías | U.S. | EL PAÍS English

My Take…

More strange deaths among these high level athletes. Collapsed in the gym, in the street, heart attacks, brain bleeds.

Boxers ages 16, 18, 19 dying. Men and women.

Undefeated boxers dying. Boxers dying during a CHARITY EVENT (shouldn’t happen), boxers dying during SPARRING SESSIONS (shouldn’t happen).

Some of these incidents are very much consistent with COVID-19 vaccine injuries that are occurring in other athletes, and young people in general.

Until proven otherwise.

*

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

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Boxers Are Collapsing and Dying Suddenly. More Suspicious Deaths Among High Level Athletes

Doctors Were Bribed for COVID Vaccination Coercion

April 28th, 2023 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

*** 

In late March 2020, the U.S. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Within this $2 trillion stimulus package, $100 billion was earmarked for hospitals and local health centers that treated COVID patients

Hospitals were reimbursed an extra 20% for each Medicare patient hospitalized with COVID, and the only criteria to receive that bonus was a COVID-positive PCR test

The federal COVID-19 Treatments Add-On Payment program also paid hospitals bonuses for every COVID-19 patient treated with emergency-authorized COVID medications (Remdesivir, convalescent plasma, Baricitinib, Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir)

Hospitals also received a 300% upcharge for COVID patients placed on ventilators, even after it became apparent that this was a death sentence. Somewhere between 50% and 86% of all ventilated COVID patients died, yet government never dropped the incentive to use ventilators. Why?

Throughout 2020, evidence mounted showing the PCR test is incredibly unreliable above 35 cycles, and health agencies instructed labs to use 40 to 45 cycles. In essence, we had an epidemic of false positives, and financial incentives then drove hospitals to mistreat and kill countless patients, many of whom may not even have had COVID

*

As detailed in “How COVID Patients Died for Profit,” hospitals were financially incentivized to diagnose patients with COVID and treat them with protocols known to be lethal, in part to “protect” the staff from infection.

As if that weren’t bad enough, primary care providers across the U.S. were also bribed to coerce patients into getting the toxic COVID shot. The following document was posted to Twitter in mid-April 2023 by Rep. Thomas Massie, an award-winning scientist and Republican Congressman for Kentucky.1

“Ethically, shouldn’t doctors disclose when they’re profiting by recommending a drug or treatment — especially a drug or treatment for which there is no medical malpractice liability?” Massie said.2

Doctors Were Incentivized to Jab Babies Too

Once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the COVID shot for children, similar vaccination incentives were extended to them as well. As detailed in an Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid provider bulletin3 dated July 2022, doctors received $50 for each Medicaid patient aged 6 months and older, who got the experimental shot.

Hospitals Received at Least $100 Billion From Taxpayers 

In late March 2020, the U.S. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act.4 Within this $2 trillion stimulus package, $100 billion was earmarked for hospitals and local health centers that treated COVID patients.5

And, rather than simply agreeing to pay COVID patients’ bills, the government decided to pay hospitals extra — a lot extra — over and above the standard bill, provided they treated patients in a certain way. By the end of October 2020, $96 billion had already been disbursed.6

Ostensibly, the additional bonuses for COVID patients were supposed to help hospitals recoup revenue that was lost due to the cancelation of elective procedures. But hospitals were supposedly filled to the brim with COVID patients, so just how much revenue was lost?

The bonuses were also supposed to cover additional costs associated with caring for COVID patients, such as additional personal protective equipment (PPE) and sanitation, but that could have just as easily been covered as an extra line item, rather than a flat double-digit percentage over and above the actual cost of the treatment.

COVID-Positive Medicare Patients Worth 20% More

As reported by KGNS.TV, a local Nebraska news station, in late March 2022:7

“According to the state, since COVID hit Webb County in March of 2020, about 85,000 people have contracted the virus, with roughly half of them serious enough to be admitted into the hospital. Almost immediately, the federal government stepped in to help pay for their care with millions of dollars.

KGNS took a deeper look into this to answer the question, ‘Is there a difference in how much hospitals get paid back by the government when caring for a positive COVID patient versus a non-COVID patient?’ The answer to that is ‘yes.’ People on government programs, such as Medicare, are worth more.

According to section 3710 of the Cares Act, hospitals are reimbursed by the government an extra 20% for each hospitalized Medicare patient. The only criteria for that extra money? A positive COVID test.8,9,10

For instance, hospital Medicare patient with pneumonia — without COVID — is worth about $7,700 to the hospital. But with COVID, that reimbursement jumps to over $9,200.

A Medicare patient with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome requiring a ventilator? Without COVID, the bill is around $34,000. But with COVID, that Medicare patient now worth almost $40,000. And the list goes on.”

On top of those incentives, the federal COVID-19 Treatments Add-On Payment program also paid hospitals bonuses for every COVID-19 patient treated with emergency authorized COVID medications (Remdesivir, convalescent plasma, Baricitinib, Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir) and mechanical ventilation.11

It doesn’t seem like decisionmakers considered the possibility that incentivizing hospitals to diagnose patients as having COVID might impact patient care, outcomes and/or COVID statistics, but it most certainly did. To presume hospitals would think twice about treating patients with a particular drug or put them on a ventilator when they get reimbursed top dollar for it is naïve in the extreme. Especially when all they needed was a positive PCR test to justify it.

Throughout 2020, evidence mounted showing the PCR test is incredibly unreliable above 35 cycles, and health agencies instructed labs to use 40 to 45 cycles. In essence, we had an epidemic of false positives, and financial incentives then drove hospitals to mistreat and kill countless patients, many of whom may not even have had COVID.

Former CDC director Robert Redfield and Brett Giroir, assistant secretary for health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, have both stated they believe financial incentives drove up the COVID-19 death rate in the U.S.12

Vented COVID Patients Earned Hospitals 300% Upcharge

I strongly suspect the reason why so many COVID patients died was because they were forced onto mechanical ventilation, and the reason for that was because hospitals received a 300% bonus for patients requiring ventilation! That’s no minor incentive. As reported by USA Today back in April 2020:13

“Sen. Scott Jensen, R-Minn., a physician in Minnesota, was interviewed by ‘The Ingraham Angle’ host Laura Ingraham on April 8 on Fox News and claimed hospitals get paid more if Medicare patients are listed as having COVID-19 and get three times as much money if they need a ventilator …

Jensen took it to his own Facebook page April 15, saying, in part ‘How can anyone not believe that increasing the number of COVID-19 deaths may create an avenue for states to receive a larger portion of federal dollars? Already some states are complaining that they are not getting enough of the CARES Act dollars because they are having significantly more proportional COVID-19 deaths.’

On April 19, he doubled down on his assertion via video on his Facebook page. Jensen said, ‘Hospital administrators might well want to see COVID-19 attached to a discharge summary or a death certificate. Why?

Because if it’s a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for — if they’re Medicare — typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000. But if it’s COVID-19 pneumonia, then it’s $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000.’

Jensen clarified … that he doesn’t think physicians are ‘gaming the system’ so much as other ‘players,’ such as hospital administrators, who he said may pressure physicians to cite all diagnoses, including ‘probable’ COVID-19, on discharge papers or death certificates to get the higher Medicare allocation allowed under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act …

USA TODAY reached out to Marty Makary, a surgeon and professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, about the claim. Makary said in an email April 21 that ‘what Scott Jensen said sounds right to me.’”

Why Did Government Continue Paying for Deadly Protocol?

Why wasn’t the 300% bonus payment eliminated once it became apparent that putting COVID patients on ventilators was a death sentence? As early as April 9, 2020, Business Insider reported14that 80% of COVID-19 patients in New York City who were placed on ventilators died, which caused a number of doctors to question their use.

The Associated Press15 also publicized similar reports from China and the U.K. A U.K. report put the figure at 66%, while a small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%. Data presented by attorney Thomas Renz in 2021 showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.16

The lowest figure I’ve seen is 50%.17 So, somewhere between 50% and 86% of all ventilated COVID patients died, yet government never dropped the financial incentive to use ventilators. Why?

Incentives Put Nursing Home Patients at Risk Too

Nursing homes in some states also received incentive payments if they accepted hospital discharges. For example, in Wisconsin, the Department of Health Services (DHS) paid out $2,900 for every admission a nursing home received directly from a hospital.18

This, even though by then, it was well-known that more than 80% of deaths occurred in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and live-in rehab centers. More than 90% of residents of these centers have at least one chronic disease and more than 70% have two conditions, which in turn can weaken their immune systems.19

They also live in close quarters and share staff, which facilitates the spread of pathogens. But rather than protecting the elderly by NOT admitting potentially infected patients, the DHS paid these facilities to take them in.

Incompetence or Malice?

In the final analysis, it’s quite clear that the COVID pandemic was grossly mishandled. Either U.S. health agencies and political decisionmakers were inept and unqualified for the job at hand, or they acted with malice, and the outcomes of their financial incentivization of bad medicine were intended ones.

Either way, their strategies were ill-conceived and resulted in needless death and suffering. Adding insult to injury, billions of taxpayer dollars were used to pay for it all. Financially incentivizing doctors and pediatricians to inject an experimental gene therapy into babies is, in my view, completely unconscionable, and should never have happened, but the same can be said for the continued use of ventilators.

It seems medicine during the COVID pandemic became all about maximizing profits, without regard for health outcomes, and that is something that our health agencies must be held to account for.

*

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

Notes

1, 2 Twitter Thomas Massie April 13, 2023

3 Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid Provider Bulletin July 2022

4 Revcycle Intelligence March 26, 2020

5 Fierce Health Care March 25, 2020

6 PGPF.org November 5, 2020

7, 11 KGNS.TV March 28, 2022

8 Healthcare Finance News August 18, 2020

9 HFMA April 21, 2020

10 AHA.org Guidance for CARES Act Provisions April 16, 2020

12 Organic Lifestyle Magazine August 25, 2020

13 USA Today April 24, 2020, Updated April 27, 2020

14 Business Insider April 9, 2020

15 The Associated Press April 8, 2020

16 Citizens Journal December 20, 2021

17 Wall Street Journal December 20, 2020

18 WHA November 12, 2020

19 Newswise May 15, 2020

Featured image is from Pandemic.news


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

a

***

“So the problem is that the 2009 crisis wasn’t a systemic crisis, but now, the rising interest rates have created a systemic crisis because the Federal Reserve, by saving the banks’ balance sheets by inflating the prices for capital assets, by saving the wealthiest 10% of the economy from losing any of their money — by solving that problem they’ve boxed themselves into a corner.

“They cannot let interest rates rise without making the entire economy look like Silicon Valley Bank. Because that’s the problem. The assets the banks hold are stuck.”

Michael Hudson (March 15, 2023) [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW



Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

As Silvergate Capital and Silicon Valley Bank were beginning to recede in the rear view mirror, the second shoe has finally dropped in the continuing financial bank crisis.

First Republican Bank has now seen its stock decline by 60% this past week following news that in the past month, depositors had withdrawn more than $100 billion. The bleed was shored up partially following the deposits of $30 billion in uninsured deposits by the big banks. [2]

The San Francisco banks intend to sell off unprofitable assets and has just laid of 25% of its workforce, roughly 7,200 employees by the end of the year. [3]

This is a signal that the failures that resulted in early March are not over. And that this latest catastrophe is probably not the last.

The banks typically have less money in their reserves than they lend out at any given time. This worked adequately except in the early thirties when financial times were so devastating that people began run-on-banks, quickly harvesting their own reserves before reserves were withdrawn by other depositors leaving the people behind penniless. Five thousand bank failures resulted then, persuading the Roosevelt administration to bring in the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 bringing in regulation to thwart the corruption and insider trading permitting such processes. [4][5]

Of course, Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 under President Clinton, and other initiatives like Dodd-Frank have since been advanced leaving the board more or less back in 1930s shape again! [6]

But, what if there is more to this than ’30s style greed? What if this is setting the stage for continuing down the path of engineering the destruction of the financial systems in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe to the benefit of the key players within Wall Street? What if it’s continuing even within the United States itself as part of the “phase two” of the pivotal “post-COVID” 2020-2023 Great Reset? These are some of the questions we will attempt to get answers to in the latest chapter of the Global Research News Hour. [7]

In the first half hour of the program, we talk with geopolitical activist Peter Koenig about his own review of the World Economic Forum (WEF), their plans to revise the entire world in over 200 different areas through the “Great Reset,” and of a WEF insider boasting about setting the bank failures in motion. He also mentions the “systemic bank” Credit Suisse in Switzerland and how it is linked with the American banks. This is followed by our second half hour featuring economic teacher and journalist Dr. Jack Rasmus providing the fundamentals behind what has happened to the major banks and what is bound to transgress in the months ahead.

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

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

Dr. Jack Rasmus is author of the books, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, 2017 and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, 2020. Follow his commentary on the emerging banking crisis on his blog, https://jackrasmus.com; on twitter daily @drjackrasmus; and his weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern and at https://alternativevisions.podbean.com.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 389)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW



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.

Notes:

  1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-3-us-banks-collapsed-1-week-economist-michael-hudson-explains/5812286
  2. Michelle Chapman (April 26, 2023), ‘First Republic shares sink again, down nearly 60% in week’, Associated Press; https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/shares-of-first-republic-bank-continue-to-slide
  3. ibid;
  4. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/banking-crisis-1933#:~:text=A%20nationwide%20panic%20ensued%20in%201933%20when%20bank,worsened%2C%20businesses%20failed%2C%20and%20workers%20lost%20their%20jobs.
  5. https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-financial-meltdown-sweeping-deregulation-of-the-us-banking-system/10588
  6. https://www.globalresearch.ca/warning-silicon-valley-bank-collapse-prelude-much-worse-come/5812171
  7. https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-financial-meltdown-sweeping-deregulation-of-the-us-banking-system/10588

Sri Lanka IMF Program Cannot Solve Internal Crisis

April 28th, 2023 by Abayomi Azikiwe

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

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

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

*** 

Less than one year ago, the people of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka were up in arms over the worsening economic situation prompting hundreds of thousands of people to take to the streets demanding relief from the impending bankruptcy.

At present the parliament of the South Asian state located in the Indian Ocean is expected to accept an International Monetary Fund (IMF) package which would provide $3 Billion in much-needed liquidity to the national economy.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe inherited the crisis from his predecessor Gotabaya Rajapaksa and has now appealed to the parliament to immediately authorize the IMF package. He accepts that there have been 16 other IMF agreements involving the country, yet the president is attempting to present a positive spin on the economic projections for the future.

Since the crisis unfolded during the early months of 2022, there has been much speculation as to how the economy could be stabilized. Inflation rates were in excess of 70% while the incapacity to pay debts to foreign financial institutions and governments hampered the ability of Sri Lanka to conduct trade with other countries.

Consequently, shortages of consumer goods became a major social problem. Price hikes placed food, fuel and other services beyond the means of many people to purchase. A plan to introduce synthetic fertilizer as an import substitution failed resulting in a decline in the production of rice and tea, two main cash crops.

Mass demonstrations erupted which demanded that the then government resign. Later people would occupy the presidential palace and parliament leading to violent clashes with the security forces. Severe property damage was done to the residence of the president.

The Sri Lankan government responded with harsh measures declaring a state of emergency which suspended the right to assemble and banned social media. These repressive policies only further angered the people of the country.

Image: Sri Lanka President Ranil Wickremesinghe in parliament

By July the Rajapaksa administration was in disarray. A cabinet reshuffle proved inadequate to calm the discontent. Later Rajapaksa fled the country eventually leading to the ascendancy of then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who was voted into the presidency by the parliament. Since the coming to power of Wickremesinghe he has sought to negotiate with the IMF, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank for assistance in reducing the foreign debt.

In his address before the Sri Lankan parliament on April 26, Wickremesinghe said that:

“Today, we received the financing assurance from foreign creditors, with the Paris Club and India working together to grant it. India was the first to publish it, and we are grateful for that. China is expected to deal with it separately, so we will discuss with the Paris Club and India on one hand and negotiate with China on the other. After these discussions, we will have talks with private creditors. This agreement will enable us to receive approximately $3 billion from the International Monetary Fund over the next four years, with the potential to obtain about $7 billion from other institutions. This money is crucial for us. Additionally, we have regained the trust of foreign banks and financial institutions, with economic stability already being established in the country. Social Security is receiving more funding, and investors are showing a keen interest in Sri Lanka…. One of the points to address is debt restructuring talks with our bilateral countries and private creditors. We want to restructure these loans, as failure to do so will result in a loss of liquidity. In order for the government to move forward, the restructuring must be done in rupees or dollars. The government wants to obtain funds for this service. Therefore, we must first negotiate with foreign creditors. We hope to initiate these discussions soon, with domestic debt restructuring also being considered. A final decision has not yet been made, but it is important to discuss this issue. Negotiations cannot be held with terms and conditions already in place. It is easier for us to join negotiations without conditions.” 

A Left Program is Needed to Counter the IMF and World Bank Policies

Yet this statement by President Wickremesinghe ignores the persistent draconian conditionalities which are imposed by the IMF and the World Bank in regard to developing states. There are more than five decades of examples of the socially destructive impact of the IMF and World Bank.

Both institutions are a by-product of the Bretton Woods monetary system which arose towards the conclusion of the Second World War. Initially these programs were designed for the economic and industrial reconstruction of Europe after the antifascist wars of the 1930s and 1940s. However, by the mid-1960s, the IMF and World Bank were being utilized by imperialism to stifle the emergence of genuine independent governments in the post-colonial period.

During the mass demonstrations and rebellions of 2022, the general thrust of the protests was anti-capitalist in their orientation. Although the actions largely led by youth were spontaneous, the organized Left did play an important role by drawing from the legacy of the movements which created the political atmosphere for national liberation from British colonialism in the aftermath of World War II. Sri Lanka gained its independence in 1948 and underwent significant political developments from the 1950s through the 1980s.

In an article written by Smruti S. Pattanaik of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, India, the author explains:

“In Sri Lanka, Left political organizations—the Janatha Vimukti Peramuna (JVP) and its breakaway faction, the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), Peratugami Samajavadi Pakshaya in Sinhala—have been trying to carve a niche for themselves in the light of the socio-economic turmoil that the country has witnessed in the recent past. Youth fronts of the JVP—Socialist Youth Union and Socialist Students Union of JVP and FSP—Youth for Change and Revolutionary Students Union, were at the forefront motivating and mobilizing the masses to fight against the corrupt regime. These trade unions, students’ organizations and other Left-oriented artists, women organizations participated in large numbers in the protest movement.” 

Any neoliberal economic restructuring scheme cannot effectively address the problems of mounting poverty and underdevelopment in Sri Lanka along with other developing states of the Global South. Even if legislation by the Sri Lanka parliament to accept the IMF package is adopted, this approach cannot provide a sustainable path towards stability.

Left parties, coalitions and trade unions can continue to make a monumental contribution to the political education and mobilization of the workers, farmers and youth. Every encroachment upon the living standards of the masses could be addressed through opposition efforts within and outside of the legislative structures. Alternative proposals for the funding of social programs and the economic empowerment of the people will inevitably become fierce terrains for political and mass struggles.

The crisis in Sri Lanka is not taking place within a historical vacuum. In Africa, three states: Egypt, Ghana and Zambia are facing a similar plight as they seek to negotiate loans from the IMF and other western-based financial institutions. The tightening of credit by the banks is occurring in the aftermath of the economic shocks induced by the pandemic which emerged in the early months of 2020.

In addition, the Russian special military operation in Ukraine provided a rationale for the imperialist states to enact unprecedented sanctions against the Russian Federation. The war and the subsequent embargo of Moscow has created food and agricultural inputs shortages on an international scale. The lack of affordable food and energy resources has compounded the humanitarian crises in various geopolitical regions of the world.

Human Rights Watch addressed the potential for further repression in Egypt emphasizing:

“The International Monetary Fund’s new US$3 billion loan agreement with Egypt largely continues an economic approach that leaves the economic rights of millions unprotected, Human Rights Watch and Democracy in the Arab World Now (DAWN) said today. The agreement includes improved efforts to address deep-seated structural problems such as the opaque role of the military in the economy and inadequate social protection. But other provisions, such as austerity and the sale of state assets, risk harming rights. This is the fourth loan that Egypt has received from the IMF since 2016.” 

The Financial Times in a report published in September of 2022 documents that the number of states seeking financial assistance has reached levels never witnessed before:

“The IMF’s lending to economically troubled countries has hit a record high as the world’s lender of last resort battles simultaneous crises that have pushed at least five countries into default, with more expected to follow. The pandemic, Russia’s attack on Ukraine and a sharp rise in global interest rates have forced dozens of countries to seek IMF assistance. A Financial Times analysis of IMF data shows that at the end of August (2022) the volume of loans disbursed by the fund amounted to $140bn in 44 separate programs. The figure, which is expected to grow further in the coming months as borrowing costs soar, is already higher than the amount of credit outstanding at the end of 2020 and 2021, when levels reached record annual highs.” 

It has become apparent that the burgeoning international debt crisis cannot be resolved under the existing capitalist framework. A new monetary system is needed based upon socialist production and distribution of wealth.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump: The Left-Right Punch to Corporatist Fascism

By Rodney Atkinson, April 27, 2023

Corporatism, with its offspring Fascism and Nazism, is supported by totalitarians of the left and the right and its libertarian opponents also spring from the left and the right. On “the left” both “communists” and “welfare socialists” oppose corporatism and on “the right” democratic enterprise capitalists and small businesses fight corporatism.

Secret Team: The Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage Revisited

By Freddie Ponton, April 27, 2023

Following the very damning report entitled, “How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline,” published on February 8th by the legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the US authorities are still not budging from their official denial, and refuse to admit any form of involvement with the explosion which damaged the Nord Stream pipelines on Sept 26th of last year.

Possible Motives for the Daily Russian Missile Attacks in Ukraine

By Don Hank, April 27, 2023

Ever since the Russians started targeting Ukrainian sites with standoff missiles on October 10, 2022, I have been chronicling the strikes and sending the daily strike reports in translation, including the struck cities or oblasts, to my email group. I can confirm that the strikes have occurred daily, with no dates omitted, and have all been multiple.

Why Is a Large Dam Important for Ethiopia? Experiences from the Danube River

By Silabat Manaye, April 27, 2023

In the case of Ethiopia, about 90% of the available water is received mainly in three months. Hence, dams could effectively store water during heavy rain seasons between June to September and some extent during the short rainy seasons.

Facebook Censors Journalist Seymour Hersh’s Report on Nord Stream Pipeline Attack

By Ben Norton, April 27, 2023

Facebook has censored a report by the world’s most famous investigative journalist, Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh, on the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines between Russia and Germany. While discouraging its users from posting Hersh’s article, Facebook instead recommends a website that is funded and partially owned by the government of NATO member Norway.

The World Is Changing, But Is Washington Finally Noticing?

By Ted Snider, April 27, 2023

On April 11, CIA Director William Burns spoke at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. In a somewhat stunning statement that has, perhaps, not been so clearly and publicly articulated before, Burns said that we are in one of “those times of transition that come along a couple of times a century. Today the United States still has a better hand to play than any of our rivals, but it is no longer the only big kid on the geopolitical bloc. And our position at the head of the table isn’t guaranteed.”

British Radioactive Weapons Arrive in Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, April 27, 2023

Ignoring all Russian advises, the British government confirmed on April 26th that its depleted uranium weapons are already on Ukrainian soil. Moscow’s officials, anti-war activists and experts have repeatedly warned that such an escalation in the conflict should be avoided, but London has not observed the advice and has further violated a red line by sending radioactive weapons to the Kiev regime.

Video: Monopoly — Who Owns the World? The Great Reset. “The Ripple Effect of the COVID Crisis”

By Tim Gielen, April 27, 2023

This brilliant documentary by Tim Gielen reveals how a small group of super rich criminals have been buying virtually everything on earth, until they own it all. From media, health care, travel, food industry, governments… That allows them to control the whole world. Because of this they are trying to impose the New World Order.

Ukraine Plans for World War III

By Bradley Devlin, April 27, 2023

Earlier revelations from the Discord leak suggested Ukraine is a cornered animal. The latest shows it might lash out like one. The Washington Post reported Monday that documents in the leak claimed that the United States had to force Ukraine to back down from a direct attack on Moscow.

Pivotal Moment in India-Russia Relations

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, April 27, 2023

Most relationships undergo transition with the passage of time from appreciation of each other to a “state of having,” a desire to possess or even to control the other. But the present pivotal moment in the Russian-Indian relationship shows that an equal relationship does not fall into that trap.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump: The Left-Right Punch to Corporatist Fascism