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.

***

Poland no longer hides its expansionist plans. In a recent meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart, Polish President Andrzej Duda announced his personal wish that soon both countries will no longer have physical borders. The message echoes a possible confederation project in Eastern Europe, which according to the most pro-Western optimistic analysts will be successful after Kiev eventually joins the EU and NATO. However, from a realistic point of view, this plan only reveals a Polish intention to annex some regions in Ukraine.

On April 5, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky made his first state trip to Poland since the beginning of the Russian special military operation. While there are many reports that Zelensky spent much of the conflict time hiding in bunkers on the Polish side of the border, this is his first official visit to the allied country, where he has already been lauded as a hero by the anti-Russian local government. On the occasion, talks of strategic content and promises of mutual support were held, as well as the announcement of some bilateral agreements, reinforcing the friendship between both countries, which currently share anti-Russian hate as a state ideology.

One of the most interesting points was a speech by President Duda after the meeting, in which he stated that he believes that in the near future there will be no more borders between Ukraine and Poland. He said that after the end of the conflict Kiev will gain membership in the European Union and both countries will become fully integrated, finally being able to promote the free movement of people and goods. He stated that when that happens, people will only be able to tell if they are in Ukraine or Poland by looking at the buildings that will be “located […] where border checks used to take place”.

“I hope there would be no physical border between Poland and Ukraine after the end of the war. Especially when Ukraine becomes a part of the European Union. So that ordinary people, while traveling from Ukraine to Poland, would not know at all where that border used to be and would recognize it only by the buildings located somewhere in the distance, where border checks used to take place (…) [I have] no doubt that, in fact, it would be so”, he said during a recent Polish-Ukrainian Economic Forum in Warsaw.

At first, Dudas’ words may sound like a kind of “anti-Russian utopia”, with some of the most pro-NATO eastern European states uniting in an absolute way, reaching the level of overcoming the existence of physical borders. However, there seems to be much more than Duda’s mere personal “desire” in this speech, considering that Poland has clear expansionist interests in Ukraine.

There are many regions in western Ukraine where the population has greater ethnic and cultural links to Poland than to Kiev. The city of Lviv is the greatest example of this ethno-cultural integration that prevails in the border region. Despite being racist, the Kiev regime maintains good relations with the Poles, contrary to what it does with other peoples who live in its territory – such as the Russians of Donbass and the Hungarians of Transcarpathia. Being Kiev and Warsaw very close allies, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime is concerned about not harming bilateral ties.

This, however, does not prevent the Polish government from discussing the possibility of expanding its borders into Ukrainian territory. With no humanitarian arguments to justify an expansion, Warsaw bets on the allegation of the need to control a security crisis. At various times since February 2022, rumors and intelligence reports have emerged pointing to a Polish interest in sending “peacekeeping” troops to Lviv and nearby regions. The objective would be to prevent the conflict, currently concentrated on the Russian borders, from expanding on a large scale to cities close to Polish borders. Moscow has denounced on various occasions that the Polish plan would be to use this excuse to legitimize a process of military occupation and political annexation. With Duda’s words, Russian predictions seem to be more and more accurate.

Currently, there is already a “de facto confederation” between Poland and Ukraine. The borders are open to the circulation of weapons, Western mercenaries, and Ukrainian troops, who are constantly being trained by NATO officers outside the conflict zone. Given Kiev’s insistence on playing an anti-Russian proxy role, the fighting will certainly continue for a long time and will eventually result in the territorial fragmentation of Ukraine. Perhaps Poland is taking the moment to advance its plans, so its “goodwill” in allowing flow across the border may just be a way to facilitate a potential attempt at formal annexation.

This shows once again the high level of submission by Zelensky and his regime to NATO forces. The Ukrainian president uses the rhetoric of territorial defense against Russia when he openly meets with a foreign leader who talks about extinguishing the borders between Ukraine and Poland. Apparently, if a NATO country claims Ukrainian territories, there is no problem for Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime. The same should apply to situations where the local people sovereignly voted for independence and reintegration with Russia.

As for the military impacts of these maneuvers, it remains to be seen how Warsaw will proceed with its strategies. Recently, the Hungarian government reported that NATO plans to send “peacekeeping” troops to Ukraine. If that really happens, the most expected thing is that Polish soldiers will be sent, given the geographical proximity. Moscow has made it clear that NATO “peacekeepers” would be considered legitimate targets by Russian forces. It is hoped that Poland and others in NATO will be aware of the dangers of such an scenario and avoid a further escalation.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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).

***

Originally published on April 4, 2021

“I don’t believe in death without resurrection. If they kill me, I will rise again in the Salvadorian people…”  – Archbishop Oscar Romero, martyred, 24 March 1980

Whether we are aware of it or not, we live by stories. We live by others’ stories while we tell our lives by how we live.  Our actions tell our stories.  Then when we die, others tell our stories as they wish.

This is the spiritual thread that links the meanings of our lives.  It is the way we pass over to other lives and return to our own. But without truth, we end up in the wrong place, living the wrong stories.

And don’t the stories of certain special people inspire us to carry on their legacies because their spirits are far stronger than death?  Their courage contagious?   Their witness the triumph of life over death?

Don’t they challenge us to imitate them, to kindle in us the fire of their resurrected spirits?

For Christians, Holy Week is the time for deep reflection on the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus and what they mean for us today.  This year, the anniversary of the murder of the Christian prophet and martyr, Martin Luther King, Jr., falls on Easter Sunday, April 4, which gives rise to doubly deeper thoughts that cross religious boundaries where people of all faiths or none can unite in the spirit of non-violent resistance to the forces of war, poverty, racism, and materialism – violence in all its forms.  Everything that stands in the way of what King called “the Beloved Community.”

That Jesus met violence with non-violent love and voluntarily entered the darkness of death and abandonment is at the heart of the Christian faith.  So too his Resurrection.  If the Jewish radical Jesus had not been executed by the Roman state occupiers of Palestine, if all hope for his followers had not seemingly been lost, then his Resurrection could not have given birth to hope in his followers to carry on his spirit of love for the poor and downtrodden and resistance to violence.

Like Oscar Romero in El Salvador, gunned down by U.S. trained death squads at the altar while offering Mass and subsequently named a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s witness and the truth about his death should be a central meditative focus this year. For the convergence of King’s death on April 4, 1968 with Easter this April 4th and the last day of Passover offers us a way to contemplate what is now demanded of all people who yearn for the end to hatred, violence, and injustice, and the creation of a beloved world community where love and kindness reign.

The spirit of all the prophets and martyrs is about now, not then; about us, not them; it confronts us with the challenge to interrogate ourselves.

Shall we turn away from their witness?  What truly animates our souls?  Where do we stand?  Do we support the state’s power to kill and wage war, to deny people freedom, to discriminate, to oppress the poor?

It is always about now; the living truth is now.

To contemplate the lives of the prophets takes us very deep into the darkness where we encounter the murders of Jesus, King, Romero, and all those who have died trying to make peace and justice a reality.  But only if we go into the darkest truths will we be able to see the light that leads us to accept the resurrected spirit of their resistance to evil.

Another prophet of our broken world, the Hindu Mohandas Gandhi, soul brother to King, echoed the words that many have heard, that “God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,” when, in crossing over to the Christian tradition, he told us: “We dare not think of birth without death on the cross.  Living Christ means a Living Cross, without it life is a living death.”[1]

So what do we need to know about MLK, and why does it matter?

King’s True Story

Very few Americans are aware of the truth behind the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the United States’ celebrated civil rights icon.  Few books have been written about it, unlike other significant assassinations, especially JFK’s. For more than fifty years there has been a media blackout supported by government disinformation to hide the truth.  And few people, in a massive act of self-deception, have chosen to question the official explanation, choosing, rather, to embrace a mythic fabrication intended to sugarcoat the bitter fruit that has resulted from the murder of one man capable of leading a mass movement for transformative change in the United States.  Today we are eating the fruit of our denial as racial discrimination, poverty, and police violence garner the headlines.

After more than a decade as America’s best-known and most respected civil rights leader, by 1968 Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. had increasingly focused on poverty issues and publicly declared his intense opposition to the U.S. war against Vietnam in a famous speech – “Beyond Vietnam: The Time To Break the Silence” – at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, one year to the day before he was assassinated.[2]

MLK speaking at Riverside Church, NYC, 4 April 1967

Having won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, he emerged in the mid-1960s as an international figure, whose opinions on human and economic rights and peaceful coexistence were influential world-wide. Shortly before his assassination, he was organizing the Poor People’s Campaign that would involve hundreds of thousands of Americans who would encamp in Washington, D.C to demand the end to economic inequality, racism, and war.

At the same time, Reverend King was hated by an array of racists throughout America, especially in the American South. Among his greatest declared enemies was FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who seemed convinced that King’s backers were Communists out to damage America’s interests. In the late 1960s, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program created a network of informants and agent provocateurs to undermine the civil rights and anti-war movements with a special focus on King.[3]

After King’s “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963, William Sullivan, the head of the FBI’s domestic intelligence division, wrote in a post-speech memo:

Personally, I believe in the light of King’s powerful, demagogic speech that he stands head and shoulders over all other Negro leaders put together when it comes to influencing great masses. We must mark him now, if we have not done so before, as the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security.[4]

The FBI, after extensive eavesdropping on King, subsequently sent him an anonymous letter urging him to kill himself or else his extramarital sex life would be exposed.  The FBI’s and its Director J Edgar Hoover’s hatred for King was so great that nothing was too low for them.[5]

This history is common knowledge as reported in the Washington Post, The New York Times, etc.

During the Senate Church Committee hearings in the mid-1970s, a parallel group within the CIA, code-named CHAOS, was uncovered.  Despite its charter disallowing it from operating inside the United States, the CIA similarly used illegal means to disrupt the civil rights and anti-war movements.

Because MLK, in his Riverside Church speech, spoke clearly to what he identified there as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government” and continued to relentlessly confront his own government on its criminal war against Vietnam, he was universally condemned by the mass media and the government that later – once he was long and safely dead and no longer a threat – praised him to the heavens.  This has continued to the present day of historical amnesia.

Today Martin Luther King’s birthday is celebrated with a national holiday, but his death day disappears down the memory hole.  Across the country – in response to the King Holiday and Service Act passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994 – people are encouraged to make the day one of service (from Latin, servus = slave).  Etymological irony aside, such service does not include King’s commitment to protesting a decadent system of racial and economic injustice or non-violently resisting the warfare state that is the United States. Government sponsored service is cultural neo-liberalism at its finest.

The word service is a loaded word; it has become a smiley face and vogue word over the past thirty-five years.  It’s use for MLK Day is clear: individuals are encouraged to volunteer for activities such as tutoring children, painting senior centers, delivering meals to the elderly, etc., activities that are good in themselves but far less good when used to conceal an American prophet’s message.  After all, Martin Luther King’s work was not volunteering at the local food pantry with Oprah Winfrey cheering him on.

But service without truth is slavery.  It is propaganda aimed at convincing decent people into thinking that they are serving the essence of MLK’s message while they are following a message of misdirection.

Educating people about who killed King, and why, and why it matters today, is the greatest service we can render to his memory.

What exactly is the relationship between King’s saying that “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government” and his murder?

Let’s look at the facts.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968, at 6:01 PM as he stood on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. He was shot in the lower right side of his face by one rifle bullet that shattered his jaw, damaged his upper spine, and came to rest below his left shoulder blade. The U.S. government claimed the assassin was a racist loner named James Earl Ray, who had escaped from the Missouri State Penitentiary on April 23, 1967. Ray was alleged to have fired the fatal shot from a second-floor bathroom window of a rooming house above the rear of Jim’s Grill across the street. Running to his rented room, Ray allegedly gathered his belongings, including the rifle, in a bedspread-wrapped bundle, rushed out the front door onto the adjoining street, and in a panic dropped the bundle in the doorway of the Canipe Amusement Company a few doors down. He was then said to have jumped into his white Mustang and to have driven to Atlanta where he abandoned the car. From there he fled to Canada and then to England and then to Portugal and back to England where he was eventually arrested at Heathrow Airport on June 8, 1968, and extradited to the U.S. The state claims that the money Ray needed to purchase the car and for all his travel was secured through various robberies and a bank heist. Ray’s alleged motive was racism and that he was a bitter and dangerous loner.

When Ray, under extraordinary pressure, coercion, and a payoff from his lawyer to take a plea, pleaded guilty (only a few days later to request a trial that was denied) and was sentenced to 99 years in prison, the case seemed to be closed, and was dismissed from public consciousness. Another hate-filled lone assassin, as the government also termed Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, had committed a despicable deed.

Ray had received erroneous advice from his attorney, Percy Foreman. Foreman had a long history representing government, corporate, intelligence, and mafia figures, including Jack Ruby, in cases where the government wanted to keep people silent. Ray was told that the government would go after Ray’s father and brother, Jerry, and that he’d get the electric chair if he didn’t plead guilty,

Ray initially acquiesced. He entered what is known as an Alford plea before Judge Preston Battle. In making his plea, Ray did not admit to any criminal act and asserted his innocence. The following day, he fired Percy Foreman, who, by offering money to induce a guilty plea, had committed a criminal offense. Foreman had also lied to Judge Battle about his contract with Ray. And, the transcript of Ray’s testimony was doctored to help support the government’s case. Ray was sentenced to life in prison. After three days, Ray tried to retract his plea and maintained his innocence for almost 30 years until his death.

The United State government’s case against James Earl Ray was extremely weak from the start, and in the intervening years has grown so weak that it is no longer believable. A vast body of evidence has accumulated that renders it patently false.

But before examining such evidence, it is important to point out that MLK, Jr, his father, Rev. M. L. King, Sr, and his maternal grandfather, Rev. A.D. Williams, all pastors of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, were spied on by Army Intelligence and the FBI since 1917.[6] All were considered dangerous because of their espousal of racial and economic equality. None of this had to do with war or foreign policy, but such spying was connected to their religious opposition to racist and economic policies that stretched back to slavery, realities that have been officially acknowledged today. But when MLK, Jr. forcefully denounced unjust and immoral war-making as well, especially the Vietnam war, and announced his Poor People’s Campaign and intent to lead a massive peaceful encampment of hundreds of thousands in Washington, D.C., he set off panic in the inner sanctums of the government.  Seventy-five years of spying on black religious leaders here found its ultimate “justification.”

The corporate mass media has for more than fifty years echoed the government’s version of the King assassination. Here and there, however, mainly through the alternative media, and also through the monumental work and persistence of the King family lawyer, William Pepper, the truth about the assassination has surfaced. Through decades of research, a TV trial, a jury trial, and three meticulously researched books, Pepper has documented the parts played in the assassination by F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover, the F.B.I., Army Intelligence, Memphis Police, and southern Mafia figures.  In his last two books, An Act of State (2003)  and later The Plot to Kill King (2016), Pepper presents his comprehensive case.

William Pepper’s decades-long investigation not only refutes the flimsy case against James Earl Ray, but definitively proves that King was killed by a government conspiracy led by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Army Intelligence, and Memphis Police, assisted by southern Mafia figures.  He is right to assert that “we have probably acquired more detailed knowledge about this political assassination than we have ever had about any previous historical event.”This makes the silence around this case even more shocking.

This shock is accentuated when one is reminded (or told for the first time) that in 1999 a Memphis jury, after a thirty-day trial with over seventy witnesses, found the U.S. government guilty in the killing of MLK.

In that 1999 Memphis civil trial (see complete transcript) brought by the King family, the jury found that King was murdered by a conspiracy that included governmental agencies.[7] The corporate media, when they reported it at all, dismissed the jury’s verdict and those who accepted it, including the entire King family led by Coretta Scott King[8], as delusional. Time magazine called the verdict a confirmation of the King family’s “lurid fantasies.”  The Washington Post compared those who believed it with those who claimed that Hitler was unfairly accused of genocide.  A smear campaign ensued that has continued to the present day and then the fact that a trial ever occurred disappeared down the memory hole so that today most people never heard of it and assume MLK was killed by a crazy white racist, James Earl Ray, if they know even that.

The civil trial was the King family’s last resort to get a public hearing to disclose the truth of the assassination. They and Pepper knew, and proved, that Ray was an innocent pawn, but Ray had died in prison in 1998 after trying for thirty years to get a trial and prove his innocence. During all these years, Ray had maintained that he had been manipulated by a shadowy figure named Raul, who supplied him with money and his white Mustang and coordinated all his complicated travels, including having him buy a rifle and come to Jim’s Grill and the boarding house on the day of the assassination to give it to Raul.  The government has always denied Raul existed.  Pepper proved that that was a lie.

Slowly, however, glimmers of light have been shed on that trial and truth of the assassination.

On March 30, 2018, The Washington Post’s crime reporter, Tom Jackman, published a four-column front-page article, “Who killed Martin Luther King Jr.?  His family believes James Earl Ray was framed.”  While not close to an endorsement of the trial’s conclusions, it is a far cry from past nasty dismissals of those who agreed with the jury’s verdict as conspiracy nuts or Hitler supporters.  After decades of clouding over the truth of MLK’s assassination, some rays of truth have come peeping through, and on the front page of the WP at that.

Jackman makes it very clear that all the surviving King family members – Bernice, Dexter, and Martin III – are in full agreement that James Earl Ray, the accused assassin, did not kill their father, and that there was and continues to be a conspiracy to cover up the truth.  He adds to that the words of the highly respected civil rights icon and now deceased U.S. Congressman from Georgia, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who said:

I think there was a major conspiracy to remove Dr. King from the American scene,

and former U.N. ambassador and Atlanta mayor Andrew Young, who was with King at the Lorraine Motel when he was shot, who concurs:

I would not accept the fact that James Earl Ray pulled the trigger, and that is all that matters.

Additionally, Jackman adds that Andrew Young emphasized that the assassination of King came after that of President Kennedy, Malcolm X, and a few months before that of Senator Robert Kennedy.

“We were living in a period of assassinations,” he quotes Young as saying, a statement clearly intimating their linkages and coming from a widely respected and honorable man.

In the years leading up to Pepper’s 1978 involvement in the MLK case, only a few lonely voices expressed doubts about the government’s case, such as, Harold Weisberg’s Frame Up in 1971 and Mark Lane’s and Dick Gregory’s Code Name “Zorro” in 1977.  While other lonely researchers dug deeper, most of the country put themselves and the case to sleep.

As with the assassinations of President Kennedy and his brother, Robert (two months after MLK), all evidence points to the construction of scapegoats to take the blame for government executions.  Ray, Oswald, and Sirhan Sirhan all bear striking resemblances in the ways they were chosen and moved as pawns over long periods of time into positions where their only reactions could be stunned surprise when they were accused of the murders.

It took Pepper many years to piece together the essential truths, once he and Reverend Ralph Abernathy, Dr. King’s associate, interviewed Ray in prison in 1978.  The first giveaway that something was seriously amiss came with the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations’ report on the King assassination.  Led by Robert Blakey, suspect in his conduct of the other assassination inquiries, who had replaced Richard Sprague, who was deemed to be too independent, “this multi-million-dollar investigation ignored or denied all evidence that raised the possibility that James Earl Ray was innocent,” and that government forces might be involved.  Pepper lists in his book over twenty such omissions that rival the absurdities of the magical thinking of the Warren Commission. The HSCA report became the template “for all subsequent disinformation in print and visual examinations of this case” for the past forty-two years.

Blocked at every turn by the authorities and unable to get Ray a trial, Pepper arranged an unscripted, mock TV trial that aired on April 4, 1993, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the assassination.  Jurors were selected from a pool of U.S. citizens, a former U.S. Attorney and a federal judge served as prosecutor and judge, with Pepper serving as defense attorney.  He presented extensive evidence clearly showing that authorities had withdrawn all security for King; that the state’s chief witness was falling down drunk; that the alleged bathroom sniper’s nest was empty right before the shot was fired; that three eyewitnesses, including the New York Times’ Earl Caldwell, said that the shot came from the bushes behind the rooming house; and that two eyewitnesses saw Ray drive away in his white Mustang before the shooting, etc.  The prosecution’s feeble case was rejected by the jury that found Ray not guilty.

As with all Pepper’s work on the case, the mainstream media responded with silence.  And though this was only a TV trial, increasing evidence emerged that the owner of Jim’s Grill, Loyd Jowers, was deeply involved in the assassination.  Pepper dug deeper, and on December 16, 1993, Loyd Jowers appeared on ABC’s Primetime Live that aired nationwide.  Pepper writes:

Loyd Jowers cleared James Earl Ray, saying that he did not shoot MLK but that he, Jowers, had hired a shooter after he was approached by Memphis produce man Frank Liberto and paid $100,000 to facilitate the assassination.  He also said that he had been visited by a man named Raul who delivered a rifle and asked him to hold it until arrangements were finalized …. The morning after the Primetime Live broadcast there was no coverage of the previous night’s program, not even on ABC …. Here was a confession, on prime-time television, to involvement in one of the most heinous crimes in the history of the Republic, and virtually no American mass-media coverage.

In the twenty-eight years since that confession, Pepper has worked tirelessly on the case and has uncovered a plethora of additional evidence that refutes the government’s claims and indicts it and the media for a continuing cover-up.  The evidence he has gathered, detailed and documented in An Act of State and  The Plot to Kill King, proves that Martin Luther King was killed by a conspiracy masterminded by the U.S. government.  The foundation of his case proving that was presented at the 1999 trial, while other supporting documentation was subsequently discovered.

Since the names and details involved make clear that, as with the murders of JFK and RFK, the conspiracy was very sophisticated with many moving parts organized at the highest level, I will just highlight a few of his findings in what follows.

  • Pepper refutes the government and proves, through multiple witnesses, telephonic, and photographic evidence, that Raul existed; that his full name is Raul Coelho and that he was James Earl Ray’s intelligence handler, who provided him with money and instructions from their first meeting in the Neptune Bar in Montreal, where Ray had fled in 1967 after his prison escape, until the day of the assassination.  It was Raul who instructed Ray to return from Canada to the U.S. (an act that makes no sense for an escaped prisoner who had fled the country), gave him money for the white Mustang, helped him attain travel documents, and moved him around the country like a pawn on a chess board. The parallels to Lee Harvey Oswald are startling.
  • He presents the case of Donald Wilson, a former FBI agent working out of the Atlanta office in 1968, who went with a senior colleague to check out an abandoned white Mustang with Alabama plates (Ray’s car, to which Raul had a set of keys) and opened the passenger door to find that an envelope and some papers fell out onto the ground. Thinking he may have disturbed a crime scene, the nervous Wilson pocketed them.  Later, when he read them, their explosive content intuitively told him that if he gave them to his superiors they would be destroyed.  One piece was a torn-out page from a 1963 Dallas telephone directory with the name Raul written at the top, and the letter “J” with a Dallas telephone number for a club run by Jack Ruby, Oswald’s killer. The page was for the letter H and had numerous phone numbers for H. L. Hunt, Dallas oil billionaire and a friend of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.  Both men hated MLK. The second sheet contained Raul’s name and a list of names and sums and dates for payment.  On the third sheet was written the telephone number and extension for the Atlanta FBI office. (Read James W. Douglass’s important interview with Donald Wilson in The Assassinations, pp.479-491.)
  • Pepper shows that the alias Ray was given and used from July 1967 until April 4, 1968 – Eric Galt – was the name of a Toronto U.S. Army Intelligence operative, Eric St. Vincent Galt, who worked for Union Carbide with Top Secret clearance. The warehouse at the Canadian Union Carbide Plant in Toronto that Galt supervised “housed a top-secret munitions project funded jointly by the CIA, the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center, and the Army Electronics Research and Development Command …. In August 1967, Galt met with Major Robert M. Collins, a top aide to the head of the 902nd Military Intelligence Group (MIG), Colonel John Downie.”  Downie selected four members for an Alpha 184 Sniper Unit that was sent to Memphis to back up the primary assassin of MLK.  Meanwhile, Ray, set up as the scapegoat, was able to move about freely since he was protected by the pseudonymous NSA clearance for Eric Galt.
  • To refute the government’s claim that Ray and his brother robbed the Alton, Illinois Bankto finance his travels and car purchase (therefore no Raul existed), Pepper “called the sheriff in Alton and the president of the bank; they gave the same statement. The Ray brothers had nothing to do with the robbery.  No one from the HSCA, the FBI, or The New York Times had sought their opinion.”  CNN later reiterated the media falsehood that became part of the official false story.
  • Pepper shows that the fatal shot came from the bushes behind Jim’s Grill and the rooming house, not from the bathroom window. He presents overwhelming evidence for this, showing that the government’s claim, based on the testimony on a severely drunk Charlie Stephens, was absurd. His evidence includes the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses and that of Loyd Jowers (a nine-and-a-half-hour deposition), the owner of Jim’s Grill, who said he joined another person in the bushes, and after the shot was fired to kill King, he brought the rifle back into the Grill through the back door. Thus, Ray was not the assassin.
  • He presents conclusive evidence that the bushes were cut down the morning after the assassination in an attempt to corrupt the crime scene. The order to do so came from Memphis Police Department Inspector Sam Evans to Maynard Stiles, a senior administrator of the Memphis Department of Public Works.
  • He shows how King’s room was moved from a safe interior room, 201, to balcony room, 306, on the upper floor; how King was conveniently positioned alone on the balcony by members of his own entourage for the easy mortal head shot from the bushes across the street. (Many people only remember the iconic photograph taken after-the-fact with Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, et al., standing over the fallen King and pointing across the street.)  He uncovers the role of black Memphis Police Department Domestic Intelligence and military intelligence agent Marrell McCollough, attached to the 111thMIG, within the entourage.  McCollough can be seen kneeling over the fallen King, checking to see if he’s dead.  McCollough officially joined the CIA in 1974 (see Douglass Valentine’s “Deconstructing Kowalski: The DOJ’s Strange MLK Report”)
  • Pepper confirms that all of this, including that the assassin in the bushes was dutifully photographed by Army Intelligence agents situated on the nearby Fire House roof.
  • He presents evidence that all security for Dr. King was withdrawn from the area by the Memphis Police Department, including a special security unit of black officers, and four tactical police units. A black detective at the nearby fire station, Ed Redditt, was withdrawn from his post on the afternoon of April 4th, allegedly because of a death threat against him.  And the only two black firemen at Fire Station No. 2 were transferred to another station.
  • He confirms the presence of “Operation Detachment Alpha 184 team,” a Special Forces sniper team in civilian disguise at locations high above the Lorraine Motel balcony, and he names one soldier, John D. Hill, as part of Alpha 184 and another military team, Selma Twentieth SFG, that was in Memphis.
  • He explains the use of two white mustangs in the operation to frame Ray.
  • He proves that Ray had driven off before the shooting; that Lloyd Jowers took the rifle from the shooter who was in the bushes; that the Memphis police were working in close collaboration with the FBI, Army Intelligence, and the “Dixie Mafia,” particularly local produce dealer Frank Liberto and his New Orleans associate Carlos Marcello; and that every aspect of the government’s case was filled with holes that any person familiar with the details and possessing elementary logical abilities could refute.
  • So importantly, Pepper shows how the mainstream media and government flacks have spent years covering up the truth of MLK’s murder through lies and disinformation, just as they have done with the Kennedy and Malcom X assassinations that are of a piece with this one.

There is such a mass of evidence through depositions, documents, interviews, photographs, etc. in Pepper’s An Act of State and The Plot to Kill King that makes it abundantly clear that the official explanation that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King is false and that there was a conspiracy to assassinate him that involved the FBI and other government agencies. Only those inoculated against the truth can ignore such evidence and continue to believe the official version.

Martin Luther King was a transmitter of a radical non-violent spiritual and political energy so plenipotent that his very existence was a threat to an established order based on institutionalized violence, racism, and economic exploitation.  He was a very dangerous man to the U.S. government and all the institutional and deep state forces armed against him.

Revolutionaries are, of course, anathema to the power elites who, with all their might, resist such rebels’ efforts to transform society. If they can’t buy them off, they knock them off.  Fifty-three years after King’s assassination, the causes he fought for – civil rights, the end to U.S. wars of aggression, and economic justice for all – remain not only unfulfilled, but have worsened in so many respects.

They will not be resolved until this nation decides to confront the truth of why and by whom he was killed.

For the government that honors Dr. King with a national holiday killed him. This is the suppressed truth behind the highly promoted MLK Day of service.  It is what you are not supposed to know.

But it is what we need to know in order to resurrect his spirit in us, so we can carry on his mission and emulate his witness.

The time is now.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

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

He is the author of the new book: https://www.claritypress.com/product/seeking-truth-in-a-country-of-lies/

Notes

[1] As quoted in James W. Douglass, The Non-Violent Cross, New York, 1968, p. 57

[2] See “50 Years Ago: Riverside Church and MLK’s Final Year of Experiments With Truth,” David Ratcliffe, rat haus reality press, 4 April 2017

A significant moment in Dr. King’s odyssey occurred on 14 January 1967 when he first saw a photographic essay by William Pepper about the children of Vietnam. Initially, while he hadn’t had a chance to read the text, it was the photographs that stopped him. Bernard Lee, who was present at the time, never forgot Martin King’s shock as he looked at photographs of young napalm victims: “Martin had known about the [Vietnam] war before then, of course, and had spoken out against it. But it was then that he decided to commit himself to oppose it.” The truth force in these photographs led directly to Dr. King’s Riverside Church exhortation in April.

See “The Truth of The Children of Vietnam: A Way of Liberation – How Will We Challenge Militarism, Racism, and Extreme Materialism?, David Ratcliffe, rat haus reality press, 30 November 2017

[3] Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Case Study, US Senate, Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (“Church Committee”), Final Report – Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, 23 April 1976, pp. 79-184

[4] “MLK’s speech attracted FBI’s intense attention,” Tony Capaccio, Washington Post, 27 August 2013

[5] “What an Uncensored Letter to M.L.K. Reveals,” Beverly Gage, New York Times, 11 November 2014

[6] “Army feared King, secretly watched him, Spying on blacks started 75 years ago,” Stephen G. Tompkins, The Commercial Appeal, 21 March 1993

[7] An overview of the trial with links back into the court transcript is “The Martin Luther King Conspiracy Exposed in Memphis,” Jim Douglass, Probe Magazine, Spring 2000. Apart from the courtroom participants, Douglass was one of only two people who attended the entire thirty-day trial.

[8] See Transcript of the King Family Press Conference on the Martin Luther King Assassination Conspiracy Trial Verdict, Atlanta, Georgia, 9 December 1999

Many thanks to my dear friends Dave Ratcliffe and Jim Douglass for all their help.

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 news that has somehow remained entirely unreported in the United States, Dr Anthony Fauci seems to have inked his first gig outside of U.S. Government Health, where he is reportedly still taking a salary.

According to several Italian press reports, Fauci has agreed to serve in a consulting capacity to a newly created “anti-pandemic” bio lab, which is being run by a high-level Italian scientist and longtime pharmaceutical executive.

Italy’s ANSA news wire service reports:

“American immunologist Anthony Fauci has agreed to act in an informal capacity as a strategic advisor to Rino Rappuoli, scientific director of the Biotecnopolo biotech hub in Siena, an institution founded by the Ministries of the University, Health, Economy and Industry with the aim of focusing on applied research in biotechnologies and life sciences, the Fondazione Biotecnopolo announced this week.”

The news was also reported by Italy’s L’Eco di Bergamo and others, but there seems to be no reports on the matter outside of the country.

Biotecnopolo, the newfound bio lab that is funded by the Italian government, is self-described as “an anti-pandemic hub with a particular focus on the development and production of vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of emerging epidemic-pandemic pathologies.”

Rome has already committed hundreds of millions of Euros to the noticeably below the radar state-backed project.

Fondazione Biotecnopolo di Siena website

In a press release, a board member declared that Fauci’s new role will be “a fundamental step towards making the Biotecnopolo the Italian hub for the research, study and prevention of pandemics”.

Fauci has not released a statement on the matter. Dr Rappuoli did not reply to a request for comment.

It still remains unclear why Fauci, a lifelong American government bureaucrat, has decided to become a consultant for an entity funded by the Italian government. On several occasions, he has spoken highly about his Italian heritage. In 2020, the Italian government awarded him with the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic.

Italy and the United States share a lot when it comes to the humanitarian catastrophes our governments imposed in the name of a virus. Dr. Fauci, campaigned for coronavirus lockdowns that modeled after Italy’s response. What remained unspoken was that Italy got the idea for its brutal lockdowns from China. Both Fauci and Dr Deborah Birx, his longtime mentee, remained committed to the Italian model for several years, declaring Italy as the gold standard for “the measures.”

Moreover, Fauci’s new “informal” relationship with Dr Rappuoli should raise some eyebrows.

Before becoming the chief scientist for the new bio lab, Dr Rappuoli was the head of vaccine research and development at GSK, the Big Pharma behemoth formerly known as GlaxoSmithKline. He is also the Professor of Vaccines Research at Imperial College, London, the home of the infamous computer model simulations that helped to launch the coronavirus hysteria.

GSK is known for record setting fraudulent activity. In 2012, GSK agreed to pay a $3 billion settlement to the U.S. government, breaking Pfizer’s record for the largest health-care fraud settlement for a drugmaker in U.S. history.

Last year, Fauci spoke at a conference organized by GSK on the “role of vaccines in protecting people and the planet.”

So Fauci has now linked up with Big Pharma heavyweights and he’s an advisor for a clandestine bio lab project being financed by the Italian government. What could possibly go wrong?

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fauci Quietly Begins Advising Mysterious Overseas ‘Anti-pandemic’ Bio Lab
  • 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 order to become a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, Ukraine must win the war as a sovereign, independent state, as well as make a successful transition from Soviet doctrines and standards to Western ones, which is included in a multi-year assistance program.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said this at a press conference in Brussels following the meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers, an Ukrinform correspondent reports.

“NATO’s position is that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance, and that position has not changed. But we know that there are at least two things you need to address to make that possible. One is that we need to ensure that Ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent nation. Of course, any meaningful discussion about Ukraine as a member of the Alliance has to be based on that Ukraine is a democratic, independent nation in Europe. And that’s exactly what is now challenged, or threatened by the brutal Russian invasion,” Stoltenberg said.

According to him, the first step, the basic requirement is to provide military support to Ukraine so that Russian President Putin doesn’t win his war of aggression.

“The second thing we need to address is that when this war ends and Ukraine prevails, then, of course, we need to ensure that we have the highest level of interoperability, that Ukraine is able to move from Soviet era standards, doctrines, ways of operating their armed forces. This transition has started, but we need more, and we need to implement it quicker,” the NATO secretary general said.

According to him, the difference between the current support that NATO Allies are providing to Ukraine is to meet immediate needs. He said that Allies are providing, of course, weapons, military support, and a lot of non-lethal support. And this program is more long-term perspective, the NATO chief stressed.

“That is about building the institutions, helping with the transition, the interoperability, the standards, the doctrines – all of these things that we need to have in place, also to move towards membership,” Stoltenberg said.

*

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 Stop the War

The Factors of Soft Power’s Influence on Politics

April 7th, 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.

***

It is already at least two last decades worldwide recognized that soft power became an extremely significant instrument in both politics and diplomacy in the hands of many states but especially those whom we can call as great powers as they are the most influential on global politics and international relations. However, the crucial question arises: What are the focal factors which directly contribute to the increasing impact of soft power in contemporary diplomacy and consequently international relations? Among many such factors, there will be presented the top three concerning their importance of influence.

Top first factor. As the crucial factor, it can be marked the possession of nuclear power that is potentially making a major war which is unpredictable concerning its results and, therefore in essence, unlikely among global great powers.

The point is that with the proliferation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, human beings profoundly experienced the horror of wars, and state authorities at the same time realized that it is increasingly difficult to achieve main or even any political goals by using only military power or by threatening to use it.[i] Nevertheless, it does not mean that military power no longer is effective, but as a matter of fact its real effects became significantly reduced and undermined in post-WWII international relations and global politics.

Another point of reality is that even though a state can in some cases conquer and occupy another state by the use of military force, it became an obvious problem of the successful ruling over the occupied territory, for instance, clearly shown in the case of the US “War on Terror” in Afghanistan (2001−2021). In addition, there is the prevailing global ethos of non-violence in international relations which has at least some influence on the reduction of the real possibility of using military power especially hard (nuclear) power in order to reach certain geopolitical or other goals. For that reason, for instance, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) came into force in 1970 and became extended indefinitely in 1995.[ii]

Finally, concerning the question of costs, the use of certain economic, cultural, and other non-military means in the form of soft power to achieve what the state’s authorities want is more effective and viable compared to the classic way of coercive pressure and action. Consequently, and therefore, many states simply prefer to use soft power but not traditional hard power.

Top second factor. The second factor of the popularity and importance of the use of soft power is the popularization of advanced education for the very reason that in many global cases, such education is making very favorable conditions for the use of soft power for the realization of certain aims.[iii] With the extension of advanced education and the rise of literacy rates from the global perspective, it became much easier for the select public and not just elites to access information and, therefore, propaganda. To remind ourselves, in a traditional society, both information and knowledge are more or less monopolized and controlled by certain small groups (it can be, for instance, by religious authorities). However, the civilizational progress of advanced education and information technology was crucially destroying the monopoly on information and, therefore, education and knowledge.

Education is one of the most effective ways to produce and promote soft power. People with advanced education are, in general, more inclined to accept rational knowledge through their own judgment process but as well as attractively packed political-ideological propaganda of soft power as a result of the constant washing of brains by mass media. In principle, their ability to make choices between some suitable and unsuitable information enables people to accept more reasonable values, institutions, and ways of life according to their needs and beliefs based on certain knowledge. Nevertheless, it does not mean that by their own exercise of judgment select public always is making the best choices, but it is, in principle, desirable for them to be allowed to search themselves for better order and a better life.

In addition, together with the global process of democratization, it became very possible that domestic audiences by using their voting power will transform their vision into political reality and consequently force governments to accept their will. The promotion of advanced education, the increasing number of educated people according to the certain education system, and the loosening of social structures are making it possible across the globe that soft power via education and propaganda can produce better political-ideological results than direct use of hard power.

Top third factor. The third factor is the strong, penetrating, and overwhelming influential power of information and knowledge in general but particularly today in the era of the Internet or Information Revolution Age (IRA). Historically, at the time of the Middle Ages, a human could be promoted to the rank of professor just because of his/her exclusive monopoly of a book. To make a comparison, today just in China, for instance, there are more than seven billion published books.

For sure, information and knowledge flow more easily and quickly than weapons, and people’s ways of thinking and practical actions are finally influenced by the information and knowledge to which they have access. A state’s authorities in certain cases can exclude the physical way of influence, like coercive intervention and trade limitations (quotas), but on another side, it is at least in practice highly unlikely to reject the spread and penetration of public information. This is one of the reasons why the mass media and information industry, in general, have extreme power of influence in contemporary societies across the world.

Among the mediators of information and knowledge, it has to be stressed clearly that global television and the Internet are two of the focally effective instruments that each state prefers to use for the sake of promoting their own ideas and norms. In essence, both instruments are crucial to the use of soft power. As for very good examples, we can name the BBC and CNN as definitely two globally the most influential TV stations in the current post-Cold War mass media order. However, the bipolar mass media system became challenged by the existence of mediators from several emerging market countries, for instance, the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite television, Russian Sputnik and Russia Today, or China’s CCTV International Channel. Significantly, today the Chinese Xinhua News Agency is calling for fair global media order.

In an age of growing turbo-globalization, the capacity of some countries to organize information and effective communication can prove more relevant for its accumulation of soft power. As a matter of fact, the world after 1990 appears to be “flat” rather than a “pyramidal” hierarchical system of bureaucracy. Structural power based on a hierarchy system has become largely ineffective with the rapid horizontal diffusion of both information and knowledge based on it. Moreover, the social organizational structure has been forced to adapt to the flat situation, which makes the use of penetrating soft power easier than that of physical hard power.

Knowledge is an asset and a source of soft power for all countries. A country’s soft power is highly dependent on its ability to provide thinking and knowledge to its citizens and in some cases the rest of the world. What is of focal importance to remember, historically, the center of knowledge and propaganda is at the same time the center of diffusion of soft power!

The production of soft power is as well as highly related to opinion leaders. It has to be stressed that opinion leaders’ power is originating from their credibility, reliability, and resolution of public affairs. In traditional societies, opinion leaders based on their religious duties had great power in affecting the opinion and thinking of the people and, therefore, their behavior.

*

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.

Notes

[i] The term nuclear proliferation is specifically referring to the spread of nuclear weapons, and, in a more general sense of meaning to the spread of nuclear technology and knowledge that might be put to military use. Nevertheless, if we talk about proliferation, the most concern is given to its horizontal feature what practically means the spread of nuclear weapons to states not yet possessing them. On contrary, the vertical proliferation is one regarding the increase in numbers or dispersion of nuclear weapons by nuclear weapons states. However, the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons became less regarding since the winding down of the superpower arms race, although slow disarmament is of concern to non-nuclear states.

Nuclear proliferation is, in principle, controlled by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT recognizes five great powers nuclear states but, nevertheless, some states are still outside the NPT having developed nuclear capabilities. Increasingly, the prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist organizations (for instance, al-Qaeda), is creating real concern by the international community. Nevertheless, nuclear proliferation is globally regarded to be, in fact, a problem for the very reason of the fear that it will increase the probability of nuclear weapons being used.

There are those experts in international relations who claim that nuclear proliferation could enhance the level of international security by the policy of spreading the paralyzing effects of deterrence in regions that otherwise have a high probability of recurrent conventional war. Because of the close links between civil and military nuclear technology, many states are able to reduce the time necessary to acquire a nuclear weapon by acquiring a range of nuclear technologies for civil purposes. As a matter of fact, there are already several states which achieved the so-called “threshold status” in which they either have unannounced nuclear weapon capabilities or could develop them extremely quickly if necessary.

[ii] It has to be noted that the NPT has two types of signatories: 1) The states that had tested nuclear weapons before 1967 or Nuclear Weapons States (NWS-China, France, Russia, the USA, and the UK); and 2) Non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). Nevertheless, according to the NPT, NWS keep their nuclear weapons in the short term but commit to disarmament. As well as, they may not assist other states to acquire nuclear weapons. NNWS commit never to receive or develop nuclear weapons, and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections to verify this commitment. However, this commitment is not forbidding them to develop nuclear energy capabilities – i.e., nuclear capabilities for civil purposes.

In practice, NNWS are very dissatisfied with the bloc of countries called NWS within the NPT for the reason of slow progress in their nuclear disarmament according to the treaty. The NPT has 187 signatories but four states still did not sign it: Israel, Cuba, Pakistan, and India. North Korea withdrew in 2003 from NPT. With regard to nuclear tests in 1998 by Pakistan and India as well as a real nuclear weapon capability of Israel, this is continuing to diminish the success of NPT and causes security concerns for NNWS. The same can be said regarding North Korea’s withdrawal and later nuclear weapons testing as all of such cases are diminishing belief in the effectiveness of the NPT.

[iii] Education is today a major industry in all G7 countries and becoming such in several emerging markets states. During the last 30 years, an increasing proportion of people have obtained high school certificates, followed by advanced professional degrees. Nevertheless, education became a social institution and, therefore, very proper to reach the fundamental goals using soft power within the framework of education. Nevertheless, like with other social institutions, education has both manifest (open, stated, or official) and latent (unofficial, hidden). For sure, the focal manifest function of education is the transmission of knowledge. In other words, schools are teaching students how to read, speak, foreign languages, or do some practical work, etc. However, education has another important manifest: bestowing status. In addition to these manifest functions, schools perform a number of latent functions like transmitting culture and cultural values, promoting certain social and/or political ideas, maintaining social control, or serving as agents of change. Therefore, these latent functions of schools and education are, in fact, the fundamental framework for the promulgation of soft power.

Nevertheless, education as a social institution is performing one very significant function – transmitting the dominant culture. The school system is exposing each generation of young people to the existing official norms, beliefs, standards, and values of certain cultures but usually of the majority group. In many multicultural, multiconfessional, or multiethnic societies, there are two underlying questions raised concerning the education system: 1) Which ideas and values have to be fundamental for instruction?; and 2) Which culture should be transmitted by the schools and universities?

Education in many countries is directly serving the latent function of promoting social and political integration by transforming a population composed of diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups into a society whose members share. To some extent, for instance, a common identity based on some principles including pure political as citizenship. The school system in many countries like the USA traditionally has been playing a significant function in socializing the kids of immigrants into the values, norms, and beliefs of the dominant culture – the culture of the majority population. The idea behind such practice is that the common identity and social integration backed by education is fostering societal stability and consensus. In other words, the importance of education from a very sociological point of view is that education, and particularly by learning history, students gain an understanding of the common values in society, uniting a multitude of separate individuals. These common values usually include religious and moral beliefs and a sense of self-discipline. Therefore, education as soft power enables students to internalize the social rules and cultural values that contribute to the functioning of society but in many cases and realization of certain political aims.

However, every contemporary education system has the inhibiting effect that is especially apparent in the so-called “hidden curriculum” which is functioning more or less as soft power. In practice, the school system is very bureaucratic and the majority of the teachers rely on the official rules and regulations of schools in order to maintain order. The need for both control and discipline in many cases is taking precedence over the learning process. However, if teachers are focusing on obedience to the rules and official values promoted by the society and/or state, both students and teachers are, in fact, becoming, victims of the “hidden curriculum” or to the standards of behavior that are deemed proper by society and are taught subtly in schools. A proper education system is the dynamic of innovation and, therefore, it is contributing to the production of new knowledge, which is a necessary requirement for the use of it as soft power. For instance, the US is using its system of education for international students as an instrument of political-ideological soft power to promote American values. However, there is no direct implications that these international students will accept pro-American attitudes and values when they graduate and (if) return to their home countries, but they are really a force that must not be ignored in the process of promoting the US (sub)culture, attitudes, and values.

Finally, the popularization of certain languages is usually regarded as a highly favorable instrument for the accumulation of soft power. Historically, since Ch. Columbus’ discovering of America in 1492, the Spanish language was extremely useful in Europe as a language of commerce. The French language as lingua franca was an international language of both diplomacy and law; while after WWII English language became a global language in international communication in general. Today, the English is an official language (or one of the official languages) in 45 states around the world followed by the fact that 1/3 of the world’s population is speaking English. Consequently, today, English language is a lingua franca of the world. On another side, more than 1.4 billion people (some 1/5 of the world’s population) is speaking Chinese as their mother tongue but the majority of Chinese speakers are living in China and, therefore, the internationalization of the Chinese language as soft power’s instrument does not, actually, compare to that role of English or French. Nevertheless, it is clear that language and soft power are mutually reinforcing each other existing in a cause-and-effect relationship. In one word, the popularization of certain languages can be very beneficial to the accumulation and/or extension of soft power in the areas of politics, culture, and ideology.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Factors of Soft Power’s Influence on Politics
  • 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.

***

German investigators are now expressing severe doubts about the official Nord Stream sabotage narrative that was pushed hard in the aftermath the bombshell Seymour Hersh report which pointed the finger at a joint CIA-US Navy covert operation, with help from Norway. Last month, Hersh published an article on Substack that said the CIA planted a cover story for the Nord Stream bombings that was fed to The New York Times and the German newspaper Die Zeit. Likely this was in direct reaction to Hersh’s findings. A source within the US intelligence community told the famed Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, “It was a total fabrication by American intelligence that was passed along to the Germans, and aimed at discrediting your story.”

The favored narrative became one that said pro-Ukraine partisans did it in a rogue op. Hersh has maintained this was by design concocted in order to shield the US and Biden administration for ordering the operation. The Die Zeit report cited German officials to assert that the pipeline sabotage bombings were carried out by six people using a yacht rented in Poland that was owned by two Ukrainians. In the days that followed, several Western media outlets seized on that narrative and published similar articles reinforcing the cover story.

But now a fresh, lengthy investigative Washington Post story published Monday is actually confirming many of Hersh’s conclusions. Indeed the ‘cover story’ is already fast unraveling. What’s more is that the WaPo article bluntly states Western officials are not at all eager to talk about the Nord Stream sabotage, suggesting a continued cover-up in progress, or in effect a limited hangout. Also very telling is that Western accusations directed at Russia have long ago quieted down. 

Below are some surprising and damning excerpts from the WaPo report – again which reveal a dramatic narrative shift once again in progress… [emphasis ours]

***

Doubts about the suspicious sailboat and the ability of any entity without the direct backing of a government (which has the resources and means) to be able to pull it off:

But after months of investigation, law enforcement officials now suspect that the 50-foot yacht, the Andromeda,was probably not the only vessel used in the audacious attack. They also say the boat may have been a decoy, put to sea to distract from the true perpetrators, who remain at large, according to officials with knowledge of an investigation led by Germany’s attorney general. 

…Experts noted that while it was theoretically possible to place the explosives on the pipeline by hand, even skilled divers would be challenged submerging more than 200 feet to the seabed and slowly rising to the surface to allow time for their bodies to decompress.

More on the sailboat as “decoy” – and ‘evidence’ which seems planted and overly obvious:

The German investigation has determined that traces of “military-grade” explosives found on a table inside the boat’s cabin match the batch of explosives used on the pipeline. Several officials doubted that skilled saboteurs would leave such glaring evidence of their guilt behind. They wonder if the explosive traces — collected months after the rented boat was returned to its owners — were meant to falsely lead investigators to the Andromeda as the vessel used in the attack.

“The question is whether the story with the sailboat is something to distract or only part of the picture,” said one person with knowledge of the investigation.

Polish and Ukrainian state connections?

The German investigation has linked the yacht rental to a Polish company, which is in turn owned by a European company that’s connected to a prominent Ukrainian, fueling speculation from Berlin to Warsaw to Kyiv that a deep-pocketed partisan may have financed the operation. The identity of the Polish company and the Ukrainian individual, as well as his potential motive, remains unclear.

Based on the initial German findings, officials have been whispering about the potential involvement of the Polish or Ukrainian government in the attack.

Secretive “tips” given to German investigators which were suspiciously concrete: 

As the Nord Stream mystery has turned into an international game of Clue, German investigators have scoured the Andromeda for leads. Officials first became interested in the vessel after the country’s domestic intelligence agency [Germany] received a “very concrete tip” from a Western intelligence service that the boat may have been involved in the sabotage, according to a German security official, who declined to name the country that shared the information.

Andromeda’s whereabouts and past stopovers left a virtual “trail of breadcrumbs” that were a bit too obvious:

Mola Yachting rented out the boat on Sept. 6 from Hohe Düne harbor in Warnemünde, a German port town on the Baltic, near Rostock, which is about 145 miles north of Berlin. The rental location is in plain sight of a huge vacation complex, home to a five-star hotel, seven restaurants and a high-end shopping area, with views across the harbor.

Investigators said the boat then traveled in a northeasterly direction, stopping in Hafendorf Wiek, or “Wiek harbor village,” on the northernmost part of Rügen island.

…A stop in Hafendork Wiek may have offered the Andromeda’s crew a final chance to stock up on supplies before heading to the explosion site.

“Lots of things are loaded on the boats … including groceries,” Redmann said. “Some people stop to tank up on fuel.” Redmann would not confirm that the Andromeda stopped there, citing the continuing law enforcement investigation.

Crucially, the WaPo report features a very telling subheading: ‘Don’t talk about Nord Stream’:

For all the intrigue around who bombed the pipeline, some Western officials are not so eager to find out.

At gatherings of European and NATO policymakers, officials have settled into a rhythm, said one senior European diplomat: “Don’t talk about Nord Stream.” Leaders see little benefit from digging too deeply and finding an uncomfortable answer, the diplomat said, echoing sentiments of several peers in other countries who said they would rather not have to deal with the possibility that Ukraine or allies were involved.

Incentives not to “talk” as well as self-willed ignorance:

Since no country is yet ruled out from having carried out the attack, officials said they were loath to share suspicions that could accidentally anger a friendly government that might have had a hand in bombing Nord Stream.

In the absence of concrete clues, an awkward silence has prevailed.

“It’s like a corpse at a family gathering,” the European diplomat said, reaching for a grim analogy. Everyone can see there’s a body lying there, but pretends things are normal. “It’s better not to know.”

***

Once again, all of the above is more in line with what Hersh has reported from the beginning – and yet his detractors have remained just as fierce in their attacks and denunciations, despite his legendary track record of getting things right, from My Lai to Abu Ghraib to Syria.

*

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: The 50-foot-long charter yacht Andromeda at the center of the ‘pro-Ukraine’ partisans narrative. Image source: RTL/ntv

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Don’t Talk About Nord Stream”: WaPo Report Further Demolishes Official Narrative
  • 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.

***

On March 23, CEO of TikTok Shou Zi Chew testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee addressing concerns over the popular social media app’s data collection practices and parent company ByteDance’s alleged links to the Chinese government. Though TikTok is a subsidiary of ByteDance, which is based in Beijing, it operates as an independent entity. Chew has maintained the company has never shared user data with the Chinese government, and would refuse if pressed to do so. Still, the Congressional hearings amounted to nothing more than racist political theater, a McCarthyite witch trial, in which members of Congress who demonstrated little understanding of how basic social media algorithms—or even home Wi–Fi networks—work attempted to spuriously link Chew, who was born, raised, and currently lives in Singapore, to the Communist Party of China.

At one point during the hearings, Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona asks Chew, “Do you agree that the Chinese government is persecuting the Uyghur population?” to which a perplexed Chew firmly responds, “Congresswoman, I’m here to describe TikTok and what we do as a platform.”

Make no mistake: the TikTok hearings had nothing to do with the baseless threat of Chinese surveillance and everything to do with maintaining the dominance of U.S. capitalism. TikTok is the most popular and most frequently downloaded social media app worldwide, boasting 150 million users in the United States alone. The overall time users spend on TikTok now far exceeds some of its U.S. competitors, and it has been rapidly pulling digital advertising away from these same companies. 

The hearings were just the latest in the U.S. tech war against China—a key front in the new Cold War—and Silicon Valley has found as its ally rising anti-Chinese sentiment and, through the arm of the capitalist state, is weaponizing such Red Scare tactics to ensure tech dominance. This explains why the U.S. government is trying to force the sale of TikTok to a U.S. company, or ban it entirely, which would drive its users to U.S. competitors like Meta, Instagram Reels (owned by Meta), Snapchat, or YouTube Shorts.

Either way, Silicon Valley stands to benefit. And even if the U.S. government doesn’t go through with a TikTok ban, the spectacle of the hearings and fearmongering over Chinese surveillance was enough to drive up stocks for Meta and Snapchat.

Facebook’s war against TikTok

TikTok is especially popular among Gen Z, a key demographic which Facebook has almost completely lost. In order to regain this target age group, its parent company Meta has played an instrumental role in fanning the supposed dangers of its competitor. 

In 2022, The Washington Post uncovered internal emails revealing that Meta had hired consulting firm Targeted Victory to launch a nationwide lobbying and media campaign to eliminate its competitor by portraying it as a “danger to American children and society.” As part of this campaign, operatives were instructed to use TikTok as a way to divert attention and criticism away from Facebook’s own data collection practices. Other tactics included publicizing stories in local media about “dangerous teen trends” which had supposedly gone viral on TikTok (with many of them actually originating on Facebook) and writing op-eds and letters to the editor posing as concerned parents critical of TikTok to local newspapers. One such letter, published in The Denver Post from a “new parent” raised the concern about the Chinese government’s ability to access TikTok’s U.S. user data. “Many people even suspect China is deliberately collecting behavioral data on our kids (the Chinese government and TikTok deny that they share data),” it read. “We should all be alarmed at the grave consequences these privacy issues present.”

Of course, data privacy concerns are not unique to TikTok. Facebook itself surveils its users, using the location tracking feature to monitor user activity in order to better predict what type of targeted ads to show—this feature works even when the app is closed, constantly collecting information about the user. Facebook even appears to go as far as tracking text messages and phone calls and having the ability to access photos on user devices.

The issue lies not with individual apps themselves, but that Congress refuses to pass any kind of comprehensive privacy legislation regulating social media apps and protecting users from tech companies misusing their data. And the reason for this is that Silicon Valley represents a powerful political force in Washington: in 2021, the top seven tech companies spent over $70 million lobbying to fight legislation regulating the industry. These firms spent more money than other lobbying giants like the pharmaceuticals, oil, and gas industries. 

The previous year, in 2020, Meta alone had spent a record $20 million lobbying Congress, breaking its previous year’s record of $19 million. These are just a few of the bills Meta lobbied against within the past couple of years:

Along with data privacy legislation, Meta, along with other tech giants Amazon, Google, and Apple, have lobbied against bills promoting competition in the tech industry

It should also be noted that Meta is one of the top stocks owned by members of Congress.

Silicon Valley capital and the state

The issue of TikTok for the U.S. government is not one of national security or the CPC obtaining American user data—the issue is that the government itself wants access to that data and cannot strongarm ByteDance into handing it over like they can U.S. tech companies, who often comply with Justice Department officials when requested to release information. How often do U.S. government officials request data from these tech firms? According to The New York Times:

Google said that it received 39,500 requests in the United States over that period [in the first half of 2020], covering nearly 84,700 accounts, and that it turned over some data in 83 percent of the cases. Google did not break down the percentage of requests in which it turned over basic data versus content, but it said that 39 percent of the requests were subpoenas while half were search warrants.

Facebook said that it received 61,500 requests in the United States over the period, covering 106,100 accounts, and that it turned over some data to 88 percent of the requests. The company said it received 38,850 warrants and complied with 89 percent of them over the period, and 10,250 subpoenas and complied with 85 percent.

This reveals the mutually beneficial relationship here between tech companies and the U.S. government: the state protects the interests of Silicon Valley capital, and in return, Big Tech complies with its data requests.

CPC “brainwashing” and “cognitive warfare”

Aside from the fearmongering around granting the CPC ability to access U.S. user data, another narrative pushed during the lead up to, and immediately following, the Congressional hearings was that TikTok is part of the CPC’s “cognitive warfare” psychological operations campaign to control Americans’ minds. This is an absurd accusation recycled from Red Scare propaganda from the last Cold War, in which the U.S. government incited fear among its citizens of Soviet and Chinese brainwashing

In a November 2022 interview, Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, tells 60 Minutes, “In [China’s] version of TikTok [Douyin], if you’re under 14 years old, they show you science experiments you can do at home, museum exhibits, patriotism videos, and educational videos. And they also limit it to only 40 minutes per day. Now they don’t ship that version of TikTok to the rest of the world. So it’s almost like they recognize that technology is influencing kids’ development, and they make their domestic version a spinach version of TikTok, while they ship the opium version to the rest of the world.”

Putting aside the extremely poor taste accusation about “digital opium”, considering China is a nation that lost two wars trying to put a stop to Europeans flooding its ports with real opium in the 1800s resulting in its “century of humiliation,” this is another case of imperialist media and its mouthpieces shifting the blame for American societal issues onto the CPC. TikTok and its Chinese counterpart Douyin show different kinds of videos, because unlike the U.S., the Chinese government regulates the content that children consume on social media apps—a move which U.S. politicians often decry as “authoritarian” overreach. Once again, the issue is one of lack of government regulation at the behest of Silicon Valley tech companies.

Despite this, members of the ruling class continued to parrot this Sinophobic propaganda point. “The algorithms that determine what you see on TikTok [are] determined out of Beijing by China,” claimed Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee Mark Warner in February. “If you look at what Chinese kids are seeing on their version of TikTok, which emphasizes science and engineering, versus what our kids and kids around the world are seeing, it is dramatically different. So both from a data collection, and from frankly, a propaganda tool, it is of huge concern.”

And during the Congressional hearings, when questioning Chew, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers accused TikTok’s algorithm of promoting suicide, drug use, self-harm, and eating disorders to children, while noting that this same type of content was banned on Douyin.

After the Congressional testimony, Rep. Mike Gallagher, chair of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, emphasized the imperative to take swift action against TikTok, proclaiming on ABC’s This Week, “It’s not just exfiltrating data from an American phone, it’s what they’re able to push to Americans through the algorithm—control our sense of reality, control the news, meddle in future elections.”

Unsurprisingly, the accusation that China is engaging in psychological warfare and “brainwashing,” like so many others, is another case of U.S. projection. The U.S. government has itself orchestrated disinformation campaigns on social media to promote “pro American narratives” in places like Iran, China, and Russia. In fact, as early as 2011, The Guardian reported that the US military had even contracted out the development of software to create internet personalities to influence online conversations to more easily spread pro-American propaganda, and it was again brought to light last year. And even more recently still, the release of the Twitter files earlier this year revealed the extent to which government agencies maintain close ties to online platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple, influencing online conversations to support the Saudi-led war on Yemen, pro-U.S. presence in Syria, and anti-Iran messaging in Iraq, among other propaganda campaigns.

And one shouldn’t forget that in 2010, the U.S. government funded the development of ZunZuneo in Cuba, a social media platform similar to Twitter, in order to promote political propaganda in the hopes of inciting a “Cuban Spring” youth revolt to topple the socialist government.

The U.S. seeks to eliminate economic competition

Like its ban on the sale and import of Chinese technology giant Huawei products to the U.S., the hysteria over TikTok has little to do with national security, and is instead rooted in fears over a Chinese company threatening U.S. dominance over the tech sector.

Not long ago, the U.S. ruling class was content to use China as a source of cheap labor and super profits, in exchange for American technological transfer. Now that China has begun to overcome its under-development and managed to build up its own tech sector, U.S. corporations seek to eliminate their economic competitor.

*

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: Screenshot of TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testifying before Congress on CSPAN.

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 March 30, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a partial win for Iran in a case alleging the illegal U.S. seizure of Iranian assets. The court found that the U.S. had seized certain Iranian assets in violation of a bilateral agreement signed by the two countries and ordered the U.S. to pay Iran compensation. However, the ICJ found that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue of Bank Markazi—Iran’s central bank and the most costly point of contention between the two parties, amounting to over $1.7 billion in assets.

Iran brought the case in 2016, alleging that U.S. courts had asserted jurisdiction over Iranian entities in violation of customary international law and the Treaty of Amity—a 1957 friendship agreement governing economic and consular relations between the two states. The U.S., for its part, had seized such assets through a mixture of executive orders, legislative measures, and court rulings and used it to compensate victims of terrorism, which it argued Iran facilitated. 

The ICJ found that the United States was in violation of the Treaty of Amity on four counts and ordered the U.S. to compensate Iran for harms experienced due to the violations. Exactly how much that compensation amounts to will be determined by the court in future proceedings. 

You can read the ICJ’s judgment in Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States) here or below:

Click here to read the full document.

*

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.

Hyemin Han is an associate editor of Lawfare. Previously, she worked in eviction defense and has interned on Capitol Hill and with the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. She holds a BA from Dartmouth College, where she was editor-in-chief of The Dartmouth independent daily.

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.

***

Donald Trump has long insisted that the Ukraine war would have never happened if he were still president, going so far as to blame the “rigged election” on Russia’s unprovoked invasion while claiming he had the magic words to stop the fighting “immediately.”

During a radio interview with Fox News host (and longtime confidant) Sean Hannity on Monday, the twice-impeached ex-president finally revealed how he personally would have prevented the war. According to Trump, all he needed to do was let Russia “take over” parts of Ukraine.

Saying that Russia was going for the “whole enchilada” with Joe Biden as president, Trump added that Russia “took over nothing” while he was in the White House because Russian President Vladimir Putin “understood” that “he would have never done it.”

Listen to the audio here or by clicking the image below.

The former president then added:

“That’s without even negotiating a deal. I could have negotiated. At worst, I could’ve made a deal to take over something, there are certain areas that are Russian-speaking areas, frankly, but you could’ve worked a deal.”

Later that evening, Hannity played excerpts of his “exclusive” interview with Trump on his primetime Fox News program, along with highlights of Trump’s bombastic speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Though Hannity aired the segment featuring the ex-president boasting that he could have stopped the war, he curiously omitted the portion where Trump revealed his plan.

Instead, shortly after Trump says, “I could have negotiated,” the audio quickly skips about 30 seconds of speaking time before picking back up where the former president pivots to his complaint that “China no longer respects the United States.”

View the video here or by clicking the image below.

Besides asserting that he would have stopped Russia from invading Ukraine by making a deal to let them “take over something,” Trump also said in the portion not aired by Fox that “so many more people are dying than is being reported” while reiterating this “would have never happened” under his watch.

In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly bragged that it would be “easy” to end the crisis, claiming that it would only take him a single day to reach a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. “We could end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours with the right leadership,” he’s declared.

And though it has still been months since he’s appeared on Fox News amid a reported “soft ban” by the conservative cable giant, last night’s Hannity segment did seem to represent a thawing of the currently tense relations between Trumpworld and Fox. Besides airing portions of Trump’s radio interview (Fox does not carry Hannity’s radio show), the network also broadcast Trump’s CPAC speech live this past weekend, despite largely ignoring the right-wing confab previously.

*

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.

Depleted Uranium Accident File Censored

April 7th, 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.

***

Details of the worst case scenario for an accident involving containers full of depleted uranium shells have been pulled from the National Archives by government censors.

The risk assessment’s removal from public view will add to concerns about the safety of Britain sending such a controversial weapon to Ukraine.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal produced as waste from nuclear power plants. 

Scientific debate continues about DU’s long-term risks to human health and the environment in post-conflict zones. 

In Iraq it has been blamed for birth defects and a spike in cancer cases.

When David Cameron was prime minister in 2011, he ruled out using depleted uranium for his Libyan regime change operation.

The British military insists any environmental risk from DU is low – and outweighed by the need to give Ukraine extremely dense 120mm shells to pierce Russian armour.

However, even within government there have long been concerns about its potential side-effects.

In 1981, the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment compiled a file titled: “Estimated consequences of the worst credible accident involving unit load containers filled with 120mm depleted uranium (DU) ammunition.”

It was declassified in 2015 and accessible to the public for the next three years at the National Archives in Kew, London. It is unclear who, if anyone, read it during that period.

The file was then reclassified in 2018 as part of a review of 100,000 files on radioactive material by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Around 67,000 of those files were returned to the public by 2021.

But the dossier on depleted uranium dangers is either still under review or has been selected for permanent censorship.

‘Transparency is critical’

David Cullen, director of the Nuclear Information Service, told Declassified:

“The reclassification of this document illustrates the dragnet approach taken by the MoD in removing historical nuclear files. We were told that these files were being assessed for information that could be of use to states that want to develop nuclear weapons.

“A risk assessment for DU ammunition, which is essentially repurposed nuclear waste, would not be of any practical use in nuclear weapons development. This lends credence to the view that many of the removed files just contain information that is inconvenient or embarrassing for the MoD.”

Doug Weir, an expert at the Conflict and Environment Observatory, commented:

“The MoD has historically sought to manage the public acceptability of DU through the selective interpretation of studies and research areas. 

“Transparency is critical to understanding the risks it can pose to civilians and service personnel; the 1991 Camp Doha fire is an example of how incidents involving DU stocks in theatre can generate exposure risks and demand major remediation efforts.”

The fire started in US ammunition stocks at an army base in Camp Doha, Kuwait, and damaged more than 600 120mm DU rounds.

The blaze caused $40m in damages and injured 56 people, including four British soldiers. During the clear up, three people were killed by unexploded ordnance, with troops having to stay upwind of the smoke and wear masks to avoid breathing hazardous DU dust. 

The Pentagon has denied supplying any of its own DU to Ukraine, although a US army instructor was present at a briefing Britain gave Ukrainian tank crews on the ammunition.

Russia also has DU shells but is not believed to have fired them yet in Ukraine, according to Britain’s armed forces minister.

An MoD spokesman said: “Alongside our granting of a squadron of Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine we will be providing ammunition, including armour piercing rounds which contain depleted uranium. Such rounds are highly effective in defeating modern tanks and armoured vehicles.”

He added: “The British Army has used depleted uranium in its armour piercing shells for decades. It is a standard component and has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or capabilities.”

The Atomic Weapons Establishment declined to comment.

The file’s description on the National Archives website

Escalation

Rishi Sunak’s decision to send Ukraine 14 tanks with DU rounds, which we revealed last month, sparked a furious reaction from Vladimir Putin.

The Kremlin said it escalated nuclear tensions with the West – despite the fact DU rounds are not atomic weapons – and used it to justify deploying ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons to Belarus.

The incident sparked a debate in the House of Lords on the supply of depleted uranium.

Lord Vernon Coaker, a defence spokesman for Labour, said Keir Starmer’s party “fully supports” supplying Ukraine with DU. 

But Conservative peer Richard Balfe said:

“The present times seem very much like 1913. Every few weeks, there is a ratcheting up of confrontation and no one has any apparent desire to end this and seek peace.”

He added:

“There are health hazards involved and the UN has looked at them. Is the Minister morally happy that we are now supplying depleted uranium shells to Ukraine? When will we begin a serious search for peace?”

Former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell expressed concern the ammunition “is likely to cause chemical toxicity, which can result in skin irritation and kidney failure.”

He went on to accuse Sunak’s government of having “handed Mr Putin an ill-founded but successful propaganda opportunity to claim falsely that the allies are seeking to introduce a nuclear element to the conflict”.

Kate Hudson from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament warned: “We are fast approaching the situation where a nuclear war will be fought in Europe.”

*

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: US troops run from an ammunition fire which damaged depleted uranium stockpiles in Kuwait. (Photo: US army)

Why the US Fears Arab Normalisation with Syria

April 7th, 2023 by Michael Jansen

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.

***

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticised US President Joe Biden for meddling in Israeli affairs by warning against the current extreme right-wing government’s plan to subjugate Israel’s supreme court to control by the Knesset.  This means subjecting the court to the authority of the government-of-the-day and its prime minister.  The court serves as the sole check on the legislative branch and the combination of political factions which gain the majority in the Knesset.

Biden belatedly and reluctantly expressed concern about the overhaul once hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets to protest, claiming curbing the Court would finish off Israel’s flawed democracy which Washington claims ties Israel to the US.  This claim is, of course, false, and hypocritical. Israel’s “democracy” does not form the intimate connection between Israel and the US. Israel’s constant meddling in US politics drives US policies on Israel, Palestine, and this region. The US Congress is so heavily dominated by pro-Israel politicians that critics refer to the US legislature as “Israeli-occupied territory”.  

This is why the Biden administration calls loudly upon Arab governments not to normalise relations with boycotted and sanctioned Syria. Last week, almost 40 US Syria experts and former officials urged the Biden administration to step up pressure on Arab governments to end reconciliation.  “Unconditional regime normalisation is not inevitable,” they wrote in a letter to Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. “Opposing regime normalisation in word only is not enough, as tacitly allowing it is short-sighted and damaging to any hope for regional security and stability.”  What do they want Biden to do: Slap sanctions on Jordan, the Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League?

It is bitterly ironic that these so-called “experts” in Syrian affairs should take this line since American meddling has been the main driver of regional insecurity and instability. Several of the figures who signed the letter have played roles in this destructive effort.

It is a joke to argue, as the letter does, that normalisation “erodes the international community’s capacity to shape a political process aimed at meaningfully resolving the crisis”. 

The authors call for “an alternative and actionable vision” for Syria.  It is too late for “regime change” because the government of President Bashar al-Assad has control of 70 per cent of the country and Russia and Iran are determined to defend his government from internal and external threats.

If Assad were to be ousted, Syria could collapse into fighting fiefdoms established by local warlords. This is precisely what happened when Western powers intervened to ouster Muammar Ghaddafi in Libya which is now a fractured country without overall control and two competing, squabbling governments.

The expatriate Syrian National Council/Coalition promoted by the West has never amounted a serious alternative as it has no support inside Syria. Northwest Idlib province is ruled by Al Qaeda offshoot Hay’ at Tahrir Al Sham (HTS) which enjoys the protection of Turkey. HTS sees Idlib as a base for exporting its ideology and sending adherents to this region and Europe.

While ignoring HTS and the dangers it poses, the US is determined to deploy its troops in northeast Syria, allegedly, to help the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces militia fight Daesh. 

This is the largest stretch of territory which is not under government control and amounts to 25 per cent of the country.  The US bases its troops around Syria’s main oilfields, depriving Syrians of energy supplies which could run power plants and provide fuel for industries and vehicles.  Syrians now have a few hours of electricity daily and petrol is rationed.  Prices of essential foods are soaring due to inflation and the fall in the value of Syria’s currency.

The US has slapped comprehensive sanctions on Syria, blocking reconstruction, driving 90 per cent of Syrians in the country below the poverty line, and depriving the current generation of Syrians of a decent future.  The US fears that Arab normalisation with Syria will undermine the sanctions regime and enable the country to begin to recover from years of warfare and degradation by sanctions. The US and its Western collaborators have learned nothing from the devastation wreaked by warfare and sanctions on Iraq between 1990-2003 and the mismanaged, corrupt and corrupting US occupation.

Following the February 6th massive earthquakes in Syria and Turkey, the US poured unconditional relief into Turkey, while the US Treasury issued waivers to allow some aid into Syria as long as it was tightly monitored to ensure all relief supplies reached quake victims. Turkey is a sometimes US ally, Syria is definitely not.

As soon as it became independent from French colonial rule in 1947, Washington saw Syria as an irritant. The US mounted its first coup in the Eastern Arab world in 1949 against President Shukri Al Kuwatli. He was overthrown by Husni Al Zaim who enjoyed backing of from US Central Intelligence Agency’s Miles Copeland and the then US ambassador in Syria. Kuwatly was seen by the US as too independent, particularly because he adopted a neutral posture in the Cold War between the US-led West and the Soviet Union and opposed the construction by US firms of the Trans-Arabian pipeline stretching from Saudi Arabia to south Lebanon.  Zaim approved the pipeline four days after he seized power. He was ousted six months later and executed. A series of military coups followed, undermining Syria’s early democracy and setting the stage for decades of military rule.

Kuwatly was elected president again in 1955 and served until 1958 when Syria joined the United Arab Republic (UAR) and Gamal Abel Nasser became president of Syria as well as of Egypt.  This was a worst-case scenario for Washington. Nasser fought Israel, promoted pan-Arab nationalism, founded the Non-Aligned Movement with Yugoslavia’s Tito and India’s Nehru, and depended on the Soviet Union for arms and military advisers. The UAR was dissolved in a September 1961 coup by Syrian business figures and military men who revolted against the leftist, socialist system imposed on Syria by Egypt.

The fall of the UAR was followed by seven coups d’état until Hafez Assad and the Baath Party took power in 1971 and ruled for 30 years. He and his son, Bashar Assad, who succeeded have irritated the US by adopting a pro-Soviet, pro-Russian orientation, opposing Israel, and maintaining ties with Iran’s clerical regime after the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, a US ally. Since unrest erupted in March 2011, The US has meddled in Syrian affairs by training anti-government militiamen (who failed to amount to much) and weaponising sanctions which have helped to drive 90 per cent of Syrians into poverty, deprived Syrians of food, fuel and medicine, and denied Syria investment and material to rebuild the country after years of warfare.

*

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: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s recent visit to UAE. (Source: Mideast Discourse)

Americans Must Choose. Gen. Douglas MacGregor

April 7th, 2023 by Douglas Macgregor

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.

***

Choosing war is the most important policy decision Washington makes on behalf of the American people. War profoundly affects the domestic economy, and the human carnage it creates is not limited to foreign soil. Yet, the last time American voters compelled a fundamental policy shift away from war was in 1968, when Nixon promised to end the Vietnam conflict and devise an honorable exit.

Once again, Americans must choose. Will Americans continue to support an escalating proxy war in Ukraine, a byproduct of Washington’s pursuit of global hegemony? Or will Americans demand that Washington defend America’s borders, maintain a republic that upholds the rule of law, respect the cultures and traditions of nations different from us, and trade freely with all nations, even as it protects America’s economic prosperity, its commerce, and its citizens? 

The American financial and economic system is at risk of failing catastrophically. And Ukraine is losing the fight with Russia. Unless Americans demand new directions in foreign policy now, as they did in 1968, they will surrender control over their lives and incomes to the Washington elite’s orgy of spending on a dangerous proxy war against Russia and the arbitrary exercise of state power against American citizens at home.

After World War II, the United States emerged with the world’s most dynamic and productive scientific-industrial base, a highly skilled labor force, and a culturally strong, cohesive society. By the time Dwight D. Eisenhower turned over the presidency to John F. Kennedy, there was no matter of strategic significance anywhere in the world over which the American superpower could not assert a decisive influence. American military power was everywhere.

Washington was enthralled with its ability to intervene at will in the affairs of nations and peoples that Americans had not previously encountered. Captivated by the illusion of limitless power, Presidents Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson wasted no time looking for opportunities to reshape the world in America’s image.

The Vietnam War sobered up the American electorate, but after America’s Cold War victory in 1991, presidents have blurred the distinctions between war and peace. In the resulting confusion, the reckless pursuit of global military hegemony and the moralizing internationalism that inspired intervention in Vietnam regained its old popularity.

Washington’s ruling class has ignored the top priority in all matters of national strategy: first and foremost, the enduring imperative to preserve American national power. As America’s leaders committed American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to endless interventions in Southeast Asia, the Caribbean Basin, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and sub-Saharan Africa, America’s share of global GDP fell from 40 percent in 1960 to roughly 24 percent in 2022.

American workers lost ground as U.S. multinational corporations cut their workforces and sent jobs to China and other parts of Asia. Virtually all the material benefits associated with economic growth in the last fifty years went to Americans in the upper half of the income distribution.

In a report called “Joint Operating Environment 2008,” the authors warned the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.” The report did not command the attention of the Obama administration and Washington’s current political elites seem no more interested today than they were in 2009. 

Against this backdrop of social, political, and economic decay, the president and Congress are effectively ignoring the disintegration of civil society in Mexico. Mexican drug cartels (with the assistance of enablers in Cuba and Venezuela) are not only invading America with impunity. The cartels are also exposing Americans to criminal violence in their own country.

Yet it is not the metastasizing cancer of criminality on the Rio Grande that is the strategic focus for President Biden and his compliant congress. It is the proxy war in Ukraine.

When it comes to defense spending and donor money, Mexico cannot compete with Russia or China. Washington takes it as a matter of faith that a divided Ukraine on the model of a divided Germany will support a new Cold War with Moscow for decades. Adding China to the new “axis of evil” is simply icing on the cake for defense hawks and their donors.

Is Washington serious? Or is the new, budding Cold War paradigm simply a clever way to guarantee a steady stream of funding for Defense and lucrative donations for the Hill? Are the new threats abroad also designed to silence dissident voices at home and command domestic obedience from the American People? These are fair questions.

If the threats south of the border must be ignored, then Washington should face up to the American military’s shortage of quality manpower, the woefully inadequate size, and general decrepitude of America’s regular Army. War with a continental power like Russia, just as true security along the Rio Grande, demands powerful land forces-in-being.

Moscow will not put up much longer with Washington’s aggressive actions to stymie Russia in Ukraine. Moscow is not in the grip of Hitlerian lust for conquest, but Washington’s weaponization of Ukraine is an existential threat to Moscow.

To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, any American president or politician who is willing to risk a high-end conventional land war with Russia should have his head examined, or at a minimum, deserves serious psychiatric care. The same must be said of anyone in Washington who wants to engage in nuclear brinksmanship with Moscow.

It is time to choose again. What kind of Republic do Americans want? What kind of foreign policy do Americans want?

*

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.

Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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

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

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

***

The national flag of Finland was raised for the first time at the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Brussels on Tuesday, which also marked the 74th anniversary of the western alliance. It signifies for Finland a historic abandonment of its policy of neutrality. 

Not even propagandistically, anyone can say Finland has encountered a security threat from Russia. This is an act of motiveless malignity toward Russia on the part of the NATO,  which of course invariably carries the imprimatur of the US, while being projected to the world audience as a sovereign choice by Finland against the backdrop of Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. 

Quintessentially, this can only be regarded as yet another move by the US, after the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines last September, with the deliberate intent to complicate Russia’s relations with Europe and render it intractable for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, suffice it to say, this will also make Europe’s security landscape landscape even more precarious and make it even more dependent on the US as the provider of security. The general expectation is that Sweden’s accession to NATO will now follow, possibly in time for the alliance’s summit in Vilnius in July. 

In effect, the US has ensured that the core issue behind the standoff between Russia and the West — viz., the expansion of the NATO to Russia’s borders — is a fait accompli no matter the failure of its proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. 

Responding to the development, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned on Tuesday that Finland’s NATO membership will force Russia “to take countermeasures to ensure our own tactical and strategic security,” as Helsinki’s military alignment is an “escalation of the situation” and an “encroachment on Russia’s security.” 

On April 4, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that Moscow “will be forced to take retaliatory measures of both military-technical and other nature in order to stop threats to our national security.” 

Finland’s NATO membership would extend NATO’s frontline with Russia by 1,300 kilometers (length of border Finland shares with Russia), which will put more pressure on Russia’s northwestern regions. Don’t be surprised if NATO missiles are deployed to Finland at some point, leaving Russia no option but to deploy its nuclear weapons close to the Baltic region and Scandinavia. 

Suffice to say, the military confrontation between NATO and Russia is set to deteriorate further and the possibility of a nuclear conflict is on the rise. It is hard to see Russia failing to preserve its second strike capability at any cost or prevent the US from gaining nuclear superiority, and maintain the global strategic balance.  

The focus will be on the upgrade of defensive nuclear capabilities rather than on conventional forces, compelling Russia to demonstrate its nuclear strength. Russia has already front-loaded its deterrent by deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus in response to the UK’s irresponsible decision to provide depleted uranium munition to Ukraine. It is all but certain that Russia will also double down in the Ukraine conflict. 

Meanwhile, the US has for long deployed tactical nuclear weapons in European countries, including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, which means the US has long deployed its tactical nuclear weapons at Russia’s doorstep, posing a significant threat to Russia’s national security. Russia’s deployment in Belarus is aimed at deterring the US’ potential provocations, anticipating what is about to happen. 

Belarus’ geographical location is such that if Russian tactical nuclear weapons are deployed there, it will have a huge strategic deterrent effect on several NATO countries such Poland, Germany, the Baltic states and even the Nordic countries. A vicious cycle is developing, escalating the nuclear arms race and ultimately developing into a doomsday situation that no one wants to see.

The big picture is that knowing fully well that the situation could become extremely dangerous, the US is nonetheless relentlessly piling pressure on Russia with the objective of perpetuating its hegemonic system. Ronald Reagan’s strategy to use extreme pressure tactic to weaken the former Soviet Union and ultimately drag it down, is once again at work. 

In immediate terms, all this would have negative consequences for the conflict in Ukraine. It is plain to see that Washington no longer seeks peace in Ukraine. In the Biden Administration’s strategic calculus, if Russia wins in Ukraine, it means NATO loses, which would permanently damage the US’ transatlantic leadership and global hegemony — simply unthinkable for the Washington establishment. 

Without doubt, the US-NATO move to persuade Finland (and Sweden) to become NATO members also has a dimension in terms of geoeconomics. The alliance’s secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg recently stated, “if Finland and Sweden join the alliance, NATO will have more opportunities to control the situation in the Far North.” He explained that “both of these countries have modern armed forces that are able to operate precisely in the harsh conditions of the Far North.” 

The US hopes that the “expertise” to operate in the Arctic and sub-Arctic conditions that Sweden and Finland can bring into the alliance is invaluable as a potential game changer when a grim struggle is unfolding for the control of the vast mineral resources that lie in the Far North, where Russia has stolen a march so far. 

As polar ice melts at unprecedented speed in the Arctic, the world’s biggest players are eyeing the region as a new “no man’s land” that is up for grabs. Some recent reports have mentioned that moves are afoot for the integration of the air forces of four Nordic countries — Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden —  undertaken with an undisguised anti-Russian orientation. 

Arctic Resources

In military terms, Russia is being forced into sustaining the heavy financial burden of a 360 degree appraisal of its national security agenda. Russia has no alliance system supplementing its military resources. In an important announcement in February, paying heed to the straws in the wind, the Kremlin removed from its Arctic policy all mentions of the so-called Arctic Council, stressing the need to prioritise Russian Arctic interests, and striving for greater self-reliance for its Arctic industrial projects. 

The revised Arctic policy calls for the “development of relations with foreign states on a bilateral basis,… taking into account the national interests of the Russian Federation in the Arctic.” This came days after a US state department official stated that cooperation with Russia in the Arctic was now virtually impossible.

 

*

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: Foreign minister Pekka Haavisto (L) hands over Finland’s NATO accession document to US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, as secretary-general Stoltenberg looks on, Brussels, 4 Apr 2023 (Source: IP)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Sees in Finland’s NATO Accession Encirclement of Russia
  • 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.

***

It is reasonable to suspect that recently arrested former US President Donald Trump was involved in shady businesses. If this is so, he would not have been the first American president to do so. I’ve written on scandals involving the US President Joe Biden’s family in Ukraine – particularly his son. There, American geopolitical interests intertwine with geoeconomic ones, and with private interests. Going further back, US journalist Seymour M. Hersh argued, in his 1997 book “The Dark Side of Camelot”, that organized crime played a role in John Kennedy’s 1960 election. University of Wisconsin–Madison historian Alfred W. McCoy, and diplomat Peter Dale Scott have written scholarly books on CIA involvement in drug trafficking, including in the Iran-Contra affair. In such an oversight-free setting, it would be naïve to assume private corruption would not also take place.

Such is the reality of American politics, heavily interwoven with the military-industrial complex and the deep state. Could  the unprecedented arrest of billionaire former President Trump be the beginning of a change in the American system, marking the end of impunity for top authorities and oligarchs? Many doubt so. Interestingly, he has been indicted mostly over supposedly having paid “hush money” to silence pornographic movies star Stormy Daniels about their alleged extramarital affair. She herself has claimed he should not have been arrested for that.

Trump’s indictment has left many wondering whether justice is being served, or whether this was simply a politically motivated move. Military analyst Drago Bosnic convincingly argues for the latter scenario.

It’s no secret that Trump’s presidency was marked by controversy, with many of his actions and statements causing outrage among Democrats and even some Republicans. Although a problematic and even divisive figure domestically, there is no denying that his foreign policy was at least occasionally focused on achieving some peace and stability internationally. Albeit Trump supported coup attempts in Venezuela and ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, for instance, on the other hand, he ordered the withdrawal of US troops from Somalia (reversed by Biden).

More importantly, Trump had made at least some strides in improving relations with Russia, and was much criticized because of that – even though relations worsened at times, especially when sanctions were signed by Washington against Moscow. In any case, his administration was quite a relative “set-back” in the markedly anti-Russian tendency that had characterized Washington’s policy for decades. Biden brought it back. Shortly after his November 2020 electoral victory, Donetsk People’s Republic Chairman Andrei Purgin said that if Trump’s administration had employed “slow strangulation” against the Donbass region, Biden in turn would use “more aggressive” methods. Back then, I wrote that Biden would further pursue the policy of “countering” and “encircling” Russia.

In early May 2022, in an interview, American intellectual Noam Chomsky said that only one “Western statesman” was advocating “a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine, instead of looking for ways to encourage and prolong it”, namely “Donald Trump”. This statement remains largely accurate – although there were some Western conciliatory moves later in 2022, they stalled.

Political analyst Andrew Korybko notes that in early March Trump stated he would’ve brokered peace with Moscow and Kiev through a peace deal. Trump’s view, Korybko argues, is to de-escalate tensions with Moscow so as to more effectively “contain” China in the Asia-Pacific – to this end, according to Korybko, he tried, without success, to compel Ukraine into implementing the Minsk Accords.

The current US administration has a very different agenda: it has been pushing to make Sweden and Finland part of NATO (the latter already has become so) to further encircle Russia. Biden in fact has been pursuing the extremely dangerous policy of dual containment to simultaneously encircle two Great Powers (China and Russia) at once, thereby overburdening the American superpower.  This has led to concerns among many analysts that the planet could be on the brink of another world war.

The conflict in Ukraine is a rather complex and deeply troubling issue (largely caused by the West), and no easy solutions are available. One thing is clear, though: to decrease the risk of another global confrontation, a lot of diplomatic efforts and table talks are required. It takes leaders willing to put aside their own political interests and work towards peace. Sadly and ironically, in the West, Trump, together with Hungary’s Viktor Orban, seems to be a lone voice in that regard.

It’s hard to ignore the timing of Trump’s indictment. The primaries for the 2024 presidential election could take place as soon as February next year. Biden has yet to officially declare his candidacy and there is open talk about who could be the Democrat candidate instead of him. Biden has been suffering from low approval ratings. Trump, in contrast, has announced that he would run again, and has remained the main front runner of the Republican Party.

We are living in the age of disputed presidencies, democracy being in crisis internationally, as I wrote in August 2020. Current Brazilian President Lula da Silva, for instance, was recently in jail, and his predecessor could also face criminal charges. Such does not happen only in countries which the US sees as “second rate”. Biden’s own election was disputed by a large part of the population.

Interestingly, according to a Yahoo News/YouGov poll, Trump remains the most popular Republican despite his indictment – or perhaps partly because of it. Many of his voters see him as the target of a witch hunt. Republicans are in fact launching a probe against one of Trump’s prosecutors, Mark Pomerantz, for “abuse of power”. If there were any political maneuvering behind Trump’s indictment, which so far one can only speculate (although there are clues suggesting this to be the case), it could indeed backfire.

*

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.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

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.

***

“I’ve got documents from the NIH – from 2002 – talking about integrating vaccines into foods,” announced attorney Tom Renz in an eye-opening interview with Dr. Naomi Wolf. “They’ve been working on integrating these [vaccines] into our food supply. They’ve been working on it for at least two decades.”

Mr. Renz brought the receipts in his latest Substack piece:

Here is an article published in the NIH (you know – by our government) talking about foods ‘under application’ to be genetically modified to become edible vaccines – FROM 2013,” he wrote. “The fact that food can be altered to act as a vaccine is not disputable.”

And according to attorney Renz’s recent tweet, “lobbyists for the cattleman and pork associations in several states have CONFIRMED they WILL be using mRNA vaccines in pigs and cows THIS MONTH.”

“Gates, the WHO, a ton of these universities: they’re all talking about including mRNA vaccinations as part of the food. They’re going to modify the genes of these foods to make them mRNA vaccines,” he warned in this video.

But Missouri HB 1169 seeks to counter such an effort. It’s been described as “one of the most controversial bills in history,” but all it is – is a labeling bill. It doesn’t ban anything. You have every right to know if a food product is a gene therapy product. So, if this bill gets passed, it’s a major victory for informed consent and, in all likelihood, our well-being. The entire two-page bill is available to read on DailyClout. Here’s an excerpt:

Any product that has been created to act as, or exposed to processes that could result in the product potentially acting as, a gene therapy or that could otherwise possibly impact, alter, or introduce genetic material or a genetic change into the user of the product, individuals exposed to the product, or individuals exposed to others who have used the product shall be conspicuously labeled with the words “Potential Gene Therapy Product” unless the product is known to be a gene therapy product.

Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure the potential purchaser or user of the product is made aware of the presence of this label. If a product is known to be a gene therapy product, the product shall be conspicuously labeled with the words “Gene Therapy Product”. The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed in favor of disclosure of any potential gene therapy product.

*

The bill was written in a way “to be as easy to pass and as hard to oppose as possible,” conveyed attorney Renz.

Missouri HB 1169 does three things:

1.) “It requires labeling and disclosure of any product that has any gene therapy qualities.”

2.) “It requires that if you have a product on the market that has gene therapy qualities, that anyone can call the company and say, ‘hey, how does this spread? ‘Does it shed? Is it spread through contact — through sexual contact? Or is there a way that this can spread?’ And they have to disclose it.”

3.) “It requires informed consent. And informed consent includes serious events or adverse events of special interest. … And it requires informed consent before you be given anything with the gene therapy or medicinal property.”

“So, this isn’t difficult,” stressed attorney Renz.

“I don’t think this is a Democrat bill or Republican bill. It’s sponsored by a Republican (Rep. Holly Jones) but should be universally supported.” However, “[t]his has become the most contentious bill in Missouri history,” he lamented. “All we’re asking for is transparency and disclosure.”

Now, pharma can’t come out and oppose transparency and disclosure. So they would need the agricultural community to have their back. Remember, Bill Gates and the CCP are the two largest holders of agriculture in America. “So these guys [Gates & CCP] throw money at these guys [agricultural associations] — buy off these guys. They’re not representing the local farmers,” attested attorney Renz.

But here’s the reason this bill is so important.

If attorney Tom Renz helps pass Missouri HB 1169, “those disclosures and the ability to get that information (is gene therapy in my food?) apply globally.” he explained. “So if we can win in one state, the truth in Missouri is the truth in Iowa. So we’ve got to get everybody on the planet calling these guys, telling them you got to pass this — you got to stand for we the people. All it is – is transparency and disclosure. We don’t even ban it. They can still make their poison foods. I just need to know if I’m eating them.”

And if they have to mark and label foods with gene therapy as such, that’s it. It kills the uptake of such food products.

So, whether you’re in Missouri, Iowa, the United Kingdom, or Australia, you need to help push HB 1169 across the finish line.

Because as Tom said, if the bill passes in Iowa, “those disclosures and the ability to get that information apply globally.” So, share this bill on social media, call your local legislators — ask your representatives why a bill similar to HB 1169 is not being discussed in your neck of the woods.

The easiest way to do so is to vote on the interactive DailyClout ‘Billcam’ below to show your support or opposition. You can send the bill through social media and tweet the bill sponsor or your representative.

*

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 Vigilant Fox is a citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience, focused on The Great Reset, world protests, and COVID-19. After being deeply disturbed by COVID measures, mandates, and medical discrimination, he has dedicated his free time and effort to making short, informative clips — featuring top doctors, scientists, and thought leaders from around the world.

Featured image is a screenshot from the first video above

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.

***

Incisive article first published in July 2022. This issue is currently in the news, following Zelinsky’s meeting with the President of Poland

 

***

Hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors, as well as Poles, Hungarians and Romanians who once lived in the lands which the Soviet Union “gave to Ukraine” (in the wake to WWII), have the right to recover their estates and get compensations for their heritage.  Kiev aspiring to membership in the European Union will face the due of fulfilling these claims.  The only question is whether Ukrainians are also aware of such multibillion-dollar costs?

Ukraine built on ethnic cleansing

After the Second World War, a mass people relocation was carried out between the Soviet Union and Poland, Romania and Hungary.  The issue of compensation for property left in Ukraine was to be settled by the Agreements between the government of the Eastern European communist states and the authorities of Soviet Ukraine, USSR (with Poland such a treaty was signed on 6th September 1944).  These compensations were never paid, however, and the Agreements never entered into force.  In this situation, the burden of the payments still rests with the Ukrainian Government as the legal heir of the USSR.

 

According to experts’ estimates, the total amount of Polish claims for property left in Kresy (former Polish Easter Borderlands) amounts to approximately $5 billion and can be increased by the value of compensation and remedies for the expellees and their descendants.  The war with Russia and earlier the lockdown policy gave the Kiev a convenient excuse to further delay court cases.  Paradoxically, however, the acceleration of the European integration of the Ukrainian state, and especially planned Polish-Ukrainian federation may significantly facilitate the issue of property restitution.

Long queue of heirs

Established in 2017 organisation Powiernictwo Kresowe (The Restitution of Borderlands) has collected a database of nearly 12,000 Polish estates located within the current borders of the former Soviet Republics, i.e. mainly in present-day Ukraine.  Of these, about 1,600 cases are now legal claims, provided by professional solicitors, who completed all documents leaving no doubts: these heirs of Polish owners are entitled to the return of their property and compensations for lost incomes.

By liberalising trade of land and granting foreigners the right to own real estate, Kyiv has made it easier for the former owners to return.  Wherever there is Western capital interested in privatisation – potential investors want to be even more sure that the real estate is not burdened with legal claims.

Although many Poles and Romanians are involved in helping Ukrainian immigrants, this does not mean that their claims are abandoned.  The war situation does not stop these actions either.  After all, even the most difficult political moment cannot bear Kiev legal’s responsibility coming from the Soviet heritage.  Independent Ukraine wants to keep Soviet borders – so must maintain actual legal continuity and be responsible for Soviet expropriations.  Independent Ukraine has European aspirations and wants European rights – so must also assume European obligations.

European choice of Ukraine

Granting Ukraine the status of a candidate country to the European Union means that Kiev will ultimately be subjected to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which strongly declins any form of arbitrary seizure of private property without compensation.  However, the restitution processes may be even easier after creation of some Polish-Ukrainian federation (UkroPolin), supported especially by the UK.

Details of this plan are unknown, including how its legal system would be organised.  Nevertheless, it can be assumed that there would have to be some unification not only of legislation but also of the judiciary, perhaps creating joint Federal Court for hearing cases of federation-wide importance.  Undoubtedly, one of the biggest issues of this kind would be the restitution and several thousand of claims within this matter.

Since the authorities in Kiev and Warsaw agree on the European direction of Ukraine and on the political integration of both countries – the recovery of Polish property and payment of compensations are not excessive price for such aspirations.  At most, ordinary Ukrainians may have a different opinion, but no one has asked them for a long time.  Moreover, since the majority of young Ukrainians dreams mainly about economic emigration – apparently, they no longer need any property, so may welcome it again in Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, Jewish and Western hands…

*

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

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and 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.

***

Before there would be any World War Three between America and China (which would result from America’s officially ending its 1972-initiated “One China Policy” that Taiwan is a part of China), America would first need to isolate Russia by getting China to break with Russia and to come out unequivocally condemning Russia’s “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine and thereby cementing the U.S. control over Ukraine that U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration had won by his February 2014 successful coup against and taking over Ukraine’s government to turn it intensely hostile towards its neighbor Russia so that America will become able to place its missiles there.

The U.S. Government does not want to face a situation in which it would need to conquer both Russia and China simultaneously. It intends to conquer Russia before it conquers China. However, if it decides that that won’t be possible (as now seems likely), then America will switch to taking on China first — and that would mean the U.S. would officially cancel its 1972 One China Policy and commit itself fully to Taiwan’s being a separate and ‘independent’ country that would be 100% dependent upon U.S. military backing — and, essentially, control. (Taiwan would then become far more dependent upon the U.S. than Taiwan ever has been dependent even upon China.) America needs to capture Taiwan in order to provoke China into a war, then win that war, then take up a war against Russia, in order to achieve its goal of becoming the entire world’s dictator. But, right now, America needs to split China away from Russia. The reason for this is that if America doesn’t split them apart, then America won’t be able to win either Russia OR China.

So: in war, timing is everything, and, in America’s diplomatic preparation for WW III, the plan is to defeat Russia first, and then China; but, if that turns out not to be possible, then America will switch to defeating China first, and then Russia. America is intensifying its plan, to provoke China into a war.

Here is how America’s current stage in its diplomatic preparations leading up to WW III now are proceeding:

On April 5th, the New York Times, which always reports from the standpoint of, and actually representing, the U.S. Government, headlined a wedge for the U.S. Government to use to pry China’s Government away from Russia: “China’s Ambassador to the E.U. Tries to Distance Beijing From Moscow: The ambassador, Fu Cong, said China was not on Russia’s side in the war in Ukraine. ‘No limit’ is nothing but rhetoric,’ he said, referring to a statement from last year about the countries’ relationship.”It reported that:

E.U. leaders are struggling to balance their deep trade ties with China against American pressure to toughen their policies, especially in light of China’s support for Russia since the war began. China tries to present itself as a mediator, insisting that it respects the territorial integrity of Ukraine while endorsing some of Moscow’s narrative about the war.

Here are a few highlights of the interview:

The ambassador downplayed Russia and China’s declaration of a “no limits” friendship last year. …

Mr. Fu said China was not on Russia’s side on the war and that some people “deliberately misinterpret this because there’s the so-called ‘no limit’ friendship or relationship.”

He added, “‘No limit’ is nothing but rhetoric.”

On April 6th, Russia’s RT News (which represents Russia’s Government) headlined “China disavows NYT claim about Russia relations”, and reported:

The US newspaper [NYT] said Beijing’s envoy downplayed the partnership and tried to distance his country from Moscow

… The Chinese mission to the EU told the Russian news agency TASS that the interview with the NYT was about an hour long and that the highlights printed by the paper failed to properly convey Fu’s words.

“The ambassador stated that some people deliberately misinterpret the Chinese position [on the crisis in Ukraine]. The things that China did and didn’t do since the start of the conflict are known in Europe and the rest of the world,” the news agency quoted the mission as saying on Thursday.

Read more: NATO chief issues warning to China

The diplomat’s office clarified that there was no sense in discussing the meaning of a “no-limits” friendship, and that the term did not imply that China was going to provide military assistance to Russia.

NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has urged China to halt its “growing alignment” with Russia, warning that any military assistance from Beijing to Moscow during the conflict in Ukraine would be a “historic mistake” with major consequences.

Speaking after the conclusion of a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, Stoltenberg sounded the alarm over Moscow’s friendly ties with the People’s Republic, insisting Beijing could soon offer weapons to Russia despite its repeated confirmation that it has no plans to do so.

“China refuses to condemn Russia’s aggression… And it props up Russia’s economy,” he claimed, adding “Allies have been clear that any provision of lethal aid by China to Russia would be a historic mistake, with profound implications.”

NATO is controlled by the U.S. Government; and, whenever any NATO member-nation has failed to join in to endorse a position that the U.S. Government requires, dissenting nation(s) has/have ultimately joined in to consent to it and the vote for it was unanimous. Moreover, on April 7th, the South China Morning Post bannered “Europe is ‘counting on China’ to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, leaders tell Xi Jinping in Beijing”, so that it’s not just NATO but the EU that’s threatening China on this. However, the Chinese Government’s official newspaper, Global Times, instead headlined “China-France-EU trilateral talks set right course for ties”, and continued to ignore The West’s demands to capitulate on Ukraine; it reported instead that China’s intention regarding the war in Ukraine is to serve as a “mediator” between The West and Russia on it. In other words: this was the Chinese way to tell The West no — without broadcasting to the public that it had done so.

Right now, America is, in effect, demanding China to go against Russia in Ukraine. If China consents to this, then China will effectively have lost its sovereignty, and America then will become enabled to do anything in Ukraine that it wants to do. Furthermore: America’s taking Taiwan from China then won’t be so important, because America will already have taken control over China. At that stage, there will start, in earnest, an all-out war by the U.S. against Russia. The U.S. ‘defense’ budget will skyrocket, and America will go onto a full-fledged war footing. The U.S. Congress is already preparing legislation to enable that to happen.Furthermore, Russia, for its part, issued on March 31st its major new statement of its guiding ideology, and emphasizes in it that it was arrived at in collaboration with both China and India, and also other nations of the global south.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

The Heat: China-France Ties

April 7th, 2023 by Anand Naidoo

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.

***

Chinese President Xi Jinping welcomes French President Emmanuel Macron at the Great Hall of the People for a state visit. 

Chinese President Xi and French President Macron held lengthy bilateral talks on Thursday in Beijing. The two leaders pledged to deepen cooperation on trade, advance new development with China’s Belt and Road initiative and reopen people-to-people and cultural exchanges.  

Joining the discussion:

  • Garret Martin is a Senior Professorial Lecturer with the School of International Service at American University. 
  • Anton Fedyashin is a Russian affairs expert and Professor of History at American University. 
  • John Gong is a Professor of Economics at the University of International Business and Economics. 
  • Huiyao Wang is the Founder and President of the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing.

*

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 english.gov.cn

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.

***

Global Research Editor’s Note

Will de-Dollarization be applied? National currencies are linked to the US dollar. This note pertains to Malaysia in response to the Epoch Times quotation.

Remember the 1997 Asian crisis whereby naked short selling in the currency markets was applied against South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, with devastating economic and social consequences.

In 1997, Anwar Ibrahim, who was a protégé  of the IMF and Wall Street was finance minister. Naked short selling against the ringit was on Wall Street’s drawing board.

Anwar was their man in Kuala Lumpur under the government of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. 

Anwar was removed from office. A carefully formulated plan was outlined and implemented under the Mahathir government to avoid the downfall of the ringit.

Anwar is  a “dollarized Prime Minister” reporting to the Washington consensus.

A genuine de-dollarization agenda in Malaysia is unlikely to be adopted under Anwar.

Michel Chossudovsky, April 7, 2023

***

Already, 2023 has been a brutal year for US geopolitical hegemony — and it’s not even halfway over.

An unprecedented wave of “de-dollarization” is sweeping the globe.

De-dollarization means countries which have used the US dollar for international trade since WWII are actively adopting alternatives, threatening to end to the US dollar’s global reserve currency status.

As of April, the Malaysian government is the latest to signal its willingness to desert the dollar, following in the footsteps of other vital national economies.

Via Epoch Times:

“Malaysia no longer believes it’s necessary to depend on the U.S. dollar, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said during an address to the nation’s parliament…

 “’When I had a meeting with President Xi Jinping,’ he immediately said, ‘I refer to Anwar’s proposal on the Asian Monetary Fund, and he welcomed discussions,’ Anwar told lawmakers on April 4. ‘There is no reason for Malaysia to continue depending on the dollar.’”

A brief summary of some of the most important de-dollarization developments throughout the world economy:

All of this is exceedingly relevant because, for decades, the US has used its currency as a tool for geopolitical domination. Via European Conservative:

“Almost surely the principal factor driving countries to move away from the current global financial system, which has been in place since the end of World War II, is the U.S. government’s ability—and ever-increasing willingness to—weaponize the dollar against its political adversaries and those who refuse to go along with its political program.”

Just a year ago, abandoning the dollar would have been considered national suicide by most policymakers. But a Eurasian war over a relatively obscure piece of geography, of all things, paved the way for a whole new paradigm.

Via NPR, February 2022:

“The U.S., Canada and European allies are moving to cut off certain Russian banks from the SWIFT bank messaging system as part of a dramatic new round of sanctions meant to punish Russia for the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

The White House issued a statement saying, in part, ‘we commit to ensuring that selected Russian banks are removed from the SWIFT messaging system. This will ensure that these banks are disconnected from the international financial system and harm their ability to operate globally.’”

Russia was then forced to develop alternative economic arrangements – after all, “necessity is the mother of invention.” It did just that, setting the precedent for the cascade of countries now rethinking their subordinate economic position vis a vis the United States.

Assuming maintaining US hegemony is still the goal (it may not be), the multinational corporate state in charge of the West made a huge miscalculation when it cut Russia out of the international banking system.

What does de-dollarization mean for war and peace? If historical precedent is any reliable indicator, the answer is “nothing good.” Consider, for instance, that the United States launched a bloody coup against Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi for the crime of attempting to establish a pan-African currency to replace the dollar.

Neoliberal four-star general Hillary Clinton, upon learning of his death, laughed maniacally into the camera.

All that to say: to start a war over economics is nothing to these people.

The architects of the US war machine understand well that their military primacy is inexorably dependent on American economic primacy. If the latter falls, so goes the former.

Geopolitical realignments of the sort currently underway rarely occur peacefully – the only notable exception in recent history being the relatively bloodless dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 90s.

All signs point to war.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Daily Bell.

Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TDB

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.

***

Redwood City, California – 16 year old Jonathan Zhao died on March 31, 2023.

Jonathan had his COVID-19 mRNA vaccine booster shot in January 2022. Shortly after, he suffered from severe bodily infections and his health continued to deteriorate until he was finally hospitalized at Stanford Children’s Hospital in November 2022 and diagnosed with Chronic Active Epstein-Barr Virus (CAEBV). (click here)

the extent to which Jonathan’s immune system has been completely compromised is extremely rare. Jonathan’s case has no precedent. He went through unconventional hormone therapy with chemotherapy 3 times in order to treat these severe, repetitive infections, but unfortunately, the treatments did not succeed.

“Jonathan was transferred to the ICU twice where he requires around-the-clock medical and physical attention from the healthcare team”

“Jonathan was a remarkably happy, healthy, and athletic kid who loved to play competitive soccer. He had outstanding grades in Pinewood High School and his dream was becoming a medical professional. Jonathan had great manners, a good heart, and a strong sense of responsibility in life with a bright future awaiting him”

This is a tragic story of a healthy 16 year old boy whose health and life were destroyed by three COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

42-year old Alia Hadley’s COVID-19 vaccine injuries

Alia Hadley is a 42 year old woman who became vaccine injured after her 2nd Pfizer dose. She was diagnosed with EBV reactivation and her 5 year old daughter caught EBV from her. In her words: (click here)

“Well I’m about to hit my 19 month mark since my serious adverse reactions/injuries started on 8/26/21. Over the last year I’ve been diagnosed with Dysautonomia, Mast Cell Activation Syndrome, Small Fiber Neuropathy (which the burning goes from my feet to my upper thighs now unfortunately) chronic excruciating pain now throughout my entire body that no one can explain and bone crushing fatigue.”

“I’m still in bed 85% of every day. Since my daughter was exposed to me post shot and ended up in the hospital 15 days later and then caught my reactivated EBV a year ago, she has been sick off and on for the entire time I’ve been disabled. I don’t know how to help her get better either and her pediatrician doesn’t believe me about the possibility of shedding but I’m pretty sure she’s been exposed as well which is devastating! I never wanted to get these shots but I NEVER would have gotten it if I had known it would harm my only child so badly!”

VAERS 1708489

26 year old woman from Connecticut had 1st Pfizer mRNA dose and shortly after felt dizzy, had severe chest pain, headache and extreme fatigue. Two weeks later her EBV panel showed EBV reactivation. After 3 months she is still experiencing fatigue, tachycardia, severe chest pain, severe daily migraines, severe GI upset and more.

VAERS 2481899 

72 year old man from Wisconsin had 3 Pfizer mRNA doses. 11 months after 3rd dose he was admitted to hospital with night sweats, mental fog and abdominal pain. He was found to have acute hepatic failure. Liver biopsy showed EBV reactivation with lymphoma cells in the liver. He died a week later.

Vaccine induced EBV reactivation in the Literature: 

A 24 year old man developed skin rash after 2nd dose of Pfizer and was diagnosed with EBV reactivation. This was the 1st published case of EBV reactivation in an immuno-competent person (click here)

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine induced EBV reactivation in transplant recipients

Click here for a larger view.

A shocking Polish study reported: “10 transplant (8 kidney and 2 liver) recipients with noticeable EBV viremia exacerbation or reactivation within a short period after two doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.” (click here)

COVID-19 vaccines reactivate viral infections

The virus reactivations post COVID-19 vaccination we hear about the most are Varicella Zoster Virus (Shingles) and Herpes Simplex.

Pfizer has an mRNA shingles vaccine (2024) 

Moderna has an mRNA herpes vaccine (mRNA-1608)

Moderna has an mRNA EBV vaccine (mRNA 1189)

Image

My Take…

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can severely damage the immune system – which can, in some cases, lead to reactivation of latent viruses such as VZV, HSV and EBV.

Unsurprisingly, both Pfizer and Moderna have new mRNA vaccines already in clinical trials for all three viruses.

EBV is one of the most common human viruses. Most people get infected with EBV at some point in their lives. EBV spreads most commonly through bodily fluids, primarily saliva. EBV can cause infectious mononucleosis, also called mono, and other illnesses.

Many people become infected with EBV in childhood. EBV infections in children usually do not cause symptoms, or the symptoms are not distinguishable from other mild, brief childhood illnesses. People who get symptoms from EBV infection, usually teenagers or adults, get better in two to four weeks.

As CDC tells us, people with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop symptoms if EBV reactivates. (click here)

In the tragic case of 16 year old Jonathan Zhao, 3 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines destroyed his immune system, allowing EBV reactivation to become fatal.

*

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 16-Year Old California Boy’s Immune System Was Destroyed by Three COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines. Reactivated EBV Post COVID-19 Vaccination Can be Fatal
  • Tags: ,

India-Malaysia to Trade in Rupees Bypassing US Dollar

April 7th, 2023 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

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 is a worldwide movement to stop using what is considered a toxic currency, the US dollar.  The concept of de-dollarization is accelerating, now India, the “I” in the BRICS Coalition has also made significant moves to bypass US dollars. 

Livemint.com published an interesting article that is a testament to what is taking place in regards to the US dollar reserve currency status, ‘Union Bank becomes first to open special vostro account for India-Malaysia trade settlement in rupee’ reported that the development of a new trading option between India and Malaysia was to begin with the implementation of using rupees as the “Union Bank of India becomes the first bank in the country to open a Special Rupee Vostro Account through its corresponding bank in Malaysia i.e. India International Bank of Malaysia. This means that trade between India and Malaysia can now be settled in the Indian rupee, in addition to the current modes of settlement in other currencies.”  The article mentions the Reserve Bank of India’s recommendations following a publication from last July on how to settle international trade using rupees, Union Bank’s officials said that “this measure is aimed at facilitating the growth of global trade and to support the interests of the global trading community in Indian Rupee” they added that “the mechanism will allow the Indian and Malaysian traders to invoice the trade in Indian Rupee and therefore achieve better pricing for goods and services traded.”  On July 11th, 2022, the Reserve Bank of India published International Trade Settlement in Indian Rupees (INR)’ which recommended that global trade should involve INR’s (Indian Rupee):  

In order to promote growth of global trade with emphasis on exports from India and to support the increasing interest of global trading community in INR, it has been decided to put in place an additional arrangement for invoicing, payment, and settlement of exports / imports in INR. Before putting in place this mechanism, AD banks shall require prior approval from the Foreign Exchange Department of Reserve Bank of India, Central Office at Mumbai

The recommendations include Invoicing exports and imports that “may be denominated and invoiced in Rupee (INR).” It also involves a new exchange rate between trading partners and settlement of trade transactions, all in rupees. 

The next G20 meeting will be hosted in New Delhi, a venue where India can push rupees for international trade settlements as another report by Livemint.com, ‘India to use G20 gathering to push rupee trade’ said that “India will use the G20 platform to push international trade settlement in rupees, especially with countries that are facing currency issues, commerce secretary Sunil Barthwal said on Monday.”  Barthwal said that “we are interested in improving the trade with respect to the currencies of the countries which are trading (with India).”  In a statement from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, they made it clear that the intentions under India’s leadership is “to build a shared understanding of the challenges being faced in accelerating global trade and investment, and how existing opportunities can be harnessed to formulate human-centric concrete outcomes and deliverables.” The Reserve Bank of India has moved forward with authorizing dealer banks to open Special Rupee Vostro Accounts (SRVAs) to correspond with banks in more than 18 countries so far:

As per data presented in the Parliament on 14 March, RBI has approved domestic and foreign authorized dealer banks in 60 cases for opening of special rupee vostro accounts (SRVAs) of correspondent banks from 18 countries. These include Botswana, Fiji, Germany, Guyana, Israel, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Myanmar, New Zealand, Oman, Russia, Seychelles, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, and United Kingdom, junior finance minister Bhagwat Karad said in the Rajya Sabha  

The acceleration of de-dollarization is taking place on every continent, India is just one country on board that seeks to enhance its growing economy by using their own currency, the Indian Rupee (INR). 

There is no stopping this trend, many countries see this as an opportunity to ditch the US dollar before Washington can impose some sort of sanctions on their respective economies especially if they were to decide on doing business with Russia, China, or Iran.  Besides the fact that when the US receives its imports, they export its dollars in exchange thus resulting in inflationary pressures for those on the receiving end, Washington has weaponized their world reserve currency status to impose their will on sovereign countries for a long time, just ask those who suffered thru sanctions or embargoes such as Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, and others who has defied Washington.  

The US dollar has been used as a weapon against those who are not obedient, but times are changing for the US establishment and their ambitions to continue their hegemonic objectives, therefore undermining its currency can end its global dominance.  The US dollar was one of their main weapons of choice, and it has clearly backfired. but a serious question remains, what will Washington, its banker class, the Pentagon, and its Military-Industrial Complex do to stop or slow-down the global rush to de-dollarize their economies? Perhaps start another war with another global power who is leading the charge to abandon the US dollar?  Maybe they will release another virus? One of these scenarios will take place in the foreseeable future because the globalists who are in charge in Washington and elsewhere will do anything to remain in power even if it means starting a new world war. 

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

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 year, NATO officially declared that Russia is its primary adversary, officially restarting the Cold War. Since then, the belligerent alliance’s war machine has started revamping its strategic posturing towards Moscow, but after decades of numerous wars of aggression against relatively helpless opponents, NATO’s conventional fighting capabilities have atrophied significantly. This seems to be affecting all branches of major NATO militaries, including their air forces, particularly those operating the deeply troubled F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter), a pan-Western effort to unify all NATO and NATO-aligned countries into “a well-oiled joint fighting force with near flawless coordination and battlefield information sharing”. At least that was the original idea.

However, the reality is much different. Publicly, the Pentagon is quite happy with “the best fighter jet ever made”. Privately, the situation is starkly different. For at least a decade, numerous reports on the F-35’s countless flaws have turned out to be not only true, but even overoptimistic, as the actual scale of issues plaguing the program is much worse. This has resulted in repeated delays in deliveries, as well as serious issues with modernization efforts. By the time many of the reported issues are resolved, the US Air Force already has new mission requirements that essentially nullify all the previous work and force the developers “back to the drawing board”. In short, the F-35 has proven to be unable to adapt to new threats despite being devised (and marketed) to do exactly that.

According to various sources, over 900 F-35s have been completed and delivered by April this year, but the fleet is still suffering from much of the same issues as when the jet was inducted into service nearly a decade ago. A plethora of maintenance issues and performance defects are causing disastrous availability rates. Back in February, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revealed that the F-35 fleet not only failed to meet the requirements for improving readiness, but has even managed to make them a lot worse than in previous years. Availability rates for both the conventional F-35A and STOVL (short take-off, vertical landing) F-35B fell by 11% in 2022, with only the naval F-35C variant making small improvements in this category.

“Between 2021 and 2022, F-35As’ availability fell by 11 percentage points, from 65 to 54”, CBO stated in a report, adding: “F-35Bs’ availability also fell, by 7 percentage points, from 61 to 54, while F-35Cs’ availability rose by 5 percentage points to 58.”

And yet, even these reports turned out to be overoptimistic as Lockheed Martin once again resorted to using semantics to make the performance of its products seem better than they actually are. According to Bloomberg, the percentage of F-35s capable of flying any mission at any given moment, otherwise known as full mission-capable rates, was just over 29%, manager of the program Air Force Lieutenant General Michael Schmidt said in written testimony for the March 29 hearing of the House Armed Service Committee’s aviation subcommittee. This is nearly 10% less than the full mission-capable readiness in 2020, which stood at 39% at the time. Such a drop effectively nullified possible advantages provided by deliveries of new jets.

“This is unacceptable and maximizing readiness is my top priority,” Schmidt said in his prepared remarks, adding: “[Our] goal is to increase readiness rates by at least 10% in the next 12 months.”

This is just the latest in a series of now well over a hundred scathing reports issued over the years by both military and civilian US officials. As there are currently close to 540 F-35s in service with the US military, the latest readiness figures indicate that no more than 160 are fully mission-capable, meaning it’s among the very lowest, “bested” only by the F-22 “Raptor” jets and the atrociously maintenance-heavy B-2 strategic bombers. Ironically, F-35s were designed to have low maintenance requirements and operational costs to replace F-16s and A-10s for USAF, F-18s for USN (Navy) and AV-8Bs for USMC (Marines). The jet’s many issues resulted in a spending “death spiral”, as the program’s overall cost is getting ever closer to the staggering $2 trillion.

A major issue with the F-35 is its troubled F135 engine prone to overheating, resulting in issues with its ability to fly supersonic, a feat considered standard practice for fighter jets ever since WWII. Defense Secretary under the Trump administration, Christopher C. Miller, was so frustrated with the jet that he referred to it as “a monster” and “a piece of… (well , you get the idea)”.  Even the late John McCain, well known for anything but enmity towards the US MIC (Military Industrial Complex), called it “a textbook example of our broken defense acquisition system”, stating in one of his Senate briefings that “the F-35 program’s record has been both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance”.

US vassals and satellite states have also found numerous issues with the F-35. For instance, during 18 months of operational testing (from January 2021 to June 2022), South Korea reported findings about nearly 250 critical flaws in the jets it acquired from the US in 2019. As late as December, Israel (one of the first F-35 operators) had to ground its entire fleet during preparations for a possible war with Iran. Others, such as Japan and the UK, have also suffered similar issues, even resulting in crashes and deaths. However, while the F-35 has certainly been a disaster, it might prove to be a major contributor to improving global security, as diminishing the political West’s ability to wage war is by far the best way to preserve peace across the world.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on F-35 Readiness Rates Get in Way of NATO War Planning
  • Tags: , ,

Why The Deep State Wants to Get Rid of Donald Trump

April 7th, 2023 by Luciana Bohne

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Article first published on August 4, 2018

Luciana Bohne reflects on Donald Trump’s meeting in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin in July 2018.

 

The Deep State wants to get rid of Donald Trump.

“What they see in Helsinki is Putin tasting his victory [in Syria] and a US president who, instead of waterboarding him, offers him the humble hand of defeat in friendship.”

The Third World War lasted 26 years. It was launched by a class of transnational financial capital in the 1990s against states unwilling to surrender sovereignty to globalization. It was, therefore, a war between two ideologies: globalization versus national sovereignty. The war began in Yugoslavia, passed through Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Libya, Yemen, and ended in Syria, with the defeat of globalization and the victory (in sight) of the Syrian nation-state. The theater of war, therefore, extended from the Balkans, to the Caucasus, to the larger “Middle East.” These hot wars were wars within a new “cold war”–the containment of Russia and China, viewed by the United States and allies as obstacles to the take-over of the world by financial capitalism.

With this perspective in mind–trans-nation versus nation–it becomes clear now why the American bi-partisan political apparatus, which has waged the wars for globalization, is accusing Putin of subverting the world order. He has upset it, indeed, and the planet owes him gratitude because this “world order” they speak of is not–would not be– a “natural,” spontaneous order but one imposed by a tiny but powerful financial class in London and Washington and throughout the world. And, if victorious, it would signify the end of the principle of sovereignty of nations–the end, in fact, of the post-war’s single most important pillar in the legal architecture for the prevention of war–the inviolability of sovereignty. Hitler had run roughshod over sovereignty, invading country after country as though they were his personal hunting grounds. Today’s globalists intended–and did–the same.

Picture this: in late summer 2015, the West’s proxy armies of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS–tafkiri, Daesh–were about to take Damascus. The Damascus government, headed by President Bashar al-Assad, called upon Russia, Syria’s historical ally, to intervene in the conflict in defense of Syrian sovereignty. Assad’s appeal and Russia’s positive response conform to international law. As we now know, Russia’s military and advisory campaign in Syria saved that nation from immediate ruin and chaos. The Syrian state, its army, its people, its Iranian and Hezbollah allies, defeated the agents of globalization–they defeated the New World Order; they defeated the combined forces of transnational financial capitalism.

The resistance in Syria has finally won a major–perhaps the beginning of a definitive–victory of nation over globalization. And this the US establishment cannot and will not forgive Russia, because this means the end of the “strategy of chaos,” the destruction of every state that refuses to be gobbled up by globalization. 

So, then we have Helsinki.

Can you imagine how the whole globalist mafia in Washington felt–the bi-partisan political class, the hegemonic media, the think-tanks (factories of globalist ideology), the foundations, the boardrooms of corporations and banks, the CIA and its 16 intelligence sisters; the military-industrial complex, the NSA, the whole surveillance apparatus? Can you imagine?

A president of the United States meets with the president of Russia (July 16, 2018), who just lost them the world in Syria. Is the US president a “traitor”? in their eyes, you bet he is.

And that is all they have against Trump–meeting with a guy who lost them THEIR precious world order. What they see in Helsinki is Putin tasting his victory and a US president who, instead of waterboarding him, offers him the humble hand of defeat in friendship.

Never before had the US ruling class been so spectacularly, so publicly humiliated by their top official, sworn to represent them.

That is how they see it. They can’t bear it that Trump met with the man who poke a big whole in their twenty-six-year-old plan of action–their crazy vision of a world without borders for capital.

(Disclaimer: I don’t do personality analysis. I do class analysis. All the same I have to say I don’t like Trump. It’s an obligatory disclaimer in a political space so narrow that one can’t even play a game of sardines.)

*

Luciana Bohne is a retired academic.

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.

***

We noted early that pension protestors in France were gathered outside of BlackRock’s Paris headquarters. The protestors have now stormed the building.

Here are the current scenes from Paris:

*

France faces another wave of widespread protests and strikes following an unproductive discussion between the prime minister and labor unions. The failure to reach a compromise on the unpopular pension reform, which extends the working years for individuals, has fueled two-and-a-half months of public discontent

Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to protest on Thursday against Emmanuel Macron‘s pension reform to raise the minimum age from 62 to 64.

Trade union leaders met the Prime Minister, Elisabeth Borne, on Wednesday, but after just an hour of talks — they failed to find a comprise. The Guardian provides insight into some of those conversations: 

Cyril Chabanier, speaking on behalf of France’s eight main unions, said: “We again told the prime minister that the only democratic outcome would be the text’s withdrawal. The prime minister replied that she wished to maintain the text, a serious decision.”

Sophie Binet, the new leader of the CGT trade union, called for more protests and strikes after the failed talks with the prime minister:

“We have to continue mobilizing until the end, until the government understands there is no way out other than withdrawing this reform,” Binet said.

Labor unions plan to keep pressure on the government until the Constitutional Council decides on the pension reform. They believe there’s still a chance to block it from becoming law on April 14. If unions are unsuccessful, strikes will likely continue. 

“We’re in a social crisis, we have a democratic crisis, there is a problem, and the president has the solution in his hands,” Laurent Berger, leader of the CFDT union, said on RTL radio. 

Bloomberg cited a recent poll that shows most French people oppose pension reform. 

And most French people support pension reform protests. 

Meanwhile, Macron is meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing today while France enters another round of mass protests.

*

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 Coinwire.com/Twitter

Global Research Donation Drive

April 7th, 2023 by The Global Research Team

Dear Readers,

We publish pieces by a wide variety of contributors including journalists, scholars, political analysts, historians, ex-military and intelligence personnel, scientists, and environmental experts among others. The publications are not selected in the interest of pushing a specific narrative but rather of breaking down divisions and building a dialogue, especially on peace and justice as we are living at a crossroads.

If you value our work, we strongly encourage you to make a contribution. Due to the effects of online censorship on our revenue, the financial support of our readers has become crucial to the continuation of our activities at this stage.

Keep Global Research online and accessible to all; click below to make a donation or become a member.

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

If you have limited financial means but are willing to help, you can do any of the following to boost our online presence:

  • If you have blog sites, crosspost Global Research articles;
  • Forward Global Research articles through email and other communication apps;
  • Share Global Research articles on social media and discussion groups;
  • Stay updated with important world events, subscribe to our newsletter and encourage family, friends and colleagues to do the same.

Thank you very much for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

GMO’s Are Now Called Bioengineered in the USA: Why This Matters

By Maysie Dee, April 06, 2023

It was an uphill struggle to get GMO labeling laws in place, and now things have become more complicated. With the new name, Bioengineered, the presence of GMO’s will be harder to identify in your food purchases. Read on to learn about the changes and how to make wise choices about the food you eat.

The Philippines as Springboard for US War on China

By Jezile Torculas, April 07, 2023

The geographic locations of the sites are very convenient for America’s China containment strategy — three in northern Luzon with close proximity to Taiwan, and one in southern Luzon, just along the South China Sea. 

How Sincere Is the US Inflation Reduction Act for the EU?

By Simon Cui, April 07, 2023

As it turns out in 2023, the Act is motivated mostly by self-interest, and its name is a misnomer. While it has a modest impact on inflation control, its attempt to reduce the deficit is unrealistic at best.

Zelensky’s Latest Trip to Poland Was Super Significant

By Andrew Korybko, April 06, 2023

Zelensky’s visit is intended to shape the course of the NATO-Russian proxy war over the next three months ahead of the bloc’s summit in early July. Warsaw’s role in forthcoming events will powerfully influence what Kiev does during this crucial moment in that conflict, hence the timing with which the Ukrainian leader decided to meet with his counterpart.

Regime Changed, System Remains in Place in Montenegro

By Stephen Karganovic, April 06, 2023

Milo Djukanovic, the outgoing Western puppet who ruled and plundered Montenegro for the last three decades, betrayed everything he ostensibly ever stood for during his insufferably long public career. Everything, that is, with the single exception of his own political survival. His finely tuned antennas assisted him at every turn to make opportunistically correct choices.

Australia: Executive Donkeys and War Powers Reform

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, April 06, 2023

The decision to go to war should be as burdensome as possible.  The more impediments to such folly, the better.  Such a state of affairs does not characterise the Westminster system of government.  It certainly does not apply to Australia, which is all the more troubling given a string of disastrous military interventions led by a slavish, ignoramus complex.

US Announces $2.6 Billion Weapons Package for Ukraine

By Dave DeCamp, April 05, 2023

The Biden administration on Tuesday announced a new massive $2.6 billion weapons package for Ukraine that includes HIMARS ammunition, missiles for air defense systems, artillery rounds, and other equipment.

German Leftist Lawmaker Says U.S. Soldiers and Nukes Must Leave Her Country

By Ben Norton, April 05, 2023

On the floor of Germany’s parliament, Left Party MP Sevim Dağdelen called for the c. 38,000 US soldiers in her country to leave, and to take their nuclear weapons with them. She lamented that Washington “doesn’t actually want allies, just loyal vassals”.

20 Years After Iraq: No Accountability and No Lessons Learned

By James J. Zogby, April 05, 2023

It is tragic and deeply distressing that twenty years after the US launched its disastrous invasion of Iraq that the ignorance, lies and cruelty of that war have never been acknowledged.

The So Far Non-Existent Russian Vulkan Leaks. Craig Murray

By Craig Murray, April 04, 2023

The Guardian, Washington Post and Der Spiegel have today published “bombshell” revelations about Russian cyber warfare based on leaked documents, but have produced only one single, rather innocuous leaked document between them (in the Washington Post), with zero links to any.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: GMO’s Are Now Called Bioengineered in the USA: Why This Matters

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

April 7th, 2023 by Global Research News

Ophthalmologists Now Ethically Obligated to Denounce COVID-19 Vaccines, as 20,000 New Eye Disorders Are Reported

Lance Johnson, May 6, 2021

France on Fire: “Fires” Everywhere. Who Is Behind them? “Men in Black”

Peter Koenig, April 3, 2023

Stay Home, Save Lives: Uncovering the COVID Deception

Colin Todhunter, April 2, 2023

9/11 and the COVID-19 Hoax in the Transition to Governance by “Emergency Measures”

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, March 31, 2023

History of US-NATO Military Campaigns (1991-2023)

Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti, April 1, 2023

What Kind of Ukraine Do We Support?

Patrick Pasin, April 1, 2023

Xi-Putin Summit: Strategy Meeting for the Coming East-West War?

Prof. Joseph H. Chung, April 3, 2023

Hundreds of French Citizens Suffer Cardiac Events After Bivalent Boosters

Dr. Peter McCullough, March 31, 2023

Putin’s Enormous Blunder

Eric Zuesse, April 3, 2023

Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC): The Weaponization of Money? WHO’s Health Tyranny: Towards a Totalitarian World Government? No Way!

Peter Koenig, March 30, 2023

The Dollar Is in Trouble! Here Are 7 Signs that Global De-Dollarization Has Just Shifted Into Overdrive

Michael Snyder, April 3, 2023

Biden to Order US Dollar Replaced with Trackable “Spyware” Version?

James G. Rickards, April 1, 2023

History: The Federal Reserve Cartel: Freemasons and The House of Rothschild

Dean Henderson, April 2, 2023

Iraq Twenty Years after “Shock and Awe”: The Mysterious Death of David Kelly

Michael Welch, March 31, 2023

Global Planned Financial Tsunami Has Just Begun

F. William Engdahl, April 1, 2023

A Most Perfect Genocide

Dr. Emanuel Garcia, April 5, 2023

The Beginning of the End of Israel

Steven Sahiounie, March 31, 2023

The Banking Crisis Gets Worse! $1.7 Trillion in Unrealized Losses Loom as U.S. Banks Rapidly Bleed Deposits

Michael Snyder, April 4, 2023

The Great Food Reset Has Begun

Thomas Fazi, March 30, 2023

Bird Flu Scare Narrative Ramps Up

Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 3, 2023

The Philippines as Springboard for US War on China

April 7th, 2023 by Jezile Torculas

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Philippines as Springboard for US War on China

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.

***

Inflation Reduction Act in Bad Faith

The Inflation Reduction Act[1], whose major goals are to “reduce the deficit and lower inflation,” was signed by US President Joseph Biden in August 2022. As it turns out in 2023, the Act is motivated mostly by self-interest, and its name is a misnomer. While it has a modest impact on inflation control, its attempt to reduce the deficit is unrealistic at best. Biden introduced a budget package[2] in March that would increase the US national debt ceiling from its current level of roughly $31.5 trillion to up to $51 trillion by the year 2033, a dramatic increase of nearly $20 trillion over the next 10 years, which can only “inflate the deficit”. How may these actions genuinely lower inflation? The Act’s aims such as energy security, combating climate change, improving healthcare, and tax reform are only a smokescreen. The Act appears to be in line with Europe’s aspirations for addressing climate change in terms of its emphasis on energy and climate change, but this turns out to be a cover-up.

The discriminatory credit provisions of the Act are a serious setback for Europe. In particular, $7,500 in US tax credits will be available for the purchase of a new electric vehicle, while a $4,000 tax credit subsidy is available for the purchase of an older electric vehicle. The subsidies, however, are unfair:

  • The United States, Canada, and Mexico must be the locations for the vehicle’s assembly;
  • The United States shall provide at least 40% of the major raw materials used in the battery, or it can be the countries which signed a free trade agreement with the USA; by 2026, the percentage will rise to 80%;
  • By 2029, the raw material percentage would rise to 100%, with at least 50% of battery parts being produced or assembled in the “three North American countries.”

A Protectionist Legislation Harming EU Investments in Industries

Such discriminatory subsidy clauses have overt trade protectionist undertones in line with the “America First” slogan. According to Eurostat (quoted from Factbox of Reuters[3]), the European Union shipped automobiles worth approximately 36 billion euros ($39 billion) to the United States in 2022, with around 65% coming from Germany and less than 9 billion euros worth of cars imported into the EU from the USA. A protectionist Inflation Reduction Act would disrupt the entire value chain.

To clarify the context, Europe has been a significant source of investment and production in the industry with more than 25% of the world’s vehicles produced there and 20% of the supply chain. In order to create a partnership with more than 800 participants across the whole battery value chain, the EU founded the European Battery Alliance (EBA)[4]. 250 million euros are spent by Europe annually to support domestic battery production. Many European businesses have already thought about transferring their manufacturing to the United States in order to save costs in the current environment of increasing risk of a global downturn, especially given the skyrocketing energy prices.

The Inflation Reduction Act completely derails the EU’s green efforts and disadvantages European firms that export electric vehicles or batteries to the US because they are also not eligible for tax rebates. The Inflation Reduction Act also offers incentives for businesses in the new energy sector and other industries to relocate factories in the United States, which will have adverse effects on the previous European countries’ investments in the renewable energy sector, worsening the overall economy and increasing unemployment.

Although the Inflation Reduction Act is meant to strengthen the US economy, it is only possible by channeling negative effects spread to Europe. To the detriment of European interests, the Act distorts markets and forces businesses to decide to invest in the United States under the influence of non-market forces. The Inflation Reduction Act surely leads to rising inflation in the eurozone with a weaker industry.

Why Such High Inflation in EU: The Déluge of Dollars

Since 2022, the long-standing dollar overdraft, war spending, and geopolitical tensions that cause high commodity prices have been the main causes of inflation worldwide. The Kiel Institute for the Global Economy estimates that from January 24, 2022, and February 24, 2023, the USA spent 43.2 billion euros[5]. The sum of money never appears out of thin air. The major goal of the Act is still to import wealth from other countries to plug the USA’s economic gap; in other words, it exports inflation (past spending) to other countries, mostly to its partners.

With a view to achieving stronger economic growth in the future, Europe must continue to expand and deepen the European Common Market, tap deeply into its internal potential, and raise investment in the two key development strategies of green transformation and digitalization. If the USA does not halt its widespread money printing programme, there will be no way out in the long run.

The Act demonstrates how consistently self-serving America is. The U.S. ignores the reality that its domestic economic policy is bound to have a systemic influence on a worldwide scale by taking advantage of the enormous size of the U.S. economy and its significant position in the international economic landscape. When developing domestic policies, the United States frequently overlooks the imperative to take on international duty. And common European households are responsible for paying the price for this policy.

*

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.

Simon C. is a PhD candidate in Europe focussing on public international law. He is especially interested in major country relationship and international development.

Notes

[1] Summary: the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/inflation_reduction_act_one_page_summary.pdf

[2] Biden’s $6.8 Trillion Budget Pitch Sets Up a Showdown, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/09/us/biden-budget-tax-news

[3] Factbox: How U.S. electric vehicle subsidy rules impact Europe,

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/how-us-electric-vehicle-subsidy-rules-impact-europe-2023-03-30/

[4] EBA official site, https://www.eba250.com/

[5]Ukraine Support Tracker, A Database of Military, Financial and Humanitarian Aid to Ukraine, at https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Possession Is Nine Tenths of Your Soul

April 6th, 2023 by Emanuel Pastreich

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 entire Earth is haunted by a specter, the specter of the complete possession of the human and the natural worlds by a band of unaccountable overlords. Those self-appointed global rulers, the billionaires, supported by the politicians and public intellectuals that they play with for sport, have carved out for themselves a separate reality where within they make up new rules for governance, local, national, and global, and then pass those rules down to us.

Central to this project is the radical alteration of the concept of possession.

Their audacious claim of possession of everything has been successful because it appears to be supported by all institutions of government, by universities and newspapers of repute, and other prominent international organizations which previously had legitimacy.

The billionaires have systematically laid down the foundations for this claim of ownership, using diverse tools, whether it be the control of our minds through constant bombardment with advertisements, the launch of natural assets companies (NAC) on Wall Street that claim private ownership of the oceans and the land, of the water and the air, of every aspect of the natural world, or  the ownership of our bodies through the patenting of DNA and the claim of the right to force citizens to accept injections of privately-patented substances that alter the physical, genetic, and psychological state of the individual.  

Through some magic process at the World Economic Forum the imperative to become modern and to be competitive as part of some imagined fourth industrial revolution gives these unaccountable authorities complete possession of all aspects of our existence.  

Such a claim to unlimited possession of everything only works if the concepts of possession that we have relied on from the distant past are erased and the citizen loses all sense of affiliation with local or national, ethnic or spiritual, roots that might offer an alternative concept of ownership.

The billionaires, above all, do not want any concept of ownership that is linked to a sense of belonging, or of participation. The concept that we own the land, the waters and the myriad plants and animals only in that we belong to that land and to those waters, and we are responsible to them, is a vision of our world with ancient roots which cannot be tolerated by the high priests of the World Economic Forum.  

Unlimited possession by multinational corporations, and by the governments that they have taken over, can only be achieved if all sense of belonging for people is torn to shreds, leaving behind no organizations of substance that can oppose this takeover except for the toothless controlled opposition that the global elite have prepared for us in advance–the Jeffery Sachs and Warren Buffets of the world.

Belonging, after all, is the central concept of the United States Constitution. Without the imperative that the citizen must belong to the republic, the property rights defined by that document are reduced to a travesty. Such was the intended consequence of corporations replacing the citizen with the consumer and the Constitution with markets over the past four decades.

Ultimately, the claim by the individual, the family, or the community to possess a house, a river, or a mountain, to be entitled to clean air or to healthy food that does not destroy the body, has been undermined by multinational interests who isolate individual from friends and family, from community members and like-minded people, thereby destroying any trace of belonging and encouraging a one-way hypnotic relationship with far off celebrities, cute pictures of fat cats, and glimpses of fashion and food, pornography and violence.

Fashion magazines, TV dramas, movies, cartoon characters, and video games induce an indulgent narcissistic cult of the self within which the individual competes against everyone. Personal possessions, not community solidarity, become the primary goal in life.

The ability of unaccountable multinational corporations to own everything, from farmland to houses, from transportation and phone lines, to the internet and media, is rarely questioned, and an alternative system is never suggested by any public intellectual.

Gone from our society is sharing and cooperation, serving those less fortunate, or for standing together for the common good against the greedy few.

The battle ground was well prepared by the corporate consulting firms before the first shot was fired, so as to facilitate this horrific final takeover.

The disenfranchisement of entire populations is not new in human history, but the current project is unprecedented in its scale and in its speed. If we were to look for a parallel, the destruction of the civilizations of North and South America by the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, and the English from the 16th century to the 19th century is most apposite.

Just as was true then, this time a handful of private interests (like Blackrock, the modern equivalent of the British East India Company) have set out to destroy all customs, learning, institutions, values, and concepts in the nations targeted. But this time it is not the Aztecs and the Iroquois who are being targeted. This time, all civilizations on the Earth are fair game in the radical shift of ownership being planned by supercomputers.

The wild bid of the billionaires to buy up all farmland in the United States, Ukraine, Russia, and most every country, using the fake money cooked up by multinational investors using the cover of the Federal Reserve, and other central banks, resembles the process by which England and Spain claimed ownership of the “New World” by magic, introducing the alien, and completely artificial, concept of real estate.

They made up their own maps back in London or Madrid, just as billionaires make up cryptocurrency and derivatives in London and New York, and then used those maps to claim ownership of vast swaths of forest and plains, mountains and bays. The key to their success was the use of false authority, backed by pay-to-play public intellectuals, to define who owned what.

It was a financial operation, and it was often a military operation when force was needed to assure acceptance of the new order. But above all, then and now, the takeover was an ideological operation, an epistemological move whereby the concept of ownership, and of nationhood, were violently, but silently, remade by the imperialists sitting in their lavish parlors.

The first step toward taking possession of everything today was for the billionaires to take control of money, and of the institutions that defined its value: the Federal Reserve, the Department of Treasury, departments of economics and business at universities, economic experts, and the newspapers of repute that report on the economy.

Once the institutions that define value were taken over, corporations could then employ authority figures in those institutions to convince the people that the stock market had a relationship to the economy, that the efforts of corporations benefited the citizen.

Image source

We were told that we must, following some obscure law of nature, invest our savings in the stock market, and that the “innovative” geniuses of Wall Street like Elon Musk are entitled, because of their claims to be working for the good of humanity, to take over everything in the human realm.

The current project was greatly facilitated by the destruction of the humanities in education in the 1980s. Our children ceased to receive education in the fundamentals of metaphysics, aesthetics, morality and epistemology—and in art, literature and history.

My high school had a philosophy club back in the 1980s. Such extracurricular activities for high school students are rare today. Instead,  mass-produced images are put out by multinational corporations like Apple and branded as, somehow, related to the humanities. In reality, the images of people engaged in artistic expression that are broadcast in IPhone commercials are simply a bid of corporations to lay claim to possession of individual expression of emotions and sentiments–to make creative acts a product that must be downloaded.

How did we get here?

When global capital shook off the chains that had been wound around its neck in the 1930s (and that required tremendous effort back then) it was able to bribe and to seduce intellectuals and policy makers so as to create an educational system that was engineered to destroy the capacity of the individual to understand how society functions, and to undermine the ability of the student for himself or herself. In the place of the temple education they erected a false palace of mirrors, filled with practical studies like economics, engineering, and public relations that are presented as more realistic than those fluffy humanities courses. But these new “practical” studies form a Trojan horse that is filled with an ideological soup mixing narcissism, consumption culture, short-term thinking, and scientism (the religion holding that science is an oracle presented by select authorities at blue chip institutions that cannot be questioned from below).

Economics and business administration, marketing and public relations are the new fields promoted by the rich that hold that growth and consumption are positives without a scrap of proof, and they create a mythical set of metrics for success in business that are less scientific than bloodletting techniques of the 18th century.

Four decades of our country stewing in this ungodly soup has produced a generation of highly-educated citizens who are good at taking tests and at following directions, but who are incapable of perceiving the manner in which society is manipulated in an ideological and aesthetic sense.

Unlike the intellectuals of the 1930s, the last time we ran into a crisis on this scale, current intellectuals are blind to ultimate causes, incapable of grasping class conflict, or ideological indoctrination, or the manipulation of the people by technology. In fact, AI, the primary weapon used to degrade the capacity of citizens to think independently, is promoted as a positive for society by treasonous intellectuals.

For pay-to-play intellectuals, scholarship means that facts are piled up in meaningless piles and then exchanged for grants from foundations. Distinguished scholars whose chairs are endowed by wealthy patrons with agendas to alter the nature of possession, gather at Princeton University or Brookings Institution to congratulate each other on their latest books.

The purpose of their research is to give legitimacy to the take over of everything by the few and thus rise in their careers, obtaining the public recognition in the corporate-controlled media that soothes their egos. They are not interested in understanding how the world works; they do not feel any moral responsibility beyond lining their own nests.

This criminal operation, reinforced by subliminal messages in advertising, in posters, and billboards, in TV commercials, or in television dramas and movies, tells us from childhood how we should define possession and belonging. We are told that wealth rightfully belongs to people who demonstrate no moral responsibility and live glamorous lives, consuming grotesque amounts of resources. They are to be envied and admired, we are told.

These images of consumerist possession possess us in the manner that one is possessed by an evil spirit.   

There are no longer regulators or independent intellectuals out there to step forward to declare that manipulative advertising, deceptive education, is an assault on the ability of citizens to think for themselves. Few citizens are confident enough in their understanding of the world to recognize that this harmless advertising we see around us is, in fact, a war waged on our souls.

Possession has ceased to be defined by ancient customs and habits, by obligations and moral imperatives, or even by laws and regulations. Rather possession has become a magical state which is determined by those with the ability to alter perceptions. If Twitter, the New York Times, and Google announce that someone owns something, it becomes the truth: It becomes theirs.

In this new culture, one can possess objects instantaneously by ordering them over the internet. Just a few dollars of digital currency and it is yours. You are encouraged to possess things that are insubstantial, like castles in Mine-craft. For many, the objects possessed virtually seems more substantial than any real object.  

But such possessions can be taken away just as easily by unaccountable forces. And there is no rule, no means to appeal, in the digital transactions that increasingly define possession.

Just miss a few payments for your mortgage, or fall behind on your bill for internet service, and suddenly you are homeless and cut off from the world. Faceless and unaccountable powers are empowered to determine what you can and cannot do.   

In effect the house, the computer, the internet service and everything else you supposedly possess is ultimately owned by the banks and you have only conditional rights to use them as long as you conform to certain conventions.

Possession has become radically tangential, unbearably contingent, and tantalizingly ephemeral.

Now that possession only exists for the citizen in an abstract manner, while all the tools that define possession are controlled by private IT firms that determine our online communication, and increasingly control local and central government as well, we have been primed for the final stage of disenfranchisement: the introduction of digital currencies that will allow hidden powers to stop possession with the flip of a switch.

A brief history of possession

Let us consider the transformation of possession that took place over the last three hundred years. Ancient peoples lived in small groups and the land was common to them. The home was private property in the sense that it had belonged to the family for generations, but no individual was free to do whatever he pleased with the land he or she inhabited. The individual was part of a family and the family, as part of the community, was but custodian of the land for future generations.

Possession could not be separated from belonging. You belonged to the land, to the mountains and the rivers, as much as, or more than, you possessed them.

A drawing depicting a 17th-century trade scene between Dutch merchants and Native Americans. Common trading items were beaver pelts, Dutch tools, and wampum beads used as currency.

A drawing depicting a 17th-century trade scene between Dutch merchants and Native Americans. Common trading items were beaver pelts, Dutch tools, and wampum beads used as currency. (IMAGE COURTESY NORTH WIND PICTURE ARCHIVES)

The growth of international trade in the seventeenth century, the concentration of wealth in the hands of bankers and merchants in the 18th century, the displacement of farmers from their lands through the enclosure acts in Britain and elsewhere from that time, and the emergence of workers dependent on paid work in factories in the 19th and 20th centuries who did not own anything, could not produce their own food, and did not belong to any social institution or organization, revolutionized the concept of possession.

New technologies undid, or undermined, the ancient technologies for growing crops, forging iron, blowing glass, weaving clothes, cobbling shoes, and generating energy by wind, water, or horse.

All around the Earth, land that had belonged to the people, who also belonged to it, became the property of strangers, of far off nations, and of “corporations” and “trusts” –opaque organizations that protected owners from any personal responsibility.

Along the way, the pseudo-scientific discipline of geography took hold in the universities of London and Paris, Berlin and Boston, an academic field wherein powerful people in cities made up maps with pretty colors that define where nations start and end, which corporation, or which individual, owned enormous swaths of Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania.

Those empowered by this seizure, were refined and educated men, wearing three-piece suits when they gathered at the club for gin and tonics, surrounded by scholarly books and exquisite paintings.They then had their classmates from Oxford and Princeton pass laws in their national assemblies, that made the mountains and rivers, the fields and bays, the islands and peninsulas of far off lands suddenly theirs. It was a ridiculous magic trick that was justified by using the cloak of science and the fairy tale of civilization.  

The destruction of traditional concepts of possession by a tiny handful of colonialists between the seventeenth century and the nineteenth century, is immediately relevant to us because the current push to disenfranchise and destroy the mass of humanity today follows virtually that same game plan. 

The cult of the new made long-term relations with places and things less important, even a burden to those who wished to be “modern,” to be fashionable.

Suddenly, a two-hundred year old house in one’s native village is worth less than a tiny apartment in the city with which one has no connection at all.

This new apartment offers a television and air conditioning, but it could be easily taken away through the use of eminent domain, rigged-up bankruptcy, or any number of tricks.

The shift in the nature of possession is also a product of the promotion of trade. The growth of global trade routes and supply chains, invisible to all but the specialists, has created a real economy, following strict rules that is never described in any newspaper.  

Corporations outsource manufacturing to the far corners of the Earth not simply so as to take advantage of low labor costs, but also so as to take complete control of how things are made, distributed, and sold. There is no recourse the citizen can take in response to the horrific economic implications of how products are produced before they arrive at Walmart.

And in this new economy there is no space for a craftsman, a farmer, or a carpenter–none of the profits find their way back to the community. Almost all profits go to the billionaires hiding behind the corporations.

Mass production is held up, without a scrap of scientific data, as a sign of human progress. A society in which the necessities of daily life are produced by strangers, often offshore, through unaccountable corporations, is presented to our children as an ideal.

The makers of things and the users of things have been separated by an unbridgeable chasm.  

To put it simply, the means of production, distribution, advertising, and consumption have been completely possessed by the billionaires.

This possession takes the form of invisible network of global manufacturing, logistics, distribution, and retail sales, that is supported by the private banks that underwrite the entire game.

No political candidate of the left or the right will even mention this possession of the entire system when running for office.  

Money, not the ancestors, nor the traditions of the village, nor ethical imperatives to be a good son, mother, or neighbor, has become the only determinant of ownership–and that money is itself a chimera cooked up by the central banks.

When philosophy was murdered in the educational system and extirpated from intellectual discourse, when citizens were torn away from nature, from agriculture, and from communities violently as part of a new culture of modernity that glorified the radical dependence of the individual on systems of production that were controlled by corporations, on money controlled by banks, they wandered out into the swamp of slavery.

But the posters around them, the popular Hollywood movies they watch, suggest that personal freedom, and true self-expression, can only be achieved by becoming dependent on a money economy.

As a result, most of us pass our days without asking ourselves what possession means.

Of course, you might answer, we possess our clothes, our furniture, the computers and the software that we use at work, the house in which we live, and that ownership is protected by laws. Our bodies are ours and we are free to choose what we buy and where we live.

That form of possession is fool’s gold. Merely default on a loan, even though the money that the bank loaned you was made up from thin air by that bank, and you will find that you do not own anything.

Debt is roped to possession. Everything you might desire to possess, and the commercial media from morning to evening is set on brainwashing you into believing that you must possess, requires that you borrow money to obtain it.

You have no choice but to take that loan in order to get the education necessary to find employment, or to buy the automobile you need to go to work.

The banks and the corporations are authorized to penalize you for nonpayment of these loans, and to fine you as they see fit for late payments. You have no right to demand anything in the “contracts” you must sign to get the loans required.

They can easily force us to sell all your possessions so as to avoid homelessness and destitution. In many cases, the banks are authorized to take those items from us using the police. And the police are authorized to seize your possessions on the flimsiest excuse. 

Your right of possession as a citizen is radically tangential, but the possession of banks and multinational corporations is assumed to be legitimate even when it is obtained using dubious assets like stocks, derivatives and stocks. These mythical creatures create value by employing authority, media coverage and on occasion, the threat of force.

Yet, as unreal as these products may be, the system is set up so that they can be used by institutional investors as collateral to buy up the land that we use to grow food, to control the energy that we need to move, or to heat our homes, and to monopolize everything of value in the world through acts of black magic.

Armies of economics professors and business journalists line up to give this occult form of transsubstantiation a veneer of legitimacy. The primary job of experts in economics is to convince us that the stock market, Wall Street, represents the economy, and that the rise and fall of those stocks reflects our well being–not the profits of the rich.

But this Wall Street magic is not magic at all. They create inflation for the rest of us by devaluing the money in our bank accounts; They set up a series of financial crises for ordinary people that allows the rich to use the funny money pumped into the stock market by the Federal Reserve to buy up stock, or to buy up the real estate that the little people are forced to sell. 

The trillions of dollars that the billionaires created in this massive Ponzi scheme called the stock market, along with trillions of dollars more produced by money laundering through the military, allows them, using their various holding companies, not only to take possession of real things like land and water, food and mineral resources, housing and transportation systems.

It also allows them to hire advertising firms, consulting groups, and politicians to redefine the nature of possession so that their power will be unlimited and we will be slowly reduced to slavery.

Possession is the true name of the game.

Our last stand

Sadly, the more brazen the grab for possession of everything grows, the more passive and confused the population becomes. The shifts are so dramatic, so overwhelming, that most are lost in the mad rush forward.

Following the fictions fed to them in the media, many see Warren Buffett or Elon Musk, not as criminals trying to destroy humanity, but as models of how one can grow wealthy and independent by being innovative. The enemy of humanity are painted as a concerned friends.

We have entered the critical period when the last traces of freedom and belonging are being swept into the ash bin of history. All that will be left will be possession by the few and the resulting slavery for the many.

Will we have the self-awareness and bravery to make a stand?

*

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.

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 Philippines announced on April 3 that the locations of four new military bases that the US will gain access to have been identified. These bases, an expanded part of the defence agreement between the two countries, will allow the US to approach Taiwan from the south in the event of war and acts as another part of its China containment strategy.

The US-Philippines joint military exercise Balikatan-2023 will be held across the South East Asian country from April 11 to 28, the US embassy in Manila announced on April 4. This will be the largest exercise in the history of the Philippines. About 9,000 service members took part in last year’s exercise. However, this year, more than 5,000 Philippine troops and more than 12,000 US troops will participate. 

It is noteworthy that the US Embassy announced the drills only a day after Manila revealed the locations of the four new military bases that will allow rotating US troops – three on the main island of Luzon, close to Taiwan, and one in Palawan province in the South China Sea. 

The licensing of these four sites was probably decided during the trips of US officials to the Philippines in recent months, first Vice President Kamala Harris, and then Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. A US presence at new military facilities in the Philippines, as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy, will increase the potential for Washington to influence the situation in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

One of the strategic intentions of the US is to build a base on Balabac Island as it could provide future support and logistics in any future military operation in the region. Three of the new bases could be used primarily by the US military to respond to any situation in the Taiwan Strait from the south. This would work alongside their bases to the north of Taiwan, specifically those in Okinawa in southern Japan. In this way, the new bases in the Philippines will fill the gap in the south, which is very important for the implementation of the US containment strategy.

Although the Philippines has a dispute with China over maritime sovereignty space, from Beijing’s perspective, Manila has brought a foreign power to the region. For the Americans, the Philippines is an important springboard for operations against China in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, and because of this, China will certainly take retaliatory measures, which could include a force build-up. This in turn will see tensions rise in the sea area adjacent to the Philippines, which can lead to a serious deterioration in Beijing-Manila relations.

“China has sent a signal to the Philippines to not allow third parties to sabotage the friendly relations between the two countries,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Yi said at a meeting in Beijing with former Philippine President, Senior Vice Speaker of the Philippine House of Representatives Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. 

At the same time though, Manila announced on April 4 that talks with China on joint oil and gas exploration in the disputed South China Sea will resume the following month. Resumptions of talks was first indicated when Chinese President Xi Jinping hosted his Philippines counterpart Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in Beijing during the latter’s first state trip outside of the Southeast Asian region.

“China will work with the Philippines to continue to properly handle maritime issues through friendly consultation, resume negotiations on oil and gas exploration, promote cooperation on oil and gas exploration in non-disputed areas, and conduct green energy cooperation on photovoltaics, wind power, and new energy vehicles,” Xi said at the time.

A statement released by the Philippines’ presidency also said Marcos mentioned the “continuing negotiation for the joint exploration between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, which he said is very important to the Philippines.”

However, it is recalled that the Philippines Supreme Court had declared only days after Marcos’ trip to Beijing that the country’s tripartite agreement with China and Vietnam for energy exploration in the disputed South China Sea was void and unconstitutional.

Even so, the fact that Manila will allow four new US bases to open just weeks before discussions with Beijing will resume suggests that Philippine leaders will continue deepening their country’s military relations with the US whether improvements are made with China or not. China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea is a move that has angered its neighbours, but they will also prove to be a first line of defence for the Asian country as the US continues to strengthen its military presence in the region, as seen with its new access to four Philippine bases.

*

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

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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 an uphill struggle to get GMO labeling laws in place, and now things have become more complicated. With the new name, Bioengineered, the presence of GMO’s will be harder to identify in your food purchases. Read on to learn about the changes and how to make wise choices about the food you eat.

In the days of our great-grandparents and grandparents, there was not much concern regarding food purity and food safety, because wholesome farm-to-table was the norm – not a special event. That is, as long as the people upstream didn’t pollute the river!

Our generations have more to think about, as over 80% of processed foods in the USA contain genetically modified organisms. The concern for food purity took a twist early last year, when the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) decided to rename Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) as Bioengineered (BE) foods.

For many decades, tech companies have been developing ways to genetically modify, enhance and (in their opinion) add value to the foods we grow and eat. There is much written on the sketchy “science” that forms the basis of this program of modifying foods.

Rather than debate those points, the main issue is that the new designation of BE carries a loophole that does not include some GMO foods. Disappointingly (but not surprisingly) this new federal law falls short of fulfilling GMO labeling standards.

The new law came into effect in January 2022, without much fanfare, and most people didn’t even notice it. The law states that in order to be labeled as BE, foods must contain a detectable amount of genetically modified material. Unfortunately, there are many genetically modified foods that are untestable, and therefore are eliminated from the labeling requirement.

What Foods Fall Under The Bioengineered (BE) Umbrella?

The USDA provides a list of foods that contain genetically modified material and require the BE label:

  • Alfalfa 
  • Arctic™ Apple
  • Canola
  • Corn
  • Cotton
  • Bt Eggplant
  • Ringspot virus-resistant Papaya
  • Pink Pineapple
  • Potato
  • AquAdvantage® Salmon
  • Soybean
  • Summer squash
  • Sugarbeet

Numerous processed foods will now include the BE label. Some of those foods are :

  • Sodas/soft drinks
  • Frozen foods (meals and single items)
  • Canned soups
  • Baked goods
  • Tofu made from GMO soy beans
  • Non-organic milk made from cows fed genetically modified soy products
  • Sweetened juices
  • Dressings made with GMO canola, soybean, corn, sunflower, safflower
  • Cereals

However, the new labeling law does not include products that are manufactured using these basic ingredients and forming a new product. There are numerous products made with new GMO techniques, ones we are just now hearing about in the news, for example: CRISPR, TALEN and RNAi techniques. These techniques do not have commercially available tests, and it is impossible to identify the genetically modified ingredients that they contain; therefore they are excluded from the BE labeling requirement.

The Non-GMO Project provides this list of products excluded from labeling:

  • Some foods for direct human consumption are exempt, such as meat, poultry and eggs.
  • Multi-ingredient products in which meat, poultry or eggs are the first ingredient listed are exempt even if other ingredients with detectable modified genetic material are included in the product. 
  • Animal feed, pet food and personal care products are all exempt from BE labeling.

To give an example, the non-GMO Project describes labeling for a can of soup that contains BE corn, but the ingredient list of the soup names meat as the main ingredient (second to water and broth or stock, which are overlooked for this purpose). As the law does not require BE meat to be labeled, the soup does not have to identify that BE corn is present in the soup. So, that means a can of cream of corn soup that contains BE corn as a primary ingredient must be labeled, but any canned soup that contains BE corn not as the main ingredient, does not need to have a BE label.

What Does This New Law Mean For The Consumer?

The short answer: Confusion

For the last decades, many consumer-oriented organizations, including the Non-GMO Project and Jeffrey Smith, of the Institute for Responsible Technology, have worked tirelessly to educate the public about the health risks of GMO’s and their effect on the environment. At this point in time, most people are quite familiar with the concept of GMO… and over 40% of the USA population wants to know what’s in their food. Now the federal government has renamed GMO’s (while excluding some of them). Most people are not familiar with the term Bioengineered (BE) and have no idea that it means genetically modified organisms are in their food.

Language Is Important.

We have all seen over time that language changes and, slowly, the meanings of words shift in common usage. For example, in the 60’s, the Flintstones cartoon theme song happily mentioned having a “gay old time” (as in: carefree) but nowadays you can’t use that phrase without meaning something entirely different.

Or, how about the slang usage of the word “sick” to mean something great? Or a dude, used to mean a man working on a ranch, but is now used as a gender-nonspecific slang term. Or, as on the east coast of the USA, the term “wicked” means really good, not evil.

So, here we go again, with an unneeded and unwanted name change for something that people have come to understand – GMO’s.

Add this to the confusion of the new labeling term: For decades now, in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe, the term “Bio” or “Biologishe” has become synonymous with natural organic products – the exact opposite of this new BE usage of the word “BIO” in the USA. In fact, one of the largest trade shows for organic products for all of Europe, attended by thousands of organic food and product companies from around the world, is named BIOFACHE.

SO, this new definition of the word “Bio” also serves to undermine the understood and accepted usage of the terminology commonly used by those who want to know that their food and personal care products have not been altered in a laboratory. This appears to be yet another designed plan of those corporate entities who are driven to tinker with genetics.

After the last few years, the public has become more aware of what can happen when RNA and DNA gene “therapy” is introduced into the population. It sure seems to me that this new Bioengineered name for GMO’s is an attempt to obscure the fact that these products are genetically modified.

This fits right in with the agenda being promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) to create a fourth industrial revolution. The WEF’s leader, Klaus Schwab, doesn’t hesitate to announce that their aim is to “fuse our physical, digital and biological identities.” If that rings some alarm bells for you, you might also want to take a look at our article about understanding social engineering and how it is creeping into our world (and not in the most positive way!).

Why Would You Want To Avoid GMO And BE Foods?

We’ve already mentioned that while average consumers are going about their daily lives, big tech companies (chemical and food manufacturers) are actively creating new GMO’s in their laboratories. These foods have also been nick-named “Frankenfoods” because, like Frankenstein, the mixing, matching and splicing of genetic material in a laboratory has untested and unseen consequences.

However, those involved in the practices claim that what they are doing is not much different than traditional crossbreeding, but changes just occur a bit faster. While moving forward with their agenda to genetically modify our food supplies, they also do not address consumer concerns about allergies, cancer and environmental issues surrounding these altered products.

This attitude is disconcerting because it does not take into consideration the very complex micro-changes in the natural world that occur over long periods of time. I question this whenever I see an item listed on a food label as “nature identical” – which means it has been chemically produced using the same chemical components of a natural item – but is it really identical?

If so, why not use the natural ingredient? I don’t think it is identical, even if it has the same chemical composition, because it does not come from a natural environment. There is so much that contributes to the the components of a fruit or vegetable grown in nature. Whether you consider the birds, bees, wind, sunlight, soil, water, even the caring attention of the attending farmer – all of this synergy adds together to create a nourishing food item that we can utilize for our health.

Circumventing these natural contributing factors seems irresponsible. It will not produce the same result if we speed up the natural evolution of something by artificially reproducing it in a laboratory environment. Just like Frankenstein, it takes time to know what the effects of tinkering with nature will be. In a world that is always rushing to achieve more, gain more, do more, fill your days to the max… we tend to go more with the idea that inspired the Slow Food Movement… take time to enjoy the natural food as it grows in its own time. 

Conclusion

Like it or not, the USDA has made a decision to change the name of GMO’s and that is reflected in their required labeling. When you see the new circular labeling on packaged foods that says either “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering” you should be aware that means genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are contained in those foods.

At the same time, not all foods that contain GMO’s will be required to have a BE label. Since you can no longer be sure that a product does not contain genetically modified material, the best way to avoid these products is to:

  • make sure that you buy organic products whenever possible
  • avoid processed foods, or if you do use them, use those that contain organic ingredients
  • look for Non-GMO labels or the Butterfly label from the Non-GMO Project that guarantees no BE ingredients in the products that bear the label
  • try to purchase from small local farmers and producers that share your views on GMO’s

If you are not sure about a product, our motto is always, “When in doubt, leave it out!”

When in doubt, do some research, so you are more informed about what BE products are. And, if you choose, figure out how you can avoid them. At the very least, you are now aware of the new label and what it means, so you can make educated decisions about what you are eating for your health.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s website, Enchanted SpiceBox.

Featured image is from Enchanted SpiceBox

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.

***

Zelensky’s visit is intended to shape the course of the NATO-Russian proxy war over the next three months ahead of the bloc’s summit in early July. Warsaw’s role in forthcoming events will powerfully influence what Kiev does during this crucial moment in that conflict, hence the timing with which the Ukrainian leader decided to meet with his counterpart. For as carefully as Zelensky is planning everything, however, he might still fail in reversing his side’s fortunes.

Symbolism & Substance

Zelensky’s first state trip to Poland since the start of Russia’s special operation last year took place earlier this week, during which time he was awarded with his host country’s highest civilian honor, the Order of the White Eagle. His visit occurred at a crucial moment in the NATO-Russian proxy war, which adds an element of intrigue to it, as does its symbolism. The present piece will thus analyze the aforesaid in order to better understand the importance of Zelensky’s latest trip.

The Latest Military-Strategic Dynamics

To begin with, the NATO chief declared in mid-February that his bloc is in a so-called “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with Russia, one which Moscow is winning as evidenced by its continued military resilience and Zelensky’s remark late last month about running out of ammunition. Wagner founder Prigozhin also recently claimed victory in the Battle of Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut” after his group captured that city’s administrative center, which prompted a policy reversal from the Ukrainian leader.

Back in late February, he said that his forces might abandon that area if their losses there become unreasonable, but then he told CNN last month that losing that city might result in Russia rolling through the rest of Donbass. Zelensky then built upon this prediction to warn just a little more than a week ago that he’ll be pressured at home and abroad to “compromise” with Moscow if that happens, but now he’s snapped back to his prior position after preconditioning the public to expect a possible withdrawal.

It remains to be seen what’ll ultimately happen, but there’s no doubt that the military-strategic dynamics favor Russia. This isn’t wishful thinking either but is predicated on the damning details contained in the Washington Post’s report from the middle of last month about how poorly Kiev’s forces are faring. With this larger context in mind, it’s clear that Zelensky’s latest trip to Poland truly took place at a crucial moment in this conflict.

The De Facto Polish-Ukrainian Confederation

As for the symbolism, Poland is among Ukraine’s top allies, so much so that those two declared their mutual intent last May during President Duda’s visit to Kiev at the time to eventually remove all borders between them. This resulted in them gradually merging into a de facto confederation, which advances Poland’s geopolitical project of restoring its lost commonwealth in pursuit of its grand strategic goal of once again becoming a Great Power.

Zelensky’s reaffirmation of their mutual intent to remove all borders between them during his latest trip to Poland extends credence to this assessment, as does a neoconservative lobbyist’s push for that geopolitical project in a recent article for the influential Foreign Policy magazine. With a view towards legitimizing Ukraine’s status as his country’s de facto protectorate, Duda declared that Warsaw is seeking additional security guarantees for its neighbor ahead of this summer’s next NATO summit.

Polish-Ukrainian Problems

For as much as those two want to gradually merge their countries into a de facto confederation, there still remain some very serious obstacles in their way. For starters, there’s obviously the question of financing this geopolitical project, which Poland can ill afford. Second, Poles are disgusted with Ukraine’s glorification of Hitler’s fascist genocidal collaborator, Bandera. The more that the Polish state tolerates this in spite of its occasional rhetoric in defense of historical truth, the angrier that average Poles get.

Building upon the aforementioned observation, the third challenge to this geopolitical project is rising anti-establishment sentiment in Poland, which could lead to the Confederation party winning enough votes during this fall’s elections that the ruling party is forced to form a governing coalition with them. That outcome could throw a wrench in these plans, thus indefinitely delaying their implementation, especially if Confederation finds a way to block the requisite funding and/or security guarantees.

The Prospects Of A Polish Military Intervention

There’s still plenty that can still happen before the next elections, however, including a Polish military intervention in Ukraine. Its Ambassador to France thundered late last month that “If Ukraine fails to defend its independence, we will have no choice but to enter the conflict. Our fundamental values, which are the cornerstone of our civilisation, our culture will be in fundamental danger, so we don’t have a choice.” Even though the embassy said his words were decontextualized, the intent was clear.

Russia has been warning about this scenario for quite a while already, which could represent an unprecedented escalation in NATO’s proxy war against it by dint of Poland being an official member of that bloc whose countries have mutual defense obligations to one another. A Polish intervention could therefore serve as a tripwire for that anti-Russian alliance to formalize its role in this conflict, especially in the event that Poland announces its “unification” with Ukraine and brings it under their umbrella.

While this sequence of events remains speculative, it’s nevertheless founded on a factual basis as was explained thus far in this piece, especially considering the disadvantageous military-strategic dynamics that cast a cloud over Zelensky’s latest trip to Poland. Returning to those and keeping in mind the words of the Polish Ambassador to France as well as these two countries’ leaders reaffirming their desire to remove all borders between them, observers shouldn’t discount the possibility that this transpires.

Scenario Variables

In fact, it could very well unfold prior to the next elections in fall should Russia’s capture of Artyomovsk lead to it rolling through the rest of Donbass like Zelensky earlier predicted might happen, which could prompt Poland to intervene in accordance with the conditions that its Ambassador to France stipulated. The only variables that could credibly offset this scenario are Russia continuing to only make piecemeal progress on the ground or Kiev agreeing to a ceasefire with Moscow prior to resuming peace talks.

The first’s chances could be strengthened by a surge of modern Western weapons to Ukraine while the second’s could be reduced by Poland promising whatever support Kiev requires in order to not feel forced by circumstances into negotiating with Russia. Therein lies the likely purpose behind Zelensky’s latest trip to Poland, namely to explore exactly what Warsaw could provide in this respect so as to better assess whether it’s worth seriously considering during this crucial moment in the conflict.

Reassessing Duda’s Demand To NATO

Duda implied during an interview with Le Figaro in early February that he feared France might try to broker a ceasefire, the scenario of which could be advanced by Macron’s ongoing trip to China, whose 12-point peace plan was praised by President Putin during his counterpart’s visit to Moscow last month. The political dynamics of this conflict are therefore just as disadvantageous from Kiev’s and Warsaw’s shared perspective as the military-strategic ones since they both point to an impending ceasefire.

This observation adds further context to Duda’s demand that NATO give Ukraine more security guarantees. His statement can now be interpreted as either hinting at a forthcoming Polish military intervention (irrespective of whether this is preceded by formalizing their confederation) or suggesting that these could soon be extended to reassure Kiev of that bloc’s enduring support in the event that it’s forced by circumstances into agreeing to a ceasefire with Russia (regardless of who might mediate it).

Ukraine’s Upcoming Counteroffensive

Duda’s desire for this to be done sometime in the next three months before early July’s NATO summit places a concrete deadline on his demand, which coincides with Kiev’s expected counteroffensive. About that, the Washington Post’s earlier cited report tempered expectations about its success, as did the latest assessment from the former commander of the Polish Land Forces. Waldemar Skrzypczak told leading Polish media that Ukraine is “not ready” for this and that “Now it’s time for politicians.”

Cynics who might claim that this retired official doesn’t have accurate information about the conflict’s military-strategic dynamics should be reminded of what incumbent Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces General Rajmund Andrzejczak told publicly financed media in late January. He warned that time is running out for Kiev, confirmed that Russia’s military might still remains formidable, and expressed serious concern that Ukraine could ultimately be defeated.  

Despite this dire analysis from Poland’s top military official, who’s indisputably in a position to receive the most up-to-date classified information about the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, Kiev will probably still attempt its planned counteroffensive anyhow. That will in turn influence whether Poland formalizes their de facto confederation and/or militarily intervenes in its support, exactly which security guarantees NATO might give Kiev, and whether a ceasefire is reached before the bloc’s summer summit.

Concluding Thoughts

This insight leads to the conclusion that Zelensky’s latest trip to Poland was super significant since it’s intended to shape the course of the NATO-Russian proxy war over the next three months. Warsaw’s role in forthcoming events will powerfully influence what Kiev does during this crucial moment in that conflict, hence the timing with which the Ukrainian leader decided to meet with his counterpart. For as carefully as Zelensky is planning everything, however, he might still fail in reversing his side’s fortunes.

*

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 Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

For the last three years, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been one of America’s strongest voices in defending our Constitutional Republic from public health officials and politicians wielding emergency power. In a series of rousing speeches reminiscent of his father’s famous University of Capetown address in 1966, RFK, Jr. has articulated why we should never allow our constitution to be compromised by fallible men who promise to keep us safe. Today, April 5, 2023, he filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for President of the United States in the 2024 election.

Mr. Kennedy was an environmental activist thirty years before it became fashionable. For decades, he worked as an attorney to protect the natural world from corporate industrial polluters. He has been especially troubled by the contamination of our waterways such as the Hudson River with hazardous waste, including mercury. In 2005 he became concerned about a mercury compound used as a preservative in childhood vaccines, which prompted him to conduct a thorough investigation of vaccine safety in general. He found it especially alarming that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act granted vaccine manufacturers immunity from all civil and criminal liability for injuries or deaths caused by their products.

In the absence of legal liability, he realized that the only thing likely to regulate their conduct is scrutiny from a public figure, and because no other public figures were stepping up to do it, he himself assumed the responsibility. No good deed goes unpunished, as the saying goes. Mr. Kennedy’s critical scrutiny of vaccine makers (coining billions while bearing zero product liability) has not been met with debate, but with vitriolic, ad hominem attacks and accusations of being a conspiracy theorist. Implied in these attacks is that no one should dare even question the safety of vaccines.

In 2021, he published his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, meticulously cataloguing the corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power rampant in the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex in which Dr. Fauci has played a key role. Every statement in Mr. Kennedy’s book is documented with a citation of primary sources including federal agency documents, peer reviewed medical literature, and public records. Any reader can easily evaluate these sources. The Kindle edition features hyperlinks to the documents.

The sixty-nine year-old Kennedy was educated at Harvard College and the London School of Economics, graduating from Harvard in 1976 with a Bachelor of Arts in American History and Literature. He went on to earn a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia and a Master of Laws from Pace University.

It seems to me that even Republicans and dedicated Donald Trump supporters should welcome this momentous event. Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly demonstrated his dedication to preserving the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life it sustains. More so than any public figure with presidential ambitions, he has fought to protect individual American citizens from federal mandates and other acts of state overreach. He may be the only Madisonian classical liberal left who has an affiliation with the Democratic Party. Against the Republican contender in 2024, Mr. Kennedy would be an honorable and worthy opponent.

Readers of this Substack are encouraged to register on his TEAM KENNEDY website, which will soon announce the details of his campaign kickoff ceremony in Boston on April 19.

*

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 CD

Regime Changed, System Remains in Place in Montenegro

April 6th, 2023 by Stephen Karganovic

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.

***

 

 

 

 

Milo Djukanovic, the outgoing Western puppet who ruled and plundered Montenegro for the last three decades, betrayed everything he ostensibly ever stood for during his insufferably long public career. Everything, that is, with the single exception of his own political survival. His finely tuned antennas assisted him at every turn to make opportunistically correct choices. The end came when it no longer depended on him and his puppeteers decided that his shelf life was over.

Djukanovic will now be swept away as were Mobutu, Suharto, Mubarak, and scores of similar satraps who were allowed to misrule and steal for decades, until the inscrutable overseers decreed that their time was up. Will Djukanovic be humiliated like the deposed Mobutu who memorably showed up at a Brussels bank to withdraw some of the plundered cash, only to be told that his account was frozen pending clarification of “human rights violations” that had been alleged against him? Or will he be put on trial in a cage like Mubarak (he was, after all, chased out of office in a rough Montenegrin equivalent of the “Arab Spring,” such as marked the end of Mubarak’s rule)? We will find out as the scenario, which certainly is not being written in Montenegro, further unfolds.

In the meantime, the clueless masses joyously celebrate what they believe to be their electoral victory. They never learn that regimes are fungible, but that the system that oppresses them is sacrosanct and immutable. Their notion of a solution for their problems rarely goes beyond the infantile search for a “new face.” They almost never notice that the new face, delivered to satisfy their craving for novelty, is but a mask.

In elections held on Sunday, April 2, Djukanovic was replaced by Jakov Milatovic, a virtual political unknown but with impeccable Atlanticist credentials (see puff piece here). The pretentious name of Milatovic’s party, “Europe now!”, of course makes absolutely no sense at a time when the European Union and its “values” are imploding. But it is a powerful virtue signal to the new President’s future overlords, leaving no doubt about his policy commitments.

For those who do not remember, and they should not be blamed if they don’t because Djukanovic’s public presence has been intolerably long and his chameleonic transformations too numerous to keep track of, here are some highlights of his treacheries. He began as an ardent Serbian nationalist and political ally of Slobodan Milosevic in the late 1980s. When the civil war in the former Yugoslavia began in earnest, Djukanovic was personally at the front lines, directing fire and making threatening noises against those that would soon become, in one of his future incarnations, his allies. During the 1990s, as Yugoslavia was developing survival strategies to defeat Western sanctions, Djukanovic saw an opportunity to turn national policy into a source of private profit. He kept for himself a steadily increasing cut of the proceeds of goods that under state auspices were being smuggled from neighbouring Albania and from across the Adriatic Sea not to stuff his pockets but to relieve the plight of the population that was being devastated by merciless Western sanctions.

Image: Đukanović giving a speech in 2018. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

undefined

He liked this cash cow system so much that he continued to operate it long after sanctions were removed. He simply substituted more lucrative items such as drugs and tobacco for consumer goods.

As a result, according to no less an authority than the London “Independent,” the President of tiny, impoverished Montenegro which produces nothing of substance (“mysteriously,” as the British coyly put it) managed to join the ranks of 20 richest heads of state. A business genius of such calibre, now that he is leaving politics, unless he is arrested, should perhaps be usefully hired as a consultant by failing Western banks. That just might save the financial system.

When he judged the moment opportune, Djukanovic eventually turned his back on everyone who ever helped him in his rise. He grasped very early which way the wind was blowing and that identifying with his mentor Slobodan Milosevic would put him at a severe disadvantage in amassing ill-gotten wealth and surviving politically, so he hosted Milosevic’s political opponents on his Montenegrin turf. During the 1999 NATO bombing he went a step further and brazenly hosted on territory under his rule Western intelligence operatives while his country, Montenegro, and the rest of Yugoslavia were being demolished by air strikes.

Djukanovic’s most radical betrayal, perhaps, was of his indisputably Serbian roots. He is a descendant of proudly Serbian ancestors who included a prime minister of the Kingdom of Montenegro and a commander in the nationalist anti-Axis movement of General Drazha Mihailovic. But when he grasped that the Western-engineered fragmentation of Yugoslavia was more than merely political dismemberment and that it encompassed the ethnic break-up of the Serbian nation as well, he unhesitatingly jumped on that bandwagon, not caring that his grandfathers and uncles were turning in their graves. He reinvented himself overnight into a vociferous proponent of a distinct Montenegrin ethnicity and, absurdly enough, of language also.

Djukanovic also dutifully turned his back on Russia, Montenegro’s traditional ally and protector, imposing “sanctions” on its historical patron. Montenegro’s grateful attachment to Russia went so far that in 1905 it declared war on the Japanese Empire in a gesture of solidarity. To this day the declaration of hostilities against Japan has not been officially rescinded, nor has a peace treaty been signed. Djukanovic, who is poorly educated and reputed by those who know him well to be a man who does not read books, was probably unaware of this curious historical fact. Otherwise, he surely would have ostentatiously apologised to the Japanese for the insulting gesture of his patriotic forebears.

Toward the end of his interminable rule Djukanovic apparently fell victim to a delusion of omnipotence. He actually pioneered (or tried to) in his country the creation of a fake, regime-sponsored Orthodox Church to which he planned to assign the assets of the genuine, canonical Orthodox Church of Montenegro, which is in communion with and an integral part of the Serbian Orthodox Church. (Alert readers will unmistakably detect elements of the Ukrainian scenario in self-admitted atheist Djukanovic’s insolent scheme.) But far from submitting to the pillage of their church, in 2020 for months the people of Montenegro staged massive, spontaneous processions in every corner of their country to protest Djukanovic’s hubris. Faced with popular intransigence, the greedy tyrant was compelled to concede and withdraw the church seizure law that he had previously rammed through his puppet legislature.

That marked the start of his undoing. His sponsors realised that Djukanoic was turning into a liability. His voiceless subjects were seriously tired of him and the massive self-organised protest, though triggered by predominantly religious concerns, could easily acquire unambiguously political characteristics. Unless adroitly deflected, such a development could topple the system which for decades had served Western interests perfectly and had held Montenegro in subjection as a geopolitical pawn.  

The solution was found, and his name is Jakov Milatovic. He combines all the features that are required to successfully deceive the masses and by their enthusiastic and uncritical consent to replace the discarded political dinosaur. Milatovic unquestionably is a “new face” (his previous public exposure having been minimal), he is also young (as if that mattered) and, unlike Djukanovic, he probably has read a few books in the course his life. He has also had a semblance of education (much as Andrey Martyanov would undoubtedly and rightfully sneer at it). But it was acquired in all the wrong places, given the geopolitical realities and all the known and ominous facts about how “young leaders” are groomed and “educated” in the shrinking domain known today as the West-centric “international community.”

Milatovic learned everything he knows, and will soon apply it as President of Montenegro, as the beneficiary of educational grants at Illinois State University, Vienna Economic University (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien), La Sapienza University in Rome, where he spent a year on a grant generously provided by the European Commission, and finally as a UK government grantee when he attended economics training at the University of Oxford.

Milatovic received additional preparation and instruction in programs such as Oxbridge Academic at Oxford, numerous International Monetary Fund programs, as well as the London School of Economics and the Stanford University Leadership Academy. An impeccable CV, is it not, for things to change in order to remain the same?

Wise Montenegrin Orthodox cleric, archpriest Jovan Plamenac, was on to something when he commented the election outcome thus:

“I am glad that Djukanovic lost, but I take no joy in Milatovic’s victory!”

The Russian foreign policy establishment shouldn’t, either.

*

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.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image: Jakov Milatovic (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Regime Changed, System Remains in Place in Montenegro
  • Tags:

Australia: Executive Donkeys and War Powers Reform

April 6th, 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.

***

The decision to go to war should be as burdensome as possible.  The more impediments to such folly, the better.  Such a state of affairs does not characterise the Westminster system of government.  It certainly does not apply to Australia, which is all the more troubling given a string of disastrous military interventions led by a slavish, ignoramus complex.

As things stand, the National Security Committee, comprising inner cabinet members including the Prime Minister, determines whether Australia goes to war.  It replicates the British monarchical traditions of old, and speaks against, rather than in favour, of a Parliamentary voice.

Attempts to challenge such a convention have been previously made.  The Australian Democrats made efforts to that end in 1985, 1988 and 2003, all in vain.  The Greens have also made similar efforts, with similar results.

In December 2020, Australian Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John introduced a bill before parliament with the express purpose of curbing executive powers in favour of parliamentary debate.  “Australia,” stated Steele-John in his second reading speech on the bill, “is one of the few remaining democracies that can legally deploy its defence forces into conflict zones without recourse to the parliament.”

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas) Bill 2020 would require both the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass a resolution permitting troops to be sent overseas before any planned deployment.  That attempt has passed into oblivion.

In 2020, a Roy Morgan poll found that 83% of respondents favoured reforms requiring parliamentary approval prior to any decision to go to war being taken.  In 2021, a Digital Edge poll found that 87% of Australians were in agreement with the proposition that “war decisions should be subject to parliamentary approval always or unless there is immediate danger to Australia”.

In March 2021, the Australian Labor Party at its national conference determined that, should it find itself in government, hold a parliamentary inquiry into whether war powers should fall within the purview of parliament or continue to be a matter of the executive arm.

With such momentum, much was expected from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Its Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making promised a departure from convention.  But for anyone familiar with Australian political life, committees and selected parliamentary inquiries are alpha signatures of the static.  When it comes to challenging the ancient conventions of executive war making powers, it was expecting much to suppose any change in direction.

On looking at the submissions, this should not have been the case.  The inquiry received 111 submissions, with 94 arguing for parliamentary involvement in the war making process.  But it became clear in the months leading to the publication of the final report what direction the members were heading.

Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong, in comments made in Parliament on February 9, revealed that the inquiry would not derail or obstruct the accepted wisdom of executive war making powers.  In her reply to a question posed by Senator Steele-John, Wong proved a figure of stale convention.  “The executive should account to the parliament for such a decision.”  That said, “it is, in our view, important for the security of the country that that remains a power and prerogative of the executive.”

On March 31, 2023, the Committee released its final report.  It proved intensely underwhelming.  Its members acknowledged Australia’s participation in “a number of wars over its comparatively short history, many of which have been tarnished by controversy.”  Despite such a chequered history, the members merely affirmed “that decisions regarding armed conflict including war or warlike operations are fundamentally a prerogative of the Executive”.  The role of parliament was deemed important, as was “the value of improving the transparency and accountability of such decision-making and the conduct of operations.”  In other words, little would change.

In her response to the report, the President of Australians for War Powers Reform , Alison Broinowski could only express resounding disappointment.  “The first recommendation confirms our worst fears – it reaffirms the status quo by insisting that decisions regarding armed conflict are fundamentally up to the PM and the executive.”  The implication of this was clear: “MP’s and Senators will continue to have no right to vote on a war decision before troops are sent overseas.”

In his scathing account of the leadership overseeing the British Expeditionary Forces in France during the initial stages of the First World War, Alan Clark recalled a famous exchange between two German generals, Erich Ludendorff and Max Hoffmann.  “The English,” observed Ludendorff, “fight like lions.” “But,” came the assuring reply from Hoffman, “don’t we know that they are lions led by donkeys.”

The failure of securing war powers reform, at least at this juncture, ensures that the executive donkeys will take Australians into the next needless conflict, fatuously purposed for the US war machine.  And it will be done with Parliament gazing at a distance, irrelevant before the slaughter and homicidal impulses of the establishment.

*

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

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

Featured image: Penny Wong (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia: Executive Donkeys and War Powers Reform

U.S. Gun Violence During the COVID Crisis: Teenage Deaths and Injuries Increased by 64.8%

By Gun Violence Archive and Global Research, April 05, 2023

The following table. from the Gun Violence Archive confirms a significant increase of reported cases of deaths and injuries during the three year period of the Covid Crisis (2020-2022).

Detroit Activists Battle Bailiffs in Defense of the Tiny Home of Taura Brown

By Abayomi Azikiwe, April 05, 2023

Taura Brown, a dialysis patient fighting eviction from the Tiny Homes on the west side of Detroit, has been a target of the Cass Community Social Services (CCSS) non-profit agency which claims that it is providing shelter for homeless people in the city.

What Trump’s Indictment Means

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 05, 2023

President Donald Trump is being arraigned on the basis of sealed charges.  It is unclear why the charges are sealed.  Imagine arresting someone on the basis of charges kept from the person.  It happens in America as it did in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Taiwan Leader Set to Meet US House Speaker Despite China Warning

By TRT World, April 06, 2023

Taiwan has pushed back against threats of retaliation by China, ahead of an expected meeting between the island’s president and the US House speaker that will underscore her administration’s claim to sovereignty.

Canada Must Condemn, Sanction Brutal Israeli Attack on Al-Aqsa Worshippers

By Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, April 06, 2023

Widely circulating videos from inside the Al-Qibli prayer hall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque show Israeli police brutally beating Palestinian worshippers who had been performing the religious practice of Itikaf during Ramadan.

So the Russian Incursion in Ukraine Was “Unprovoked”, Eh?

By Don Hank, April 05, 2023

The West knew that the Constitution of the Russian Federation calls on the RF to defend groups of Russians anywhere who are attacked militarily. And, in a deliberate provocation, the US-installed Kiev regime started attacking civilians areas in the Russian-speaking Donbass and murdering ethnic Russians.

Urgent Threats to Peace for Humanity in the 21st Century

By Antonio Tujan, April 05, 2023

Peace is not simply the absence of war. A call for world peace has to take account of the causes of un-peace – these four major contradictions in world of humanity that create violence against the people and the planet.

Vatican Renounces Euro-supremacist “Doctrine of Discovery”

By Richard Becker, April 05, 2023

More than five centuries after it was formulated in a series of papal decrees, the Vatican issued a formal announcement on March 30 repudiating the Euro-supremacist “Doctrine of Discovery.” In essence, the “doctrine” said that all lands not occupied by “Christians” passed into the hands of the European conquerors as soon as they were “discovered,” and their inhabitants enslaved.

A Most Perfect Genocide

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, April 05, 2023

We know that for a while the many, in their illusions, have cherished their so-called individuality and autonomy. They have traveled far more widely than should have been their wont, and much less expensively than ever.

The Meeting Between Lula’s Chief Foreign Policy Advisor & President Putin Was Very Important

By Andrew Korybko, April 05, 2023

In order to remove any doubt that Lula is deliberately aligning with the US in the grand strategic sense and wasn’t just misled into doing so, leading Russian officials wanted to make sure that he and his team knew the Kremlin’s position on their proxy war with NATO in Ukraine.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: U.S. Gun Violence During the COVID Crisis: Teenage Deaths and Injuries Increased by 64.8%

Canada Must Condemn, Sanction Brutal Israeli Attack on Al-Aqsa Worshippers

April 6th, 2023 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

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.

***

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to condemn the Israeli government in the strongest terms following last night’s brutal attack on worshippers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem. Widely circulating videos from inside the Al-Qibli prayer hall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque show Israeli police brutally beating Palestinian worshippers who had been performing the religious practice of Itikaf during Ramadan. Hundreds of Palestinians, including women, children, and elderly, were staying overnight in the mosque to pray. During the attack, a health clinic was destroyed and media teams were blocked from accessing the injured. CJPME urges Canada to respond to this aggressive attack on a place of worship by imposing sanctions on Israel, starting with an immediate arms embargo.

“Words cannot express the horror of Israel’s brutal attack on Al-Aqsa worshippers, which we all witnessed as captured on video,” said Michael Bueckert, Vice President of CJPME. “Israel’s repeated attacks on religious freedom are fueled by decades of impunity from the international community. Canada must act now to immediately suspend all military trade with Israel to ensure that we are not contributing to this violence,” added Bueckert.

Contrary to Israeli reports that Israel was responding to “rioters,” the worshippers in Al-Aqsa were practicing Itakif, a common Ramadan tradition in which worshippers stay inside mosques overnight to reflect and pray. To forcibly remove them, Israeli forces attacked the mosque with tear gas, stun grenades and rubber-coated bullets, and beat worshippers with metal chairs, batons, and rifles as women and children were crying in the background, according to video footage and harrowing eyewitness accounts. Israeli forces also destroyed a health clinic during the assault and denied the Palestinian Red Crescent access to the dozens of injured, in a brazen attack on the health care of an occupied population.

CJPME notes that Israel’s latest attack is not unique to its current far-right government, but follows repeated violent raids on Al-Aqsa in 2021 and 2022. Last weekend, Israeli police in occupied East Jerusalem killed a 26-year-old Palestinian Bedouin medical student outside of the Al-Aqsa gate as he attempted to stop police from assaulting a Palestinian woman, and Israel’s police chief was caught on tape making racist statements that Palestinians “murder each other. It’s in their nature.” However, CJPME is deeply concerned about the specific dangers posed by Israel’s national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is an extremist disciple of the fascist Kahanist movement, with a long history of inciting violence against Palestinians. Ben-Gvir and other ministers also have close ties to the extremist Temple Mount movement, which is threatening to make provocative invasions of the Al-Aqsa compound during Passover, which would inevitably lead to the further repression of Palestinian worshippers on the site. The Canadian government has not yet released a statement on the attack.

*

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: Palestinians pray as Israeli security forces take positions at the Al-Aqsa compound [Ammar Awad/Reuters]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Taiwan Leader Set to Meet US House Speaker Despite China Warning

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.

***

Journalists throughout the West repeated ad nauseam that word unprovoked. No journalist dared to write about the Russian incursion without adding that magic descriptor.

It was as if someone were holding a gun to their heads. And the motivation behind this new iron-clad rule of journalism was that the special operation was not unprovoked at all. And to be effective, a lie must be repeated often, just as flowers must be watered daily to make them thrive.

When the US-NATO broke its promise not to move NATO “one inch further east,” that was clearly a provocation.

Shortly after the deal was signed between Russia and the West whereby Russia gave up the Warsaw Pact that had once defended its sovereignty, new NATO members began to spring up around Russia like mushrooms in the forest after a summer rain.

The genocide against Russian speaking civilians in Donbass was also a provocation.

The West knew that the Constitution of the Russian Federation calls on the RF to defend groups of Russians anywhere who are attacked militarily.

And, in a deliberate provocation, the US-installed Kiev regime started attacking civilians areas in the Russian-speaking Donbass and murdering ethnic Russians.

The genocide against Donbass civilians started in 2014–15 when the US-controlled Kiev regime bombed Donbass civilians from the air. It was no duel because no one was shooting back at the bombers.

As a Russian speaker and aficionado of all things Russian, I started reading Russian-language blogs by activists in Donbass in 2014 and viewing videos of aerial bombings of civilian areas.

It can only be called a systematic genocide, although the reports from there portrayed the action as a war, with pro-Russians and Russian allies dueling with their Ukrainian counterparts.

The first videos I was watching were of aerial bombings from Ukrainian army jets and the targets were residential areas.

There were numerous such videos on YouTube, but they have all all been deleted in the meantime. All that I could find was one photograph of the carnage and devastation, but it tells the story eloquently: see this.

Within a few months, the Kiev government stopped the bombing and switched to artillery shelling of Donbass.

We know today that many or most of the shells were coming from the area of Avdeevka (Avdiivka in Ukrainian), a highly fortified stronghold with massive underground bunkers. The Wagner groups are currently fighting there and are making headway. The going is slow because the fighting is from building to building.

After over a year of the Russian campaign, the culprits of the Donbass genocide are starting to be defeated.

For those victims of Western propaganda who find it difficult to imagine that the Russian special op was provoked, I invite you to browse among the following videos of the undeniable provocation that you’re not supposed to believe in.

Herein below are videos from 4 different Westerners who ventured into Donbass during what I rightfully call the Ukrainian genocide, and said videos clearly illustrate my point:

Christelle Néante: Shelling of Donbass (Sakhanka) by Ukraine army, June 7-10, 2018

OSCE disinterested, didn’t listen to victims

Graham Phillips in Donetsk before war (you can surf the video if you don’t have a lot of time)

Anna Lipp charged with crime of telling the truth

In each video below, showing homes damaged and destroyed, Patrick Lancaster asks residents where the shelling came from and in each case, they tell him it came from the Ukraine side.

He also always asks his interlocutors whether there are any military installations in the shelled area, and they say there are none. The camera then pans to show that the area is indeed residential and that there are no military facilities there. This questioning is necessary because since the beginning of these attacks by Ukraine on Donbass, the Kiev government and the US news outlets have been clearly lying, asserting that this was a war, with the militaries of each side, Ukraine and Russian, exchanging fire (thanks to the media cover-up, most Westerners still believe this fable). Patrick’s videos clearly show that these reports are simply lies, invented by the Kiev regime and passed on to the US msm, which regurgitate the lies to the Western audiences.

These lies are criminal because they have led to the current war in Ukraine and have misled the public into believing the Russian incursion into Ukraine was an “unprovoked” invasion.

Further, this disinformation in the minds of the Western people prepares them to accept the Russophobic war mentality and willingly accept the donation of astronomically priced arms shipments. This in turn leads the world perilously close to a nuclear exchange.

Patrick Lancaster in Donbass, before the Russian special operation (May 30, 2020)

Patrick Lancaster, 6 years ago, Ukraine shells, burns down 3 homes in residential area of Donbass

Patrick Lancaster, 6 years ago, Ukraine shells home in residential area in Donbass

Patrick Lancaster, Feb 21, 2022, attack on school

Chart showing increase in shelling of Donbass by Ukraine, which led Putin to order the special military operation.

*

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 Fort Russ

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 successive generation, it seems we get one step closer in Western civilization to peak nihilism.

The Twitter thread below starts with a truncated summary of Gen Z psychology (but also, I would argue, applicable to millennials, the generation I belong to): “to be serious is to be ‘cringe’, to be in love is to be a ‘simp’, and to be ambitious is to be a ‘try-hard’.”

The initial diagnosis is followed by greater elaboration deeper into the thread.

The entire thread is worth reading, as it touches on nearly every social illness that grips the younger generations – modern feminism, hookup culture, the rejection of meaning and objective reality itself, and – which I wish to focus on here – the full-throated embrace of irony as a coping mechanism in a world cleansed of inherent meaning.

Irony as a worldview is a pestilence – the song of the bird that has grown to love its own cage, as it has been put elsewhere. David Foster Wallace described the essential problem with irony best:

“Sarcasm, parody, absurdism and irony are great ways to strip off stuff’s mask and show the unpleasant reality behind it. The problem is that once the rules of art are debunked, and once the unpleasant realities the irony diagnoses are revealed and diagnosed, “then” what do we do? Irony’s useful for debunking illusions, but most of the illusion-debunking in the U.S. has now been done and redone…

Postmodern irony and cynicism’s become an end in itself, a measure of hip sophistication and literary savvy. Few artists dare to try to talk about ways of working toward redeeming what’s wrong, because they’ll look sentimental and naive to all the weary ironists. Irony’s gone from liberating to enslaving.” [emphasis added]

The sincere search for meaning, in Gen Z/millennial psychology, is a fool’s errand – one that demonstrates an individual’s antiquated sentimentality, an essential weakness that must be purged from all interpersonal interactions: “Since the zoomer can’t express his true self, nor his emotions, he must remain conscious of himself at all times, like a larp,” the Twitter thread reads.

I would like to take this analysis in a different, but related, direction that is not addressed in the Twitter thread, excellent though it is.

Part of what is going on is spiritual dissatisfaction with the empty promises of material abundance/consumerism.

Material wealth is useful, of course, and a net benefit to a people’s quality of life – poverty of any sort is not ideal. Yet it cannot, despite the fervent promises of clever advertisers, confer spiritual meaning to life.

Over the course of the previous eighty years after World War II and the advent of the global liberal economic order, the West has slowly come to grips with this reality. But Third World countries, which I have spent much time in and which only recently escaped the mire of hand-to-mouth poverty, are still optimistic about the potential of material wealth to deliver the nirvana – the enlightened absence of suffering — we all implicitly crave.

Give them a few more generations to come to the same cynicism that pervades the West, after their Gods of antiquity have all been replaced by the market and secular humanism, just as He has been in the West for some time since Nietzsche lamented his demise in the 1800s.

Man does not subsist on bread alone, as the Bible verse goes.

The thread concludes on a hopeful, positive note – one that the subject of this discourse, millennials and zoomers, would do well to embrace:

“Gen Z is the generation of nihilism. Zoomer’s [sic] are incapable of doing something rather than nothing. They are like Zombies, too dead to live and too alive to die. Don’t abide by their standards. Pursue greatness, live passionately, and do so unapologetically.”

*

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

This article was originally published on The Daily Bell.

Ben Bartee is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Armageddon Prose and/or Substack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TDB

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 following text was presented by Anthony Tujan at the Peace for Life Conference on Wars in the Era of Empire and the Imperative for Just Peace and Solidarity, March 7-9, 2023

 ***

Peace is not simply the absence of war. A call for world peace has to take account of the causes of un-peace – these four major contradictions in world of humanity that create violence against the people and the planet. Thus, rather than the usual scoping of developments around the world, allow me to frame my discussion on the major contradictions facing humanity today, plus the contradiction between humanity and the planet.  Such broad and comprehensive discussion will still end, as it should, with the discussion on imperialism and the Wars of the Empire being the theme of this conference. 

The four major contradictions are:

a. among the monopoly bourgeoisie – big capitalists and corporations in the developed world versus the oppressed and exploited workers;

b. imperialism with its puppets versus the oppressed and exploited workers and peoples of the semicolonies,

c. interimperialist competition and conflict, and

d. imperialism versus nations and governments asserting independence and seeking socialism. 

Add to this the contradiction between humanity and the planet which is being expectedly instrumentalized by imperialism –  for which the masses bear the hardships from climate change, environmental degradation and pandemics.

Interimperialist conflict seems most concerning to the public and may seem to be the principal contradiction today with the ongoing war in Ukraine and the threat of war in the US-China conflict. The looming threat of an international war is principally created by the tools of media and the warmongering and militarism by the states affected by the Ukraine war. In the context of and despite the economic and climate crisis, international war becomes the most concerning to the status quo under the throes of neo-conservatism and reaction.

The masses of the toilers are immediately concerned with their day to day survival. Their suffering and misery are brought about by their exploitation as workers in the industrialized countries who face hunger from wage erosion, unemployment, loss of benefits and social protection and diminishing social services.  

For the countries in the imperialist periphery, the masses of workers, peasants, urban semiproletariat and petty traders and employees face worse misery from starvation wages, hand-to-mouth existence as forever unemployed seeking a living in the informal sector. Openly fascist or latent fascist ‘libertarian’ states violently repress the masses who have learned to protest against all forms of oppression from the state who oppress and exploit them and the corporations who take over their resources and exploit their labor. 

The fourth major contradiction refers to the severe oppression and exploitation by imperialist powers on the semicolonial countries who all suffer from the efforts of each imperialist country to carve out its sphere of influence to extract more superprofits. This has resulted in the emergence of some progressive and combative governments who lead the efforts of countries in the periphery to counter monopoly capitalist economic, political, military, diplomatic, and socio-cultural domination, oppression and exploitation. Examples of these are Cuba, DPRK, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Iran.

Empire – more vicious as the ageing wolf

The Pentagon has long ago recognized that the US is in its postprimacy decline of its hegemonic rule. More than seventy years since the emergence of the US as the main hegemonic power, or the Empire as it has become commonly called. Twenty years of it was as the sole hegemon since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 but this came to a sudden stop in 2008 in the most severe economic crisis since World War II.  

The crisis has lingered to the present and with it the decline of the Empire. This is evidenced principally by its economic standing as its industry and services stagnate and become less competitive, becoming dependent to subcontracting to China and the rest of the Far East but advance to modern industry and technology. But the US holds fast to its remaining power in the military industrial complex, its military global infrastructure and its rentier control of global finance starting with and created by the dollar peg in global financial transactions. 

Image source

Trump launched a trade war against China to shore its political economic defenses but Biden is hard up in revving up US industrial growth and competitiveness to stop its hegemonic decline. The political economic response lies in redefining battle lines in trade and finance and using unilateral (and UN) economic and other sanctions against perceived erring governments and economies. In this sense Taiwan and South Korea are keystones as economic powerhouses and bastions of US semicolonial power.  They are being used to encircle China and regain US political economic and military might.

There are many reasons and considerations why the US cannot simply launch a war of aggression -foremost among them being the deep economic crisis it has been suffering from for the past fifteen years.

It can attack specific small semicolonies like Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, but not Russia nor China. Not even Iran and North Korea whom it has openly identified as the two tips of an ‘axis of evil’. Not even Cuba and Venezuela which it has been itching to invade.

Neoconservatives dream of a general or an international war and want to use  NATO and other alliances, but the existence of nuclear military capability by its avowed enemies leaves the threat of a US nuclear umbrella stalemated. 

Thus the US goads its semicolonies into war or better yet, goads its main enemies into war as its carries out a comprehensive strategy of constriction such as in the case of Russia, Iran and China.

The US alliances with the western imperialists like UK, Germany, France and others in the EU and in the NATO in security matters have been pursuing a policy of dismemberment of the former Soviet Union, turning its republics into semicolonies contrary to the agreement to respect the neutrality of these countries under the Minsk Treaty of 2013.

The objective of this war is to realize the debilitation of Russia under Putin’s rule at the expense of the lives of the Ukrainian and Russian masses. It creates the conditions to create more sanctions aided with covert operations such as the bombing of the Nordstream pipeline to hasten the US control of exports of gas and oil supplies for Europe.  The escalation of the war through munitions aid and build up, plus the creation of mercenary forces on both sides does not bode well for both Russia and the Ukrainian people while NATO powers sit pretty while directing their war effort.

The western modern imperialist alliance – NATO and G7 – will not agree to an armistice until they themselves suffer the economic and political consequences of their proxy war or when Putin admits defeat. They may control intergovernmental institutions and processes like the UN, they face sufficient international clamor to end the war from their side.

At its zenith at the turn of the twenty-first century, the Empire tried out a reproachment policy to its erstwhile enemies Russia and China but this soon turned sour – when Putin began asserting against the western imperialist alliance’s free-for-all rape of the former republics; and when the US realized that China was fast building up its economic power to challenge US financial and economic hegemony as Japan took too long in its economic recovery.  From the depression in 2008 to 2013 major political economic shifts saw the US lose it primacy leading to the emergence of a multipolar world with two new imperialist powers independent of the erstwhile unchallenged Empire and its imperialist alliance.

Russia and China have achieved a level of monopoly capitalist power as imperialists each on their own right but remain hobbled by unevenness in their industrial development, economic system and military capability. 

China has achieved a level of diplomatic power as head of the Group of 77 + China as a result of its economic assistance to carve out a sphere of influence in Africa and Asia, while using trade and investments in developing political economic relations with the rest of the world. 

Russia has used the historic ties held by the former Soviet Union where revisionism and social-imperialism held sway to establish semicolonial relations with many countries including those who consider themselves socialist. Many of these countries have been targeted by the Empire for subversion, sanctions and invasion even but have been able to assert their independence against the Empire as they depend mainly on Russia and China for support.

The creation of an alternative bloc was attempted in the BRICS conferences. These five demographic/geographic powerhouses (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are historically regional powers on their own right, are nominally independent to the Western imperialist alliance and can become a global economic and political power bloc of its own.  But the Empire moved soon enough in coopting them by creating the G20, besides individually drawing in India, South Africa and Brazil into alliances depending on the nature of the government in power.

For example, India under the communalist conservative BJP government of Modi treads a path of neutrality as an historical ally of the Soviet Union but allies itself with the US against China. It has accepted a US invitation to be part of the QUAD as an economic alliance but balked at being part of an Indopacific security alliance. 

The US is forced to create separately the AUKUS security alliance to coordinate imperialist military operations against the ‘axis of evil’ comprising Iran, China and DPRK including the Pacific seaboard of Russia.  The dependent and semicolonial countries are then drawn into this alliance for war – South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia as well as Japan.

Flashpoints for military build up and intervention include the Senkaku islands, the East China Sea, the Taiwan strait, South China Sea (Spratly and Paracels), and the India-China border. The US is keen to goad DPRK to start the war because it cannot goad Chinese to a senseless war. As it is, the Empire has been subverting China by funding separatists in HongKong, Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet and looking for chinks in China’s armor to invade if should China consider military action beyond its internationally recognized borders. 

Image: SOUTH CHINA SEA. The Navy’s only forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) transits the South China Sea. Reagan is part of Task Force 70/Carrier Strike Group 5, conducting underway operations in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Rawad Madanat)

Thus the West Philippine Sea is an important corridor for US aggression which provides concern and worry to Vietnam and the Philippines.  The US wants the Philippines to be its proxy and excuse under the US-RP Mutual Defense Pact to attack China.  But the Philippines cannot fight two wars – domestic and international – and so the US dumps all-out support that the AFP needs to smash the CPP/NPA before the Philippines can be a proxy for attacking China.  Vietnam faces the similar dilemma because of historical animosities with China though the latter tries to balance its policy of neutrality between US and China.

Equally important is Northeast Asia and the Korean peninsula where the Empire lost its offensive to Korea and China in the Korean War 1952.  The armistice is a stalemate to the US war efforts just as the existence of Taiwan as a renegade province of China can be considered a stalemate to the full liberation of Peoples China.  The subregion is an economic linchpin of monopoly capital to which the US is heavily invested. The Empire cannot allow the existence of DPRK and Siberia under Russia. But the real target of the Empire, as it has always been, is of course China.

The Orient is now the economic center of the world and can become the center of an inter-imperialist war.

Overall Russia and China act defensively not because they are socialist or have survivals of socialism in their state and system but simply because the Empire is on a warpath.  And the US needs war to survive, the US war machine needs war to fuel its military industrial complex.  Furthermore, it cannot accept a new imperialist power to carve new spheres of influence – there are no countries left for Russia and China as they are concerned, and the US-western imperialist alliance needs to amass more superprofits to power its recovery.

The call for a revival of the non-aligned movement among dependent countries and semicolonies of imperialism is not necessarily appropriate since what we face is not a cold war between two hegemonic powers.  There is no division of the world between two camps of imperialists gearing for a third world war. 

What exists is a dying Empire that is seeking wars but is not ready to send its troops to occupy other countries by themselves, note the recent example of Afghanistan. The US propaganda/media machine is hell bent on portraying Russia as a fascist invader as it also tries to portray China as a totalitarian country from which its people need to be saved.  It wants a global inter-imperialist war for profit from as long as the war is not fought in the American heartland, not unlike  World War II.

If international conflagration spreads, there are still many levers that exist in international relations and diplomacy that prevent the internationalization of war until these intergovernmental instruments become useless. The multilateral nuclear umbrella is an actual deterrent, unless an irrational process will initiate nuclear war and the end of humanity as we know it.   

The international domination, oppression and exploitation by imperialism, which is best exemplified by the Empire with its warmongering and military build up, unilateral sanctions, and military aggression leading to all-out invasion, and more even directed by the Empire at private citizens, is grossly scandalous to the peoples of the world, except for the philistines and neoconservatives especially in the imperialist heartlands.      

There is a broad opposition from countries who see the senselessness of the Empire war machine, and the chicanery of the US and other NATO governments over its takeover of the former Soviet republics leading to the escalation of hostilities and the Ukraine war. This opposition needs to link up with the broad public opposition to the war.

On the other hand, we must remember that while international politics, such as alliances and actions may be important, but war is fought within national borders, thus national politics is principal and even fundamental. But national politics must be critically linked to international political action.

Especially for the peoples of the global South, it is urgent to end fascism, call for democracy and economic emancipation, and fight for national liberation from the clutches of imperialism, its TNCs, and its control of the WB/IMF/WTO. Everyone should pay attention to the contradictions in their respective countries, understand how domestic issues play into international conflicts driven by imperialism, and address the struggles of the people in a comprehensive internationalist understanding. Fight narrow patriotism which is reactionary and driven by the bourgeoisie.

The imperialist propaganda for an international war should be met with a clear understanding of the rule of the Empire, that in the Philippines it is a US-BBM terrorist regime to be defeated.  In the Orient the Empire is the main enemy as the peoples in these countries also oppose the imperialist subaltern states of Australia and Japan and the puppet states of South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand etc. 

There is time to prepare, organize the masses in the unions, the workers associations, the peasant associations, the youth and students, the middle forces like church people, and the petty traders and employees to address their economic demands, link them to the issues of democracy and fascism, and fight foreign interventions and imperialist wars.

For the broad public, we should promote a faith-based ethical just popular propaganda to counter warmongering and war fascist propaganda to counter US-BBM propaganda against China, red-baiting, terrorist labelling against preconceived enemies of the status quo – the so-called ‘free worlds’. We cannot allow the Empire and its puppet states to terrorize us to submission.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Urgent Threats to Peace for Humanity in the 21st Century
  • 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.

***

More than five centuries after it was formulated in a series of papal decrees, the Vatican issued a formal announcement on March 30 repudiating the Euro-supremacist “Doctrine of Discovery.” In essence, the “doctrine” said that all lands not occupied by “Christians” passed into the hands of the European conquerors as soon as they were “discovered,” and their inhabitants enslaved.

Composed of decrees issued between 1452 and 1497, it served as the quasi-legal justification for the expropriation of entire continents in the name of spreading the Catholic faith. The repudiation by the Pope is the culmination of decades of struggle by Indigenous peoples in the United States, Canada and around the world demanding its withdrawal.

But while the Pope has now renounced it, the U.S. Supreme Court has not. The high court continues to treat the “doctrine” as an integral basis of U.S. law, particularly in regard to the rights — or lack thereof — of Native peoples.

Most notable in recent times was a 2005 decision authored by the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg which invoked the “Doctrine of Discovery” in her majority ruling against the Oneida Indian Nation. The Oneidas were seeking to recover lands and rights in central New York State guaranteed to them under the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua treaty with the U.S., signed by George Washington, then president.

The Oneidas, one of the six nations of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy were awarded 300,000 acres “in perpetuity” by the treaty. By the 20th century, nearly all of that land had been taken over. In the 1970s, the Oneidas began buying small parcels on what had been their reservation land, including in the small city of Sherill, New York. They objected to the demand by the city that they pay property taxes on the basis that they were a sovereign nation. While the Oneidas won in lower federal courts, the Supreme Court ruled against them 8-1, with Ginsburg authoring the decision:

“Under the Doctrine of Discovery, title to the land occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign – first the discovering European nation and later the original states and the United States . . .

“Given the longstanding non-Indian character of the area and its inhabitants, the regulatory authority constantly exercised by New York State and its counties and towns, and the Oneidas’ long delay in seeking judicial relief against parties other than the United States, we hold that the tribe cannot unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty, in whole or in part, over the parcels at issue.”

In 2020, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote upheld the right of Native nations to reservations that would have included nearly half of Oklahoma. While this was a victory for a coalition of Native nations, right-wing justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion upholding the government’s power to deny the right of self-determination to Indian peoples.

“Once a reservation is established, it retains that status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise,” wrote Gorsuch. “Only Congress can alter the terms of an Indian treaty by diminishing a reservation, and its intent to do so must be clear and plain.”

How did a loathsome “doctrine” authored in feudal times come to have what liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices alike consider a legitimate basis in U.S. law?

It was the Supreme Court itself that incorporated the “doctrine” into U.S. law, which became foundational in dealing with Native nations, in a key 1823 case, Johnson v. McIntosh.

The decision by Chief Justice John Marshall, declared that, in keeping with the “Doctrine of Discovery,” Native people had only the “right to occupancy” of land and not the right to title or ownership. Only the federal government, Marshall ruled, could own and sell Native lands and that “the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands”

Following the Vatican’s repudiation, the struggle will intensify for the U.S. government to do the same.

*

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 Liberation News.

A Most Perfect Genocide

April 5th, 2023 by Dr. Emanuel Garcia

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.

***

So here I am, sitting in an ornately tooled leather chair, cask strength Scotch at my elbow, and a Cuban cigar on my lips.  I puff and watch the rings of smoke rise towards the high ceiling and turn towards my comrades, and offer them my plan.

Yes, we have all been alarmed and disgusted by the seething creep of humanity’s dregs – so many people, such poor tastes, the piercings and tattoos and terrible music, their fecundity. We all know something must be done.  This vast wide world should be our playground, with its verdant hills, snow-clad slopes, inviting waters – not a crowded asylum for the unwashed and unimaginative, for those who have no creative flair when it comes to the uses of power.

We know that for a while the many, in their illusions, have cherished their so-called individuality and autonomy. They have traveled far more widely than should have been their wont, and much less expensively than ever. The notions of justice and opportunity, equality and their unalienable rights … they never realized that these were a mere transient mirage. Perhaps we gave them a bit too much scope?

Nonetheless it’s time to rein them in, to show them who is who.

Our plan has long been in the making. We know how they think, how they lust, how they react, how they behave, we know how fearful they are at heart, and how gullible, how naive. We know how divisive they can be when goaded. We know how they take the bait.

And we’ve perfected the spectacle, have we not? The grand show, the shockful riveting event that mesmerizes and induces awe: a lone gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas School Books Depository in Dallas, journeys to the moon,  uncannily but expertly commandeered jetliners crashing into the Twin Towers that crumble at the speed of gravity …

But this, this must be our masterpiece, our perfect crime.

Although the Nazis achieved a great deal in the business of mechanical murder, their approach would never do. No, the world is far too large, and, furthermore, we like – we cherish – cleaner hands.

So we release a pathogen in an exotic faraway place. It’s not a particularly harmful one, this pathogen, though it can cause a certain amount of distress and suffering and even, in those who are not so healthy to begin with, death. 

Well, actually, we release this pathogen in a number of places, but to begin with, the narrative must be focussed. Wuhan, China. An inveterately repressive government and its henchmen who show the world how a plague can be combated, how dangerous it is, what measures must be taken. A model for the world at large!

People, globally, are imprisoned, confined, economies are broken, the threat and fear of death has become everything, and everyone accepts the sacrifices to be made. It’s for their health, is it not?

Certainly a few inordinately questioning doctors and the like will raise their doubts, will wonder why a ‘race for a cure’ was never on – but these are underlings, we’ll make sure to keep them in line, with all their queries about our science and our proposed solution, which is the jab.  And if they make a peep about informed consent, or treatment, we will turn the tables: how dare they endanger the public? How can they be fit to practice with such views? The organizing bodies that dole out their licenses will well know what to do.

When the inoculations are ready, the masses will be so fearful that even pregnant women who daren’t drink a drop of coffee while carrying will welcome an untested gene-altering immune-system decimating jab.

However, like people, all jabs will not be equal: some will only show their harm over time, after many years, while others will be far more immediately devastating. Different batches, different lots: a stroke of brilliance

We call them vaccines, in keeping with the accepted warmth with which childhood vaccinations have been received for many years, even though these new ‘vaccines’ will work far differently. In fact, they really won’t protect a person from acquiring the illness, nor prevent a person from transmitting it.

No matter. Definitions may be redefined! Sudden or gradual, their deleterious effects will not be challenged.

We know full well how complex a subject is causality in medicine. Who’s to say why one has a stroke, a heart attack? So many factors to consider, so hard to prove a case against a single one … How much fun we’ll have, what mirth, watching the investigators ferret for a cause!

The masses will be grateful for our concern, for the harsh benevolence of their governments, their medical authorities, their beloved trusted media.

And over time they drop, they sicken, singly and in multitudes, over years.

It won’t be the cleanest of slates, but more a winnowing, a prudent cut.

And then?

We’ll have to keep an eye on the insurgents, on the refuseniks, on the demonstrably unjabbed, lest their concerns catch on among the dwindled multitude. There won’t be many, will there? And they’ll be easily identified.

Meanwhile we dream. Our wealth has tripled. We merge our mechanistic view of life with our machines. We then become, I think, forever. Those others who survive, won’t they be grateful then to serve?

A warm murmur of agreement rumbles through the club, glasses are clinked, more cigars are clipped, juveniles are ready at our beck and call.

‘What shall we call it, gentlemen?’ I ask.

It takes a while … we quibble long into the night and day with ‘reset’, ‘cleansing’, ‘renaissance’ and even the distasteful ‘genocide’. But whatever term we use we are agreed: it is most perfect.

Isn’t 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.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com


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 A Most Perfect Genocide

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 Biden administration on Tuesday announced a new massive $2.6 billion weapons package for Ukraine that includes HIMARS ammunition, missiles for air defense systems, artillery rounds, and other equipment.

The package includes $500 million in the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which allows President Biden to ship weapons to Ukraine directly from Pentagon stockpiles. The other $2.1 billion will go toward purchasing new equipment for Kyiv that could take months or years to deliver, a program known as the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI).

The funds for the new weapons are still being drawn from the $45 billion Ukraine aid bill Congress passed in December. So far, the US has authorized about $113 billion to spend on the war.

According to the Pentagon, the Drawdown Authority package includes to following:

  • Additional munitions for Patriot air defense systems
  • Additional ammunition for HIMARS
  • 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds
  • 120mm mortar rounds
  • 120mm and 105mm tank ammunition
  • 25mm ammunition
  • Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles
  • Approximately 400 grenade launchers and 200,000 rounds of ammunition
  • 11 tactical vehicles to recover equipment
  • 61 heavy fuel tankers
  • 10 trucks and 10 trailers to transport heavy equipment
  • Testing and diagnostic equipment to support vehicle maintenance and repair
  • Spare parts and other field equipment

The equipment that will be purchased under USAI includes:

  • Additional munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS)
  • Nine counter-Unmanned Aerial System 30mm gun trucks
  • 10 mobile c-UAS laser-guided rocket systems
  • Three air surveillance radars
  • 30mm and 23mm anti-aircraft ammunition
  • 130mm and 122mm artillery rounds
  • 122mm GRAD rockets
  • Rocket launchers and ammunition
  • 120mm and 81mm mortar systems
  • 120mm, 81mm, and 60mm mortar rounds
  • 120mm tank ammunition
  • Javelin anti-armor systems
  • Anti-armor rockets
  • Precision aerial munitions
  • Approximately 3,600 small arms and more than 23,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition
  • Seven tactical vehicles to recover equipment
  • Eight heavy fuel tankers and 105 fuel trailers
  • Armored bridging systems
  • Four logistics support vehicles
  • Trucks and ten trailers to transport heavy equipment
  • Secure communications equipment
  • SATCOM terminals and services
  • Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment

The new package comes as the US is hoping Ukraine will carry out a counteroffensive to regain more territory, but comments from Ukrainian officials have cast doubt on Kyiv’s capability to launch an assault. It’s also unclear if US and other Western support is sustainable as Ukraine has been using massive amounts of artillery ammunition in its battle defending the Donbas city of Bakhmut.

Last month, a Pentagon official told The New York Times that upcoming ammunition shipments were part of a “last ditch effort” to help Ukraine on the battlefield as Ukrainian forces are using artillery rounds at an unsustainable rate. According to a Pentagon fact sheet released Tuesday, the US has pledged over 1.5 million 155mm artillery rounds for Kyiv.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

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.

***

On the floor of Germany’s parliament, Left Party MP Sevim Dağdelen called for the c. 38,000 US soldiers in her country to leave, and to take their nuclear weapons with them. She lamented that Washington “doesn’t actually want allies, just loyal vassals”.

A member of parliament from Germany’s Left Party has called for the thousands of US soldiers and nuclear weapons in her country to leave.

“After 78 years, it is now time for US soldiers to go home. All other allies left Germany a long time ago”, said Die Linke MP Sevim Dağdelen on the floor of Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag.

“The US nuclear weapons must go”, she added, in a March 31 parliamentary event on the 75th anniversary of the Marshall Plan.

As of 2022, the United States had 38,500 troops in Germany, in dozens of bases and other military installations.

Dağdelen urged for “breaking with the existing relationship of extreme subservience by Germany on matters of US foreign policy, one that is marked by war, breaches of international law, and support of coups”.

“The US administration gives the impression that they don’t actually want allies, just loyal vassals”, she said. “Yet fewer and fewer countries around the world are prepared to accept this. And that is good news”.

“The US military bases behave like extraterritorial areas in which the [German] constitution does not apply”, Dağdelen said.

“On German soil, assistance is provided in US wars, lethal drone strikes, and torture flights, in breach of international law”.

“And the US hosts conferences at Ramstein Air Base in Germany as if the Occupation Statue was still in force”.

Dağdelen noted that “there once was a time when the Bundestag had more courage”, recalling that, in 2010, the German parliament voted overwhelmingly to withdraw US nuclear weapons. But she lamented that that resolution was not implemented.

“Now, Germany’s federal government allows itself to be pushed directly into the line of fire by the USA, with supplies of Leopard battle tanks”, she continued, referencing the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

“Now the federal government is refusing to support an international investigative commission into the terror attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines”, Dağdelen added. “I say, terror attacks among friends simply cannot be tolerated”.

She called for Berlin to defend its “democratic sovereignty”, asking, “Why is the federal government refusing, even after 20 years, to condemn the US war of aggression in Iraq as a violation of international law?”

She also addressed Germany’s foreign minister:

“Why are you, Ms. [Annalena] Baerbock, not lobbying for the release of Julian Assange, who faces 175 years in prison in the USA for making US war crimes public? Why did you not offer asylum to the dissident Edward Snowden?”

Dağdelen did thank the United States for its support in the battle against the Nazi regime, but she noted that “the main burden in the fight against German fascism was shouldered by the Soviet Union”, which lost more than 26 million people in World War II, compared to 400,000 North Americans.

In an interview with Geopolitical Economy Report in February, Dağdelen condemned the conflict in Ukraine as a NATO proxy war against Russia, lamenting that EU member states have been acting as US “vassals” and sacrificing their own economic interests on behalf of US corporations.

*

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: German Left Party MP Sevim Dağdelen calls for US soldiers and nuclear weapons to leave, in the Bundestag on March 31, 2023 (Source: GER)

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 standoff of thousands of Orthodox believers against the regime at the revered Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Porphyry called Zelensky’s crackdown ‘a faithful repetition of the Soviet persecution of the Church.’

The United Nations has sounded an alarm against the Volodymyr Zelensky government for targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) with unjustified discrimination, and Orthodox prelates around the world have strongly concurred.

The UOC which was, until May of last year, subordinate to the Patriarchate of Moscow, is not to be confused with the newer, nationalist Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) which was formally constituted in December 2018 and January 2019.

Upon the initiation of Russia’s “special military operation” into Ukraine on February 24 of last year, despite their spiritual association with the invaders, Primate of the UOC, Metropolitan Onufriy, voiced “special love and support” for the Ukrainian armed forces, and called on Russian President Putin “to immediately stop the fratricidal war” (all translations from Google).

Later in May, in a protest against Russia’s invasion, a council of the UOC formally declared its “full independence” from the Patriarchate of Moscow, while in those same months, hundreds of UOC priests signed an open letter calling for Moscow’s Patriarch Kirill to face a religious tribunal over his support for the invasion.

Yet, as LifeSiteNews covered in December, due to its former links to the Patriarchate of Moscow, churches, monasteries, and convents of the UOC have been subject to military raids by the Security Service of Ukraine, also known as the SBU. Reports indicated that by December 5, the SBU had searched 350 buildings of the UOC and investigated the loyalties of 850 individuals.

Now, a March 24 report from the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has confirmed the “SBU conducted searches (some of which it referred to as ‘security measures’) in several monasteries, offices, education facilities and other property of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) in Kyiv, Rivne, Zhytomyr, Ivano-Frankivsk, Chernivtsi, Dnipropetrovsk, Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy, Volyn, Kherson, Ternopil, Poltava and Zakarpattia regions.”

“SBU officers questioned several [UOC] clergymen with the use of a polygraph” resulting in “three notices of suspicion” issued to UOC clergy including two which violate “the equality of citizens based on race, nationality, religious belief, disability or other grounds,” and the third with multiple charges including “denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.”

In addition, the SBU’s “security measures” have relegated at least two suspects to “round-the-clock house arrest.”

“OHCHR is concerned that the State’s activities targeting the UOC could be discriminatory. OHCHR also recalls the need to ensure that all those facing criminal charges enjoy the full spectrum of applicable fair trial rights,” the report reads.

The OHCHR also addresses draft laws registered in Ukraine’s parliament which ban “the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the operations of religious organizations that are organizationally or canonically linked to it and prohibits them from renting state or private property in Ukraine.” These proposals also seek to ban “the use of the term ‘Orthodox’ in names of religious organizations not related to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.”

In response to the report, Oleh Nikolenko, spokesman of Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated, “Ukraine is a democratic state, in which freedom of religion is guaranteed. At the same time, freedom is not the same as the right to be engaged in activities that undermine national security.”

“We call on OHCHR to refrain from unbalanced political assessments and base its reports on facts,” he said.

Understanding the historical difference between the UOC and OCU

The bitter schism between the UOC and OCU have their origins in the ethnic and political divisions between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples.

Since 1686, the Patriarch of Moscow had recognized authority to ordain the metropolitan archbishop of Kiev. However, two nationalistic Orthodox Churches in Ukraine came into existence in the twentieth century in response to the 1917 dissolution of the Russian Empire, and the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union. Both of these churches were unrecognized by other Eastern Orthodox Churches and considered “schismatic” while simultaneously competing with the Russian Orthodox UOC.

According to reports, in 2014 the OCU churches provided support for the U.S.-facilitated color revolution and coup d’état of the democratically elected President in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, who was perceived as an ally of Russia. In response, the Russian Federation accepted the rejoining of Crimea to its centuries-old motherland, when the peninsula held a lopsided referendum and celebrated the historical event.

As tensions and violence between the government in Kiev and Russian-speaking regions in the east of the country were ongoing in 2018, the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople issued a type of recognition to the previously unrecognized churches in Ukraine, causing a broader schism between itself and the Patriarchate of Moscow who went on to forbid the participation of UOC clergy and laity in the worship and sacraments of OCU churches.

In a March 28, 2023 statement denouncing the Zelensky regime’s “pressures, violence and persecutions” of the UOC, Primate of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Porphyry, stated that the UOC is “the only canonical and legal Orthodox Church in Ukraine,” being “recognized by all Orthodox Churches in the world” while the OCU, “recognized by only four,” is a mere “non-canonical schismatic structure” which “can become a Church only through repentance and canonical procedure, never by the stroke of someone’s pen.”

UOC provides material support for Ukrainian army, yet govt ‘chose to attack the church’

In a similar statement of support for the UOC, Archbishop Michael of Prague lamented that the “Ukrainian authorities are going to crucify the Church of Christ” in their nation and yet “all this happens despite the fact that the UOC has publicly distanced itself from the Moscow Patriarchate, offers prayers for the victory of the Ukrainian army and supports the soldiers materially.”

Articles on the UOC website appear to document significant amounts of material charity provided to varieties of entities including Ukrainian armed forces engaging in conflict with the Russian army. A March 28 report with ample photographs demonstrates how copious food products, medicines and medical devices have been provided by UOC clergy and faithful to military personnel, internally displaced persons and regional hospitals.

Another article and video published the next day, show the Kyiv Diocese of the UOC providing humanitarian aid to three units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Bakhmut region.

Despite all of this, the UOC as a whole is suspected of collaborating with the Russian military, based on the convictions of a small number.

Archbishop Iona, the head of the youth department at the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra (Cave Monastery), explained to Politico, “Only a few priests have indeed collaborated. It is not right to apply collective guilt to a church. There were also collaborators among SBU and other organs. But the government chose to attack the church.” He added that collaborators are active in every sphere, including government security forces.

“The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not a ‘warring party,’ but a living and active Church of God,” added Patriarch Porphyry. “Wars, just and unjust, are fought by states, not churches… The Church is always for peace.”

‘Priests of OCU’ participate in successful violent takeover of UOC church, then pray at the altar

With the Zelensky regime involved in SBU raids against the UOC, and advancing legislation to ban the church, preventing it from renting property in Ukraine or using the word “Orthodox,” they and the OCU are also methodically moving to dispossess these Orthodox Christians of operating in state-owned ecclesial buildings or other church properties as well.

An article on the UOC’s website from Tuesday displays video footage of a raid upon the UOC cathedral church in the Ivano-Frankivsk Diocese. The video and report testify that while UOC faithful prayed, a crowd of around 200 appeared issuing threatening chants. Raiders from the OCU “broke into the shrine” used tear gas on priests and the faithful, “opened the central door and pushed the parishioners down the stairs.”

Immediately following this violent capture of the church, dispossessing their fellow Christians, individuals the article identifies as “priests of the OCU,” went in and “prayed at the altar.”

According to the report, “the police did not intervene.”

Thousands of faithful in standoff with Zelensky to prevent ousting of UOC from the revered Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra

However, despite the violence of this dispossession, the most serious case involves the Zelensky regime’s move to oust over 200 UOC monks along with several hundred other professors and students of the 11th-century Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra (Monastery of the Caves) which is broadly revered as the center of Eastern Slavic Christianity, giving its name to the city in which it is located, Kyiv.

Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the communists turned the holy site into a state-owned museum which was transferred to the Ukrainian government after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Around that time partial jurisdiction was returned to the UOC including a lease with the government owners to use the main churches in 1988. Another agreement was made in 2013 for the free use of religious buildings and additional state-owned property which was apparently intended to be perpetual as it had no end date.

At the end of December, the government terminated the UOC’s ability to worship in the “Upper Lavra” which includes the Holy Dormition Cathedral and another minor church. The government then allowed the nationalist OCU to worship in those spaces on several occasions.

And then, earlier this month, Zelensky issued a termination of the 2013 agreement and ordered the entire UOC community to fully evacuate the premises by March 29 including the caves themselves, the monks’ cells, their theological seminary and academy in the “Lower Lavra.”

The stated reason for the evacuations came about when a special government commission identified numerous violations of the free lease agreement by the UOC.

In response, the church is arguing the termination remains illegal and has filed a lawsuit seeking redress in the matter. Furthermore, the monks have committed to defying the order and remaining in their monastery home as long as it is physically possible.

Ukraine’s Culture Minister Oleksandr Tkachenko, who issued the evacuation order, said the government would not use force against the monks if they “missed the deadline,” according to Politico, and they were free to stay so long as they “transfer their allegiance” to the OCU.

As a result, there is currently a standoff at the Lavra involving thousands of faithful who have arrived to prevent the state from expelling the monks. As reported by OrthoChristianity, many are spending the night in the Lavra, waking to attend 6:30 a.m. Mass, and then returning to the outdoors to guard the monastery once again.

The outlet also reported on Thursday that the UOC faithful successfully prevented a state commission who arrived to “inspect” the properties from entering the churches out of a suspicion that they would seal the doors. Members of the commission responded stating that if this situation continues, they will be forced to utilize law enforcement.

Patriarch: Zelensky’s discrimination ‘a faithful repetition of the Soviet persecution of the Church’

In the meantime, the UOC has received significant levels of support from Orthodox prelates around the world.

“We demand an end to the systematic persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the rulers of Kiev,” said Archbishop Atallah Hanna from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Such rulers “implement Western agendas hostile to the Orthodox Church, its values, its message and its presence.”

This persecution equates to “persecution of the entire Church, as there are threats to evict bishops, fathers, and monks from the Lavra monasteries in Kiev, which are the ancient historical monasteries associated with the Orthodox Church in Ukraine,” he said.

“We do not recognize the legitimacy of any entity created in Ukraine to be a substitute for the legitimate Orthodox Church, and we call on the Christian world and the entire civilized world to work to stop this systematic persecution,” the Archbishop emphasized.

Patriarch Porphyry described Zelensky’s planned expulsion of the UOC bishops, monks, professors and students from the Lavra as “a faithful repetition of the Soviet persecution of the Church.” He continued by characterizing these policies as a “state terror against the Church, as well as the grossest violation of its basic rights, religious freedom and freedom of conscience in general.”

Back in the U.S., responding to the situation at the Kiev Caves Lavra, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, Metropolitan Tikhon, wrote in a Tuesday statement, “[we] decry restrictions on the religious freedom of any group in Ukraine and especially denounce any generalized religious persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy.”

“We once again assure Metropolitan Onufriy, his clergy, and the Ukrainian faithful, who are beset by troubles on all sides, that the Orthodox Church in America stands ready to support the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, both with our prayers and by any other means at our disposal,” he concluded.

*

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: Thousands of members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church gather at the Holy Dormition-Kiev Caves Lavra as Zelensky’s regime gears up to seize the highly revered church (Source: Українська Православна Церква / YouTube via LSN)

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 is tragic and deeply distressing that twenty years after the US launched its disastrous invasion of Iraq that the ignorance, lies and cruelty of that war have never been acknowledged.

The neocons in the Bush administration believed that our enemies had attacked on 9/11 because they perceived us as weak. Postulating that a quick and decisive victory would demonstrate US strength and resolve, the neocons thought the war would ensure US hegemony for decades to come.

I had served on a think-tank sponsored task force with many leading proponents of this worldview and was astounded by their hubris born of ignorance. They did not know, or consider it important to know, Iraq. They were guided by a one-size-fits-all Manichean ideology: forces of good and evil in combat across the globe; a clash between them inevitable; and in that confrontation good ultimately prevailing. Those who issued cautions were demeaned as weak and lacking resolve.

These “experts” took to the airwaves preying on a still shell-shocked public that knew even less about Iraq or the broader Middle East. In testimonies before Congress and on television the war’s proponents embellished their good versus evil portrait and deliberately misinformed the Congress and public about the impending war.

The “big lie” about Iraq wasn’t about weapons of mass destruction, but rather a preposterous deceit about the war’s costs and terms of engagement. Leading administration spokespersons testified that: the war would be over in a few weeks; US forces would be greeted as liberators; it would cost no more than $1 or $2 billion; and in the end a new democracy in Iraq would be a “beacon for the new Middle East”.

Journalists and commentators echoed these fact-free claims making it the dominant narrative. Most politicians cowered, and because the overwhelming majority of the public couldn’t find Iraq on a map (according to a survey conducted days before the invasion was to begin), they went along.

During the months leading up to the start of the war, my wife and I were in North Carolina where I was teaching at Davidson College. At one point, I flew back to Washington to debate a resolution I had submitted to the Democratic National Committee urging the party to oppose sending our young people into a war without knowing its costs, terms of engagement, and consequences, in a country whose history and culture we did not know. The party leaders allowed me to present it but wouldn’t permit a vote.

At the time, I was hosting a weekly live television call-in programme on Abu Dhabi TV and Direct TV in the US. ADTV arranged two live satellite shows connecting students at Davidson with students at Baghdad University. It opened my students eyes to Iraqi history, culture, and sensitivities. After the programme one of the Davidson students told me that it was so hard to be speaking with the Iraqis knowing that we were going to bombing them.

Two decades later we have largely forgotten the lies and no one has been held accountable.

President Barack Obama released the Bush era torture memos, commissioned to provide a “legal” justification for and define allowable methods that could be used to torture prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, raising hopes for accountability for war crimes. The memos were horrifyingly graphic in describing permissible torture practices. But after releasing the memos, Obama announced that “we wouldn’t look backwards.”

And so here we are, two decades after the war with no accountability for the lies that left thousands of young Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. The same neocon hawks, still considered experts, are now on the airwaves peddling their Manichean nonsense about other conflicts and enemies. And the American public remains uninformed not only about Iraq and what we did there, but also about the entire Middle East and its history and culture.

We continue to operate blindly in a world that’s increasingly wary of our role precisely because of the lack of accountability and understanding of history. The truth is that accountability would not make us weaker. It would make us smart, stronger and more respected.

*

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.

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.

Featured image: Abu Ghraib

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 week, the Economist dedicated its cover and leading article to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s worldview. The timing was perfect: Xi had just completed a controversial three-day visit to Russia, where the two countries signed important agreements expanding their cooperation. Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin both issued hubristic and highly confident statements about the future.

Putin invited Russia’s main partners in Latin America, Africa and Asia to use the yuan for foreign trade settlements. Xi said:

“There are changes that haven’t happened in 100 years. When we are together, we drive these changes,” Xi told Putin in his departing words. 

The first is a further boost to de-dollarisation in the Global South; as for the second, the changes Xi is referencing are surely the perceived decline of the US and of western liberalism. The Economist article perfectly illustrates what is wrong with western thinking about foreign policy, and the dangerous groupthink that could bring western democracies to the brink. 

After months of spin by western governments and media about alleged tensions between China and Russia over the Ukraine war, Xi’s visit to Russia came as a badly concealed shock. Wishful thinking rarely turns into reality, and yet, no reappraisal of the western narrative was triggered.

Predictably, the Economist emphasised that Xi’s visit coincided with the arrest warrant for Putin issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). But the article noted that the Chinese leader was “untroubled by trivial inconsistencies”. 

Considering what is happening in Ukraine, the ICC’s decision was a necessary act. Unfortunately, the Economist did not provide the necessary broader context for its comment. Neither Russia, nor China, nor even the US, are signatories to the ICC’s Rome Statute. When the ICC launched an investigation against the US for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, the US administration threatened the court’s staff and revoked their visas.

The Economist article also noted that Xi believes in “the inexorable decline of the American-led world order, with its professed concern for rules and human rights”. But what the Chinese leader believes or doesn’t believe is irrelevant; it is a matter as complex and esoteric as Kremlinology was during the Cold War. What is relevant, instead, is the story that the Economist appears to have missed. 

The American-led world order is in decline because its professed concern for rules and human rights is tarnished by double standards. Countries in the Global South are incessantly conveying this message to the US and its allies, to no avail.

Reshaping the world order?

The Economist also attributes to China a ruthless and well-played hand in Ukraine; that is, to ensure Moscow’s subordination to Beijing. To believe this implies that Putin is stupid, or naive, to say the least. While the Russian president can be accused of many things – ruthlessness, cynicism, unscrupulousness – stupidity is a stretch too far. 

The Economist does not appear to have contemplated the notion that the growing Russian-Chinese cooperation is fuelled not by Putin’s alleged naivety, but by US policies that are putting both countries in a corner – practically throwing one into the other’s arms. 

Russia’s deplorable invasion of Ukraine is the latest step in an escalating dispute between Moscow and Nato, mainly centred on the latter’s eastward expansion in Europe. US-China tensions largely stem from Washington’s de facto reneging on its “One China” policy vis-a-vis Taiwan, and from its inability to see the global standing of the US threatened by Beijing’s economic and technological successes.

China is a victim of its own success; the US is a victim of the self-harming policies it has adopted in recent decades.

The Economist notes that Xi “wants to reshape the post-1945 world order”. This assertion struggles with facts and reality. China has thrived in the US-led post-1945 world order. Since 1979, this order has allowed 800 million Chinese to be brought out of poverty; in the same period, the country has become not only the world’s factory, but its second-largest economy.

In early 2017, as the US began nurturing second thoughts about its own rules-based world order, the leader who went to Davos to defend it was none other than Xi. Why should China reshape a system that has served it so well?

According to the Economist, Xi’s use of the word “multilateralism” has become “code for a world that ditches universal values and is run by balancing great-power interests”.

Sometimes it is worth wondering which world the Economist has been watching in recent decades. Both before and after the Cold War, super, great and ordinary powers have been ignoring or twisting so-called universal values, as required by their vested interests and power plays. 

There are hundreds of examples where universal values have been trampled by realpolitik. Universal rights are encoded in the UN Charter and conventions. There is an inherent problem with regards to respecting them, but there are also increasingly conflicting visions about who should have the last word in ascertaining the violations of such rights – and above all, how such rules should be enforced.

Many countries around the world, a lot of them not autocratic, believe western democracies have often weaponised human rights for selfish political purposes.

In a widely touted rules-based world order, to make such a system work, the rules should apply to all – primarily to those countries that drafted, and pretend to enforce, them. In such a context, the US and its allies have largely failed.

Susceptible to outrage

The Economist article reserves its most astonishing discovery for the end of the article, noting that “the real point of Mr Xi’s foreign policy is to make the world safer for the Chinese Communist Party”. No effort is made to explain why the Chinese leadership should behave differently than all other world governments.

China is blamed for not believing “in democracy, human rights or constraining great powers”. This is fair. Western democracies, however, do not appear more healthy. Low turnouts at the ballot boxes in recent years are warning signals. French President Emmanuel Macron, confronted this month with huge protests against his policies, was re-elected last year by a low turnout. Of 48 millions eligible French voters, only 18 million voters elected him.

These same democracies have selectively protected human rights, and as for constraining great powers, there is a lot of work to do with regards to the US.

The Economist blames China for always backing ruling elites, and it considers such an approach susceptible to outrage from ordinary people around the world. Yet, as the story went to press, the real outraged ordinary people were mainly visible in the streets of Paris and Tel Aviv, not to mention the wave of strikes affecting the UK.

In its last sentences, the Economist admits that western democracies aim in the long run “to rebut the charge that global rules serve only Western interests”. For the record, this is not a charge, but a sad reality. The sooner the Economist and its like-minded peers get it, the better.

Ultimately, the article criticises China for its alleged main belief: “that real democracy entails economic development, but does not depend on political liberty”. This is a crucial point. China’s two millennia of hard historical lessons probably brought its leadership to such unacceptable conclusions. After all, ruling the largest population on earth must never have been easy. 

The hope is that this approach may soon change. Nevertheless, to count on western pressure to make it happen implies a crass misreading of the tea leaves related to the Chinese establishment. 

Western democracies should move on to real reform, rather than merely pretending to support it. They could start by putting aside lectures and bombastic claims of moral superiority; likewise, their focus on civil rights should not continue to come at the expense of social rights.

As the last couple of weeks have shown, the outrage of ordinary people does not know political boundaries.

*

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.

Marco Carnelos is a former Italian diplomat. He has been assigned to Somalia, Australia and the United Nations. He served in the foreign policy staff of three Italian prime ministers between 1995 and 2011. More recently he has been Middle East peace process coordinator special envoy for Syria for the Italian government and, until November 2017, Italy’s ambassador to Iraq.

Featured image: With President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping. Photo: Sergei Karpukhin, TASS

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 order to remove any doubt that Lula is deliberately aligning with the US in the grand strategic sense and wasn’t just misled into doing so, leading Russian officials wanted to make sure that he and his team knew the Kremlin’s position on their proxy war with NATO in Ukraine. This explains their invitation for the Brazilian leader’s chief foreign policy advisor to visit Moscow, during which time President Putin unexpectedly met with him as proof of the importance that his country attaches to assessing Lula’s intentions.

Amorim’s Previously Unreported Meeting

Former Brazilian Foreign Minister and incumbent chief presidential foreign policy advisor Celso Amorim told CNN Brasil about his previously unreported trip to Moscow late last month, which he visited prior to dropping by Paris as part of President Lula’s efforts to mediate the Ukrainian Conflict. He disclosed that his hour-long meeting with President Putin wasn’t foreseen, but that he took the opportunity to discuss mutual economic interests and then hear the Russian leader’s defense of his country’s special operation.

CNN Brasil’s Report

Here’s what Amorim subsequently shared with CNN about their meeting:

“To say that the doors are open [for a peace negotiation] would be an exaggeration, but to say that they are completely closed is not true either.

There is no magic solution [to stop the conflict]. But there will come a time when, on one side or the other, a realization will emerge that the cost of war — not just the political cost, but the human and economic cost — will be greater than the cost of the necessary concessions for peace.

My feeling is that this moment has not yet arrived, but it could come sooner than you think. And then the existence of a group of ‘neutral’ countries — this is where quotation marks are needed — can help…there was a desire (by Putin) to leave some margin (to Russia’s goals) so that, in a future situation, there could be some kind of negotiation.

Sometimes, on the western side, we feel a certain fatigue of some forces [with the war]. There in Russia, this is less noticeable. In Moscow, there is no feeling of a country at war.”

Their meeting will now be analyzed in order to assess its overall importance.

A Secret Sojourn With Positive Intentions

For starters, readers should be aware that Lula’s grand strategy that was detailed here citing official sources is politically unfriendly towards Russia, while Moscow’s new foreign policy concept towards Latin America that was analyzed here promotes de-ideologized pragmatic cooperation. It’s therefore Brazil’s prerogative whether or not it and Russia expand their mutually beneficial economic ties in spite of their diverging worldviews since Lula has thus far prioritized his ideology over these interests.

His dispatch of Amorim to Moscow within this context suggests that influential elements within the Workers’ Party have convinced him to consider moderating his liberalglobalist zeal in foreign affairs in order to avoid needlessly complicating relations with fellow BRICS partner Russia. For this reason, it can be concluded that the trip was undertaken with positive intentions, especially considering that it comes before Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s planned visit to Brazil this month.

The Economic-Political Dimensions of Their Meeting

Both sides have an interest in agreeing to something tangible that can be announced during their upcoming press conference in order to make it worth that top diplomat’s time to have traveled halfway across the world, thus explaining the official reason why Amorim went to Moscow when he did. While there, he also planned to discuss what Brazil still officially considers to be the Ukrainian Conflict despite it indisputably having transformed into a NATO-Russian proxy war over the past year.

It was already explained here why it makes perfect sense that Russia doesn’t support Lula’s G20-like peace proposal, while this piece that was published here after Brazil voted in support of an anti-Russian UNGA Resolution illustrates how far apart its envisaged settlement is from China’s. With this in mind, there was never any credible chance that Moscow would seriously consider fully withdrawing from all the territory that Kiev claims as its own like Brazil demanded it do in the document that it voted for.

Clarifying Lula’s Geostrategic Intentions

For precisely that reason, however, leading Russian officials had an interest in sharing their views about this conflict with Amorim. Their motivation was to ensure that Brazil can’t claim ignorance of Moscow’s position as justification for voting against it at the UNGA the next time that a pertinent resolution is tabled. As proven here and here citing official sources, Lula already publicly explained why he politically aligned with the US against Russia in this conflict, which prompted suspicions from the Kremlin.

In order to remove any doubt that he’s deliberately aligning with the US in the grand strategic sense as explained in the previously hyperlinked analysis near the introduction and wasn’t just misled into doing so, they wanted to make sure that Lula and his team knew Russia’s position. So important was it to do so ahead of Russia’s forthcoming engagement with Latin America as shaped by its new foreign policy concept that President Putin took an hour out of his very busy schedule to meet with Amorim.

Amorim’s Meeting Wasn’t All That Special

This guaranteed that the ruling party’s propagandists can’t spin any of Brazil’s future votes against Russia as being due to ignorance of its policy, with there now being no ambiguity about its grand strategic intentions in that scenario. Amorim’s unexpected meeting with President Putin was therefore meant to assess Brazil’s aforesaid intentions as well as possibly discuss the chances of Lula deporting a suspected spy back to Russia instead of extraditing him to the US to face charges.

It’s beyond the scope of this analysis to detail that drama in the present piece, but intrepid readers can learn more about it here. Before summarizing the importance of their meeting, observers should be made aware that while it was a privilege for Amorim to have an audience with President Putin, this is actually something that the Russian leader already earlier granted to India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Chinese foreign policy chief Wang Yi.

President Putin Likely Wouldn’t Meet With Vieira

As such, it shouldn’t be interpreted as an exclusive privilege extended to that Brazilian representative, but as privilege that President Putin extends to all the BRICS countries’ most influential policymakers. Moreover, it would have been politically uncomfortable for him to meet with Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira after that figure strongly implied late last month that President Putin would be arrested if he visited that country, hence why only Amorim could be dispatched to Moscow on Lula’s behalf.  

Having clarified the optics of their meeting so as to dispel the disinformation being pushed about it by some of the ruling party’s propagandists on social media, the reader should thus now have a better understanding of why Lula’s chief foreign policy advisor visited the Russian capital and not anyone else. His meeting with President Putin was indeed immensely important because of the latest New Cold War context within which it was held.

Russia’s Disappointment With Lula’s Worldview

Despite the high hopes in Russia that Lula would break with Bolsonaro’s precedent by abstaining from anti-Russian UNGA resolutions instead of voting for them (with the exception of the latter sitting out on the one about removing Russia from the Human Rights Council), he turned out to be a disappointment. Not only did he continue this trend, but he also became the first BRICS leader to personally condemn Russia in his joint statement with Biden from early February, which raised suspicions of his intentions.

It was therefore of premier importance for the Kremlin to discern whether he’s deliberately aligning with the US in the grand strategic sense considering everything that it could entail for the future of Russian-Brazilian relations or was misled into doing so due to his ideological alignment with the US’ Democrats. This explains why President Putin took an hour out of his very busy schedule to meet with Amorim, during which time they might have also discussed the latest spy scandal that was earlier touched upon.

Concluding Thoughts

Lavrov’s upcoming trip to Brazil will reveal whether they successfully agreed on anything of tangible economic significance or if Lula’s ideology remains a stumbling block to expanding mutually beneficial cooperation. Regardless of the outcome, his geostrategic intentions will be completely clarified in the eyes of Russian policymakers the next time that there’s another hostile resolution tabled at the UNGA. Considering this context, Amorim’s meeting with President Putin was a pivotal moment in bilateral ties.

*

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 Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Celso Amorin (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 pl)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Meeting Between Lula’s Chief Foreign Policy Advisor & President Putin Was Very Important
  • 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 trend of changes in the Middle East is frequent, and if we want to be acute, we should talk every day, or at least once a month, because of the changes themselves. There is absolutely no sanction that has not been introduced to Iran. Tehran is developing all conventional weapons for the defense of Iran except weapons for mass destruction, because its very existence is against all the principles on which the Islamic Republic is based and against the religious and political convictions of all Iranians.

Military-technical cooperation with Russia dates back many years and has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine – as they accuse us … The agreement between Tehran and Riyadh, mediated by China, is not a change in itself, but a great opportunity for significant changes. “The child” of the “multipolarists” will be born in six, eight, nine months, and it is up to us to make it happen with as few costs as possible. 

These are only parts of the answers from the interview of His Excellency Rashid Hasanpour, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Belgrade, to “Sepat”.

The diplomat from Tehran was open to talk to the Serbian public as much as a diplomat can be and did not avoid any questions.

Sepat (S): Your country is not getting off the headlines of the world’s mainstream media?

Amb. Rashid Hasanpur (ARH): The Islamic Republic of Iran is the country that creates the most news in the world, and regionally. It can be understood and commented on differently for each country because the events in Iran have one meaning for the USA, another for Serbia, and a third for a third country. The views of the US and its allies on the events in Iran are negative. Because, since the very foundation of the Islamic Republic, it has been presented as a danger to the interests of the US and its allies in our region. Simply put, with the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the previous order was disrupted, given that Tehran’s business and every other policy is a rejection of any desire for hegemony, and also independence in decision-making regarding international issues. So the natural reaction to such a goal of a state can be different, harsh and even aggressive. Iran has always been in the spotlight.

S: Is only the Islamic Revolution in Iran the reason for such intolerance of the collective West?

ARH: Iran is not only thinking about its independence, but also about the independence of the entire region. If you look at the news about any happenings in our country, you have a wave of negative Western propaganda. And that’s why every event in Iran is subject to negative zooming and negative propaganda. This is because Western interests are threatened by the independent policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Let’s consider Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities. Efforts are being made to magnify this issue and to give a military dimension to the legal and legitimate economic and necessary efforts of our country. But the only fact and truth is that, based on Iranian doctrine and principles, the only thing we want is to have a peaceful benefit from that energy, which is persistently denied to us.  Every time, Western media point to the alleged military component of our program.

S: Protests on the streets of Iranian cities are not taken off the television?

Image: Iranian protestors on the Keshavrz Boulvard (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

ARH: Unfairly, in every country where there is free political will, it is natural for protest movements to arise in those areas, and in the Islamic Republic, protests occasionally arise and the “Right to protest” is recognized in our Constitution. But, on the condition that it does not go beyond the scope of protests and that they do not turn into attempts at a violent change of government. Unfortunately, some countries are trying to ride on the “waves of those protests” and turn them into a rebellion and an attempt to overthrow the system.

S: How do you rate the protests, justified or unjustified?

ARH: Even the Islamic Republic of Iran has its shortcomings. We never claimed to be perfect. But there is no country in the world that will tolerate rebellion and change of government by the “street”. All the propaganda instruments of the West have conspired to divert Iranians from the path of pure protest against injustice. By their interference, they change the essence of the protest. This does not mean that they are very concerned about the violation of the rights of those who protest, but their only intention is to abuse the situation in order to benefit their interests. Or, to create problems for Iran, that is, to divert the country from the path it has chosen. They always seem to have miscalculated so far.

S: Along with Cuba, Iran is the country that the so-called international community has been under sanctions for the longest time?

ARH: The history of sanctions against Iran is such that we can say that there are absolutely no political or military sanctions that have not been imposed on us.

S: Despite everything, Iran managed to develop in all areas, from science to culture, especially film?

ARH: Actually, it worries the big powers. When we talk about forces, it does not mean that everyone is equally concerned. On the contrary, China and Russia welcome Iran’s achievements. You yourself know what is the root of all tensions in our region, and that is Israel’s non-cooperation with the UN and Security Council Resolutions. Israel does not recognize the decisions of the United Nations, and the Palestinians were forcibly occupied, expelled, and scattered all over the world. Now when a country wants to prevent the oppression of those people, that country must be punished.

S: What is the average Iranian proud of?

ARH: We are equally proud of our history and our present, as well as our future, because it is not enough to be proud only of the past. That civilization must remain alive and continue life. You have noticed very well that, regardless of the huge obstacles and paralyzing sanctions, we managed to develop in all areas, and in some to reach the maximum.

S: What are those areas?

ARH: Science, defense industry, education, healthcare. Let’s say, in nano-technological research, we are among the top ten countries in the world. Also, when it comes to the field of defense industry. If someone thought they could attack us before, they certainly don’t think so now!

By the way, at one time we extended our hands to everyone in order to buy military equipment, but now the opposite is the case.

S: Are you now talking about the development of hypersonic weapons?

ARH: Except for the development of weapons of mass destruction, we have no restrictions on the development of other military technologies for defense. Any weapon that has a defensive purpose is welcome. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, Iran is not developing them, because their very existence is against all the principles on which the Islamic Republic is based and against the religious and political beliefs of all Iranians.

S: And weaknesses?

ARH: We have to admit that we failed to develop as we intended in all areas. We are lagging behind in some areas, above all in the economy. If sanctions were imposed on the Americans, as they are on us, I’m sure they would have failed a long time ago.

S: Iranian politicians despite the so-called sanctions are more frequent guests in metropolises around the world?

ARH: Very few countries do not want cooperation with our country. The Islamic Republic of Iran wants cooperation and cooperation with other countries in accordance with bilateral interests. Iran is not a country to ignore.

Wang Yi, China’s top diplomat, stands between Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and Saudi Arabia’s minister of state and national security adviser, Musaad bin Mohammed Al Aiban, on Friday in Beijing. (Photo: Chinese Foreign Ministry)

S: The impression is that your President Raisi is a dear guest everywhere today, and he was especially surprised by the agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. China is said to have mediated for about six years?

ARH: You must know that the success of a country does not depend on one person. It is the result of the power and strength of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have turned Iran into one of the main actors and powers in our region. The Yemen issue will not be resolved without Iran. The same applies to Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq. We are now in a position where foreigners, whether they like it or not, have to cooperate with us. This has been Iran’s position since the founding of the Islamic Republic: our region must be its own, independent, and the countries of the region must decide their own destiny. We are against the interference and hegemony of any foreign power in our region.

S: The Iran-Saudi agreement is therefore the architecture of future peace in the Middle East?

ARH: This is a chance for something like that. Therefore, the Agreement is not a change in itself, but an opportunity for significant changes because Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two main actors in the Persian Gulf. The fact is that we have to cooperate and it is inevitable!

S: When is the re-establishment of diplomatic relations expected?

ARH: A few days ago, the two ministers talked by phone and agreed that in the coming weeks the expert delegations would meet
agree on the renewal of the existing relations. In this development there is a “main variable factor” and that is the role of China. I can freely say that as much as Iran and Saudi Arabia have an interest in establishing more harmonious relations in the region, so does China.

S: We are talking about 500 billion dollars of Chinese investments in the Region. Sudan and Syria included?

ARH: It seems to me that one of the aspects of this agreement is ending the war in Yemen. Because among the issues we had with Saudi Arabia, there are also regional issues. That’s why I said: It’s a chance for change. You have the forces that put the pistons under the wheels, and some “players” in the region are not enthusiastic. The two countries are aware that if they need to strengthen bilateral agreements, than they have to solve regional issues. The consequences of the agreement between our two countries should be “good” for Iran and Syria and Lebanon and Iraq. Therefore, it has to create opportunities for peace and stabilization of our countries.

S: Specific relations between Russia and Iran have been established. Iran and Russia saved the integrity of Syria?

ARH: Thank you for noticing and knowing that Iran was the one who, along with Russia, saved Syria. Victory always has many fathers and mothers and defeat is always an orphan. The Americans say that they have defeated ISIS, as well as the EU countries. But it is also true that Iran and Russia defeated ISIS. Because of common positions with Russia on some topics (but not all), Moscow and Tehran have developed strong bilateral relations. Now they are accusing us of supplying drones to Russia. We have always cooperated with Russia in the defense sphere. Cooperation between the two countries was not made because of the war in Ukraine. THOSE have become the points of Western policy through which they want to attribute Iran and inflame Iranophobia even more.

S: General Kasim Suleimani is a legend of your region. Iranians particularly appreciate him?

ARH: General Suleimani was a representative of one country, one power. He represented the strength of the Islamic Republic and that is why he is popular. Had it not been for the activities of the forces under his command, not only would ISIS occupied Syria, but maybe Iraq and some other countries would also “fall”. The general was a man who thought well, who knew the region and the instruments of the forces at his disposal. And he had great charisma in command. He managed to rid the region of extremism and that is one side of the coin that the American presence in the region has faded, but not completely. America is still in our fields.

S: What are the relations with Iraq? In Iraq, two-thirds of the population are Shiites and a third are Sunnis?

ARH: For various reasons, we have to have good relations. These are religious, cultural and religious reasons. A large number of Muslim leaders are buried there and the two nations are so intertwined that you cannot separate them. This is observed in all spheres of life. The security of Iraq has a direct impact on the security of Iran. And we cannot be indifferent.

S: Are you saying that ISIS has been defeated?

ARH: What is important is that they no longer have organized force and strength. Unfortunately, that ideology still exists and that is why ISIS has now been transferred to Afghanistan.

S: Syria is the country that suffered the most. How stable is there now?

Image: The SDF besieging al-Baghuz Fawqani, 12 February 2019 (Licensed under the Public Domain)

ARH: The stability of Syria is still fragile. A part of this land is allegedly claimed by Turkey. One part is under US control. Israel bombards it every day, and a small part of the territory is held by the opposition. It cannot be said that this country has the necessary stability. Establishing full stability requires time. Bashar Al Aasad is making good moves. He recently visited the Russian Federation and he was in the United Arab Emirates. HE brought Syria back to the Arab world and the Arab world accepted him. You can see it on the horizon!

S: The Kurds in the Middle East do not have a state. Is there room for the Kurds in China’s plan?

ARH: The Kurds are distributed in four countries: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria.

Often, almost continuously, they are the subject of political games and political players in the region. If you talk to the “Iranian” Kurds, they are not asking for the disintegration of Iran because they consider themselves Iranians, but they are asking for their specific rights, which is logical. In Iraq, fortunately, after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, they have a better position. The president of the country is always from the ranks of the Kurds, and their demands have been met in Iraq. There are problems in Syria and Turkey. We cannot speak of a united Kurdish community in the region. Unfortunately, they also have problems between themselves.

S: The consequences of the war in Ukraine are also visible in the de-dollarization and strengthening of other regional organizations BRICS, SCO, BRI, OPEC and Iran is a mandatory part of the equation in each of them?

ARH: There are things I can authoritatively say now. As a result of the strengthening of regional organizations and states in all parts of the world, the influence of the USA is fading. The United States can no longer command. They remain in the game, but that unilateralism no longer works. It doesn’t work. The US must cede some of the world’s governance to others. It’s not a US choice, it’s something that was imposed on them. We are witnessing the strengthening of China. Now China has reached the level of entering political-security issues at the world level. China, which was a political dwarf, is becoming a political giant. One of the proofs for these claims is the Chinese mediation between our country and Saudi Arabia, then the Peace Plan for the end of the war in Ukraine in 12 points… You have noticed well, BRICS and other organizations are developing the world into true multipolarity.

S: There is talk about the new money “Brixcoin” “Newscoin”, the currency of future international trade which would basically have a 40 percent gold base?

ARH: Iran is absolutely committed to that idea. Iran has always been a supporter and pioneer of this idea of trade in nominal currencies. If you remember, it used to be the dollar and then the Euro, and now the share of the American currency in world trade has dropped from 80 percent to around 50 percent. There is no doubt that the world is in a phase of change. It gives us hints about the formation of a new order. In fact, the world is still waiting for a new multipolar order.

S: Are there big meetings of the SCO, BRICS, BRI in the summer of 2023?

ARH: Yes. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS can be a turning point and change the course of history. China plays the biggest role. That’s One Belt One Road, the Initiative for World Security, and you can already hear the thunder. The sleeping dragon wakes up and is ready to fly.

S: How do you personally assess the development of the new situation in the Middle East?

ARH: I am personally optimistic about the events in the region, but I am not overly optimistic, because there are a huge number of challenges we are facing. Changes in the economic-political sense can be such that they cause great costs. They must be approached with caution. That “child” will be born in seven, eight, nine months, and that “child” must be born with the least expense. The new economic future requires independent countries to cooperate with each other and to form such a strong front of changes that they are sustainable. I absolutely do not mean any block division here. If these countries unite in international organizations, they have enough capacity to cooperate, and then we can hope that the changes will pass with the least financial and other costs. It will be a transaction after which countries will have many more choices where they will be able to achieve a multitude of smaller goals, there will be less pressure for domination and, on the contrary, there will be greater security, there will be more peace and more “human rights” which, ironically, everyone claims are “protectors”

S: 24 years ago they attacked Serbia to separate Kosovo and Metohija?

ARH: One of the fundamental beliefs of Iran has always been to adhere to internationally recognized principles and charters, and especially opposition to the use of force to solve problems. We see Kosovo in that framework. This is precisely why we never thought of recognizing Kosovo’s independence. From the first day, we condemned the aggression against FRY. At the same time, we welcome any attempt for the two sides to reach an agreement that will satisfy them. Any agreement that both sides recognize, we will support. Our position has always been firm and stable. Fortunately, Serbia also supports the same principles in the international framework and that is why it did not recognize Crimea, although it has excellent relations with Russia, but it did not impose sanctions on Russia either. Those are things that can work side by side.

S: The last thing the west blames Iran for is the poisoning of children. What did the investigation show?

ARH: Investigation is in progress. What is most important, the leaders of Iran have condemned it and classified it in the category of mass crime, which is a crime of the highest rank whose organizers and culprits must be punished to the maximum. Some information says that there are also roots from abroad, such as the fact that it happened within our borders. It is the duty of our leaders to solve it.

S: Exactly how many children were at risk?

ARH: About 30-40 thousand. Fortunately, no one lost their lives. They all got well.

S: Is it biological-chemical warfare?

ARH: That kind of warfare is easy. Damage can be done by anyone who has access to substances.

S: When is the expected meeting between the leaders of our two countries?

ARH: That question is on the agenda, but it cannot be said exactly. We hope and expect that the visit of President Vučić will be realized soon and it will be a historic visit that will raise our relations to the highest possible level. Serbia has always opposed sanctions against Iran and has not supported any sanctions against our country. You are the only European country that has not done so, and for Iran it is very significant. We have excellent dynamics for the development of relations, and this gives us hope that our relations will be long-term and stable.

Direction of Tehran-Belgrade Relations

S: How is Serbia-Iran bilateral relations?

ARH: As far as bilateral relations are concerned, I am satisfied. Although, perhaps a large number of our capacities and potentials have not been realized. What is important to me is the direction we have chosen, and it is a good one. The leaders of the two countries are determined to develop their relations. There is a common political will in both countries. We have common political and cultural views, and our people have similar thoughts. And it is such a strong and powerful atmosphere that it largely limits the space for those who are against it.

S: What about the economy?

ARH: Economic exchange increased. In 2020, it was only 20 million dollars, in 2021 already 50 million, and in 2022 over 60 million dollars. We are not satisfied, because it can be much better. The roasting is excellent.

Deviation from Extremism

S: The impression is that Saudi Arabia has made a deviation from Wahhabism and extremism? This country was blamed by Iran for being the center of anti-Iranian propaganda?

ARH: It is true. In the collection of issues in the Agreement, that problem was also resolved. Let me remind you that a few years ago, during the time of President Hatami, we signed the Security Agreement with Riyadh, and this new agreement includes two more valid agreements, the most important of which is the security agreement. There it is decisively emphasized that the two countries will not interfere in each other’s internal affairs, it implies the recognition of territorial integrity… And it is true. Saudi Arabia is moving away from radical attitudes.. Because that radicalism is becoming dangerous and a burden on themselves.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Big Powers are Worried”. Iran’s Military Technologies for Defense
  • 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.

***

It’s quite obvious that NATO has always been an auxiliary extension of the United States. This has been the case since the unfortunate inception of the belligerent alliance 74 years ago. Thus, NATO’s crawling aggression should always be observed from the perspective of US expansionism, as the bellicose thalassocracy keeps moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the borders of its geopolitical adversaries. This has been the case in the (First) Cold War and it’s no different nowadays when the US is pushing one European country after another into a broader anti-Russian coalition that now includes the entire European Union. Washington DC is attempting to do the same by constituting a near carbon copy of NATO in the Pacific in a virtually identical step, only aimed against China.

US State Secretary Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg attended the admission ceremony with Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto. The Office of the President of Finland said in a statement:

“Finland has today become a member of the defense alliance NATO. The era of military non-alignment in our history has come to an end. A new era begins. Each country maximizes its own security. So does Finland. At the same time, NATO membership strengthens our international position and room for maneuver. As a partner, we have long actively participated in NATO activities. In the future, Finland will make a contribution to NATO’s collective deterrence and defense.”

The formal admission of Finland is the latest move in the process of “globalizing” NATO. The buzzword in this particular case is “formal”, not “(NATO) admission” and the reason is quite simple. Finland was never truly neutral, not even during the (First) Cold War and particularly not since it entered the EU. It has always been packed with US/NATO intelligence assets, although this has escalated significantly in the last several decades. Since then, the country has essentially become a NATO member in all but name. Yesterday, this was merely formalized. Although NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg dubbed it “a historic event”, this was just PR and optics aimed to “coincide” with NATO’s 74th anniversary. As for Sweden, it will probably have to wait another year, since publicity is everything for NATO.

Although Stoltenberg told reporters on Monday he was hopeful that Sweden would be joining in the following months, this is highly unlikely if Stockholm keeps meddling in Ankara’s internal affairs. Still, he insisted that Finland’s NATO membership “will be good for [its] security, for Nordic security, and for NATO as a whole.” How exactly is this “good for Finland’s security” is yet to be explained by either Brussels or Helsinki. Russia and Finland share a very long border (over 1300 km), meaning the move has nearly tripled the line of direct contact between NATO and Russia, as the combined border between them has previously been approximately 700 km. Now being well over 2000 km long, the border could be a major source of tensions.

Considering that Moscow previously never saw Finland as a potential threat, its membership in NATO, a hostile and extremely aggressive military alliance that openly declared and targeted Russia as its primary enemy, Helsinki has unilaterally changed this, prompting Moscow to completely revamp its strategic posturing towards Helsinki. In an interview with RIA Novosti, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko stated that “[Russia] will strengthen [its] military potential in the western and northwestern direction” and that “[Moscow] will take additional steps to reliably ensure Russia’s military security in the event that the forces and resources of other NATO members are deployed in Finland”.

During a briefing at the Kremlin, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov dubbed the move “an aggravation of the situation” and reiterated Grushko’s warning that Russia will be forced to take countermeasures to maintain its security. “The Kremlin believes that this is another aggravation of the situation. The expansion of NATO is an infringement on our security and Russia’s national interests,” he stated. However, Peskov did acknowledge that the situation certainly wasn’t as bad as with the Kiev regime, which the West has long tried to turn into a springboard for active aggression against Russia.

“The situation with Finland, of course, is radically different from the situation with Ukraine, because, firstly, Finland has never had anti-Russian rhetoric, and we have had no disputes with Finland. With Ukraine, the situation is the opposite and potentially much more dangerous,” Peskov added.

Still, from a military standpoint, the situation can hardly be considered optimistic. Finland directly broke from its neutrality when it decided to acquire F-35 fighter jets from the US in late 2021. The Pentagon has direct access to everything the F-35’s sensors can detect, meaning that Finland would be sharing key military data with the US regardless of whether it was a NATO member or not. On the other hand, being a member also means that it’s more likely to see the deployment of US offensive weapons in close proximity to St. Petersburg, Russia’s second most important city.

In this regard, Stoltenberg was right to say that the admission of Finland is truly historic, but only in the sense that Helsinki is essentially repeating the same mistake as over 80 years ago when it joined the Axis led by Nazi Germany. Now when it’s among “old friends” once again, maybe Finland should dust off the history books and pay very close attention to how this ended the last 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.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The “Psychological War” Behind Ukrainian Frontlines

April 5th, 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.

***

In all situations of armed conflict, something that runs parallel to the fighting on the frontlines is the psychological clash, with both sides trying to exhibit force and intimidate the enemy to give up fighting. This constant attempt to morally defeat the opponent and end the “will to fight” is already beginning to be observed by some western analysts, who are writing reports on the psychological moves on the Ukrainian front. However, the pro-Western perspective of these analysts prevents them from assessing the scenario accurately.

In a recent article for The Sunday Times, Mark Galeotti, a professor and author of more than 20 books on Russia, commented on some possible actions by Russia and Ukraine in the context of psychological warfare. According to the author, Russia would be trying to show power through its international partnerships. He mentions the case of Belarus, with which Moscow negotiated an agreement to allocate nuclear weapons in the near future, improving the defense capacity of both countries. For Galeotti, the measure would have the sole objective of intimidating the West, in addition to the Belarusian government itself  which would be somehow coerced into accepting Russian actions, not indicating the real strength of relations between the two states.

The same author also makes some comments regarding Russian-Chinese cooperation. According to him, Moscow would be in a “circle” imposed by Beijing, where the possibilities of acting would be limited to the current sphere of the conflict, not admitting in any case the possibility of nuclear escalation. The expert seems to believe in some sort of limitation in the Russian-Chinese partnership, within which the Russian side would supposedly be at a disadvantage, having to accept conditions imposed by the Chinese to garner international support. In this sense, he does not believe that Putin can actually authorize the use of nuclear weapons, given the “Chinese limitations” which is why Russia would supposedly be acting only in the scope of psychological deterrence by sending weapons to Minsk.

Then, Galeotti also mentions some of the reasons why the Russian government would be avoiding promoting more open and symmetrical escalations. He exposes that in the same way that the use of nuclear weapons would generate a strong international reaction and “isolation” for Russia, options such as the allocation of more mobilized troops and the beginning of more incisive attacks would generate internal reaction in Russia, with the decrease of the government’s popularity and the emergence of anti-war protests. So, facing the impasse and the multiplicity of “side effects”, the Russians would be for now just limiting themselves to the psychological strategy, without making clear their next steps. However, the author does not mention any empirical evidence to corroborate his thesis, as expected.

Galeotti also mentions the Ukrainian side’s mental game. He finds it suspicious that Kiev has made it clear several times that it plans to attack Melitopol. According to the analyst, there are two possible conclusions: either the objective would be to distract the Russians and make them focus on the defense of Melitopol while they become vulnerable in other areas of the frontlines; or in fact there would be a “double bluff”, trying to induce the Russians to assume this strategy – in this scenario Moscow forces would not improve their positions in Melitopol, making it an easier target for Kiev. Galeotti is not successful in explaining which of the two scenarios is more likely, being only concerned at emphasizing that there is some kind of psychological scheme involved.

These assumptions are important, but they can become mere unsubstantiated guesswork if the analyses are not concluded in a coherent way. In fact, in any conflict, strategists try to distract the enemy with different possibilities of action, making difficult the task of choosing which possibility to bet on. But that does not explain all the actions of a state on the battlefield even more so when the conflict involves forces with such different combat conditions.

Certainly, Russia tries to confuse its opponents to achieve military advantages, but this is not the case with regard to the Putin government’s delay in making incisive decisions on the battlefield. Moscow has been very clear in its actions since the start of the special military operation, always warning in advance about the possibility of escalation and avoiding as much as possible to implement measures that could make the conflict even worse. There is therefore no evidence that Galeotti is right in supposing that Russian “indecision” is due to an attempt to confuse the enemy, avoid internal reactions or diplomatic isolation.

Another mistake made by the author is to analyze assuming the Western point of view with regard to Russia. For example, the allegation that Moscow is playing psychological warfare with the West by allocating nuclear weapons in Belarus is baseless, since this was also a sovereign decision of the Belarusian government itself, which plans to defend its people and territory in the face of foreign threats and provocations. Furthermore, assumptions about a Russian diplomatic dependence on China are similarly weak. There is no “circle” imposed by Beijing on Moscow – both countries are cooperating in a broad and unlimited way to achieve common goals, since they share the same geopolitical enemies.

On the other hand, for Ukrainians, the psychological issue is exaggerated by the author – as well as by other pro-Western experts. Indeed, Kiev is not just distracting Moscow when it bluffs about Melitopol, Crimea and other matters. Kiev is simply trying to gain time in order to gather strength and then plan any reaction. For now, no efficient action seems feasible for the Ukrainian side. The so-called “spring counteroffensive” has already been discredited even among Ukrainian and Western generals. It is certain that there will be some move, but nothing indicates a relevant progress.

Indeed, in order to understand the psychological level of the conflict, it is necessary to take into account who the real sides are. It is not a war between Moscow and Kiev, but between the collective West and Russia. In its psychological games, the Russian side is interested in dissuading the West, not in confusing the virtually defeated Ukrainian army. In contrast, Kiev’s proxy government resorts to psychological games, even with support from the mainstream media, because this is its only chance to continue fighting for Western interests.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

The following table. from the Gun Violence Archive confirms a significant increase of reported cases of deaths and injuries during the three year period of the Covid Crisis (2020-2022)

Guns Violence Deaths (wilful malicious accidental) as defined in the Table Below have increased from 15,509 in 1919 to 20,200 in 2022, an increase of 30.2%. 

Children killed or injured has increased by 43.0% (1919-2022)

Teens aged 12 to 17 killed or injured has increased by 64.8%. (1919-2022)

Did the Fear Campaign, which commenced at the outset of the Covid pandemic in late January 2020 play a role?

The March 2020 Lockdown confined people in their homes, paralyzed economic activity and triggered poverty and despair.

The data below requires careful analysis as to the causes of this dramatic hike in Gun deaths and injuries.

Michel Chossudovsky, April 5, 2023

***

 

Gun violence  and crime incidents are collected/validated from 7,500 sources daily –

Incident Reports and their source data are found at the gunviolencearchive.org website.

Number of Deaths in 2023

 

Children Killed or Injured in 2023

Teens Killed or Injured in 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 numbers are subject to change or incidents recategorized as new evidence is established and verified.

Notes (based on the first table)

  1. Number of source verified deaths and injuries
  2. Number of INCIDENTS reported and verified
  3. Calculation based on CDC Suicide Data
  4. Actual total of all non-suicide deaths plus daily calculated suicide deaths

Featured image: The foundation of the United States is embedded in gun violence. (Photo: Joe Loong)

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.

***

WXYZ news report on the home defense can be found at this link.

WDIV news report on the home defense below.

Taura Brown, a dialysis patient fighting eviction from the Tiny Homes on the west side of Detroit, has been a target of the Cass Community Social Services (CCSS) non-profit agency which claims that it is providing shelter for homeless people in the city.

However, a writ of eviction was issued by a 36th District Court Judge Shawn Jacque demanding Brown leave the home within ten days.

On Sunday April 2, approximately 50 housing activists held a rally outside the home pledging to defend Brown from the eminent eviction. Just two days later, on April 4, a dumpster was placed across the street during the early morning hours.

Soon enough dozens of housing and community activists from several organizations arrived at the home to carry out their defense. Just prior to the placing of a dumpster on Monterey street, Brown reported that a shot was fired into her home at 5:30am. This author witnessed a bullet hole over the rear door of the house.

After 10:00am, the Wayne County Bailiff accompanied by several aides arrived at the front of the house and announced that they were carrying out a court ordered eviction. The Bailiff told the activists guarding the front and rear doors of the home that they would be arrested if they did not move and allow them to enter the house.

A group of activists locked arms and were able to repel the initial attempts to enter the premises. Apparently, the police were called by the Bailiff and numerous patrol cars arrived on the scene. 

Another attempt was made to remove the activists from the front door of the tiny home. Clashes ensued where people on both sides were knocked to the ground amid intense scuffles and angry verbal exchanges.

Within a matter of minutes, an officer identifying himself as a commander, ordered the police and the Bailiff to withdraw from the front of the home. Police began to pull back their forces while the Bailiff was seen on his cell phone calling for additional aides to be deployed at the house.

Several other men summoned by the Bailiff arrived over the next 30 minutes. Some of the assistants to the Bailiff wore scarves to cover their faces. Then another attempt was made to break through the front door which was again halted by the home defenders.

At this time the Bailiffs and his aides moved to the rear of the home and made yet another attempt to break down the back door. Punches were thrown at the activists while both the home defenders and people working for the Bailiff fell to the ground. One activist was pinned down by two of the evictors as he yelled that he could not breathe. After a brief period, he was rescued by other home defenders and provided with first aid.

The uniformed police at the back of the tiny home only monitored the situation and remained reluctant to intervene. When any officer attempted to halt the fighting, they were called off by their superiors.

Home Entered and Trashed by the Bailiff

Eventually the back door was flung open, and the evictors entered the home. They began carrying out the belongings of Brown which remained in the house.

The Bailiff and their assistants then attempted to carry the belongings in the home to throw into the dumpster parked across the street. Activists threw tires on the porch and lawn to halt the efforts of the evictors. There was a battle of the tires as the evictors and activists threw the tires away at the front entrance.

One of the vehicles driven by an assistant to the Bailiff had tires placed underneath to prevent them from driving off. Another parked vehicle blocked the same truck from leaving. Within a short period of time, a tow truck appeared on the scene to remove the vehicle blocking the truck belonging to one of the evictors.

Another standoff ensued as activists blocked for several minutes the attempted connecting of the vehicle to the tow truck. Eventually home defenders were forcibly removed by the Bailiff’s assistants as the truck attempted to pull away from the location. The truck driven by one of the evictors was then able to leave the scene. Tires were also placed under the dumpster which could not be carried away from the Brown home.

The Bailiff and his aides then left the area of the eviction. Police cars soon left the area as well. No one was arrested by the numerous police officers standing guard in front of the Brown home and the surrounding blocks.

Evictions Escalate in Detroit Despite Official Rhetoric of Renewal and Development

Although the administration of corporate Mayor Mike Duggan claims through their public relations mechanism and a supplicant media that Detroit is the center for urban revitalization, the reality is quite different. The municipality remains the most impoverished of any other city with a population over 600,000.

The Tiny Homes project run by CCSS has failed to create an environment that is beneficial for those living under economic duress. Evictions overall in Detroit are increasing due to the scarcity of quality housing and the rapid increase in the price for rents. Very few mortgages are being written for longtime Detroit residents who are 77% African American.

Duggan is often shown over the corporate media announcing new “affordable housing” developments. However, what is considered “affordable housing” is based upon the median income for the entire metropolitan Detroit area and not the city itself.

According to a press release issued by Brown and her supporters within the Detroit Eviction Defense organization (DED):
“Detroit resident Taura Brown has been fighting state violence at the hands of non-profit landlord, Rev. Faith Fowler, of CCSS for over two years. The non-profit maintains a $7 million operating budget, which apparently is not enough for Fowler as she threatens to evict a dialysis patient speaking up against the mismanagement. Despite many legal attacks, Ms. Brown has stuck to her truth, that homeownership for all Tiny Homes residents after 7 years, as advertised and promised in its rent-to-own program.”

The home defense at the Tiny Homes is not taking place within a social vacuum. As the housing crisis in Detroit and around the United States worsens, there will be more clashes which could easily lead to violence, serious injuries and deaths.

The priorities of the corporate-oriented administration in Detroit are indicative of the trends within urban areas around the country. As the economic crisis deepens, the unjust character of municipal governance will be further exposed through legal actions, mass demonstrations and rebellions.

Just one week prior to the eviction of Brown, the City Council voted to award $800 million in tax breaks to two white billionaires, Chris Illitch and Stephen Ross, ostensibly to build additional commercial buildings and apartments. These so-called development projects are becoming more obsolete with the drastically declining demand for office space and the financial defaults of large-scale real estate owners.

With the tightening of credit, corporations will become even more reliant upon the tax expropriations of working people and the impoverished. It will be up to the community organizations and their allies to intensify their struggles to reverse the processes of gentrification and forced removals from the urban areas across the U.S.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button 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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Detroit Activists Battle Bailiffs in Defense of the Tiny Home of Taura Brown
  • Tags:

What Trump’s Indictment Means

April 5th, 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.

***

President Donald Trump is being arraigned on the basis of sealed charges.  It is unclear why the charges are sealed.  Imagine arresting someone on the basis of charges kept from the person.  It happens in America as it did in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Perhaps the charges are kept secret so that the media can defame Trump by reporting that his arrest is “related to his alleged involvement in a hush money payment and subsequent cover-up involving a purported affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels,” as Sputnik International reported this morning.  Note that Sputnik is a Russian news service and not part of the US media’s campaign against President Trump. But as the charges are sealed, Sputnik only has the US presstitutes’ account of the indictment.  The account is totally false.

Trump is not arrested for paying extortion money to a porn star, who saw her opportunity for extortion when Trump was announced as a presidential candidate.  No affair has been proven.  It is ordinary for people being extorted pay up in order to avoid controversy that presstitutes would turn into fact.

The basic charge against Trump is an orchestration.  A Democrat New York prosecutor, rumored to be a protege of Trump-hating George Soros, one of America’s worst enemies, claims that Trump committed a misdemeanor, not a felony, by reporting the payment as a legal expense billed to his company instead of reporting it as a campaign contribution.  This is merely the prosecutor’s opinion, an opinion successfully fed to a grand jury.  It is well known that grand juries are putty in a prosecutor’s hands.    

In law this would be a misdemeanor handled with a fine.  But the prosecutor also assumes that the payment was intentionally misreported in order to mask a campaign contribution as a corporate expenditure. This assumption by the prosecutor is what turns the charge into a federal felony.

In other words, it is all supposition of the prosecutor.  The question I can’t answer is how can a state prosecutor try a person for a federal crime?

The Democrats have gotten away with “Russiagate,” false impeachments, “Insurrection gate,” “documents gate,” covering up Hillary Clinton’s felonies, suppressing and censoring the damning information on Hunter Biden’s laptop, stolen elections, and a large variety of other violations of law and due process.  They know the presstitutes will continue to support their 7-year old attack on Donald Trump.

Republicans are not fighters.  Their control of the House of Representatives is a limited power.  Moreover, the Republican Establishment wants rid of Trump as much as do the Democrats.  Trump is the choice of ordinary men and women who are powerless.  

South American leaders have responded by pointing out that the arrest of a former president means that the US is now in the same category as Banana Republics where each successor president arrests his predecessor.  

The arrest of Trump has the single purpose of establishing for all time that the American Elite who rule will not tolerate a President who represents the people and not themselves.  This, and only this, is what the indictment of Donald Trump is about.

*

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 from Gage Skidmore

Turning Tides: The US Congress and Julian Assange

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, April 04, 2023

The latest move by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) promises to be something more.  Tlaib has urged that fellow members put aside their differences and append their signatures in a letter to Attorney-General Merrick Garland urging him to drop the charges.  “I know that many of us have very strong feelings about Mr Assange, but what we think of him and his actions is really beside the point here.”

Bridge of Peace and Prosperity Proposed From the Arab World to Syria

By Steven Sahiounie, April 05, 2023

Syria is on the brink of recovery as Saudi Arabia plans to invite Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Arab League summit in Riyadh on May 19. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan will travel to Damascus soon to hand Assad a formal invitation to attend the summit, in what will be the most significant development in the Arab rapprochement with Assad.

Japan Ignoring Price Cap, Paying 16% More for Russian Oil

By Drago Bosnic, April 05, 2023

On April 3, the Wall Street Journal reported that Japan, one of the most prominent US vassal states, is now buying Russian oil at prices significantly above the illegal US/EU cap, effectively breaking the sanctions imposed by the political West. According to the report, Japan also got Washington DC to agree to the exception, claiming that the move was aimed at maintaining the energy security of Japan.

Executive Order 12333: “Prohibition on Assassination”: What Do the Iranian People Think? U.S. Government Ordered Assassination of General Qassem Soleimani

By J. Michael Springmann, April 04, 2023

No Assassinations, Period.  When Gerald R. Ford, James E. Carter, Jr., and Ronald W. Reagan were presidents of the United States of America, they issued Executive Orders prohibiting U.S. government employees from engaging in assassination.

Executive Order Lays Foundation for Lab-Created Foods

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 04, 2023

September 12, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”

The Banking Crisis Gets Worse! $1.7 Trillion in Unrealized Losses Loom as U.S. Banks Rapidly Bleed Deposits

By Michael Snyder, April 04, 2023

If our banking system can’t find a way to turn things around, our entire economy will soon be in a world of hurt.  When banks get into trouble, they start getting really tight with their money. That means fewer mortgages, fewer commercial real estate loans, fewer auto loans and fewer credit cards being issued.

What Is a Soft Power?

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, April 04, 2023

French Emperor Napoleon I, was convinced that only two powers existed in the world: the sword and the mind. Sword can prevail over the mind in a short time but in the long run, he believed that the mind would beat the sword.

The Rise of Inequality and Cronyism in Western Nations

By Shane Quinn, April 04, 2023

Over the past 4 decades, there has been a major increase regarding wage inequality and unequal property ownership occurring mainly in the Western countries. This relates to the neoliberal era launched by US president Ronald Reagan (1981–89) and his ally in London, prime minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–90).

“Fake News” Stories Curated by the Deep State: Government Spin Doctors Control the News Cycle

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, April 04, 2023

In the midst of the government and corporate media’s carefully curated apoplexy over fake news, you won’t hear much about the government’s own role in producing, planting and peddling propaganda-driven fake news—often with the help of the corporate news media—because that’s not how the game works.

Passover: Time to Bring Freedom, Equality to Israel’s Palestinians

By Gershon Baskin, April 04, 2023

Not all Israelis are Jewish by birth or conviction. Twenty-one percent of us are Palestinian Arabs, most of whom are Muslims by faith and conviction, and others are Christians and Druze. The thread of Israeli identity that should bind Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Israelis barely exists and the little that did exist has been torn by the lack of equality, racism, hatred, fear and incitement.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Turning Tides: The US Congress and Julian Assange